When the Solar Wind Stops
1999 May 11 is a date known as “The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared” (1, 2). During the event Earth’s magnetosphere expanded 5 to 6 times its normal size whilst the polar regions were flooded with what were believed to be electrons directly from the Sun; just how rare was this event and what can it tell us about the nature of the Sun itself?
Studies into the May 1999 “solar wind disappearance event” (SWDE) have found that such events have happened before: 1979 July 31- August 1and since: 2002 March 15. Such SWDE are not rare but cyclical and are more frequent during solar maximum (3) rather than solar minimum.
Observations during such events reveal interesting findings (4). Relative to this thread is the observation that the solar wind does not stop, as such, rather we see a weakening of the radial component and a strengthening of the azimuthal component. During the May 1999 event the radial solar wind speed dropped to approximately 250 km/ sec whilst the azimuthal speed increased to over 100 km/ sec. The same event was also associated with a low in the temperature of the solar wind- some 10,000K.
“The transformation began with a northward excursion of the neutral line (which is usually considered to be at the base of the heliospheric current sheet where slow solar wind originates) at longitudes 220-270 degrees toward and across the helioequator. Not coincidentally, solar activity also increased significantly in May, 1999. We suggest that the northward excursion of the heliospheric current sheet is associated with the source of slow wind.” (4)
The authors report that the SWDE was associated with the growing tilt of the Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) in a region (solar longitude) of known persistent concentrated activity (I have previously looked at the nature of Solar Active Longitudes in this thread) and reaffirmed the relationship between the Slow Solar Wind (SSW) and the HCS. From the viewpoint expressed in this thread- what are we to make of such SWDE events?
I fancy that observations of such SWDEs suggest that we are dealing with multiple circuits of the nature suggested in this thread. Such events occur as the HCS tilts away from the solar equator, the fact that the May 1999 event was located in an active longitude region further suggests that it was the absence of currents associated with the SSW that briefly allowed observations of an ‘exposed’ solar surface witnessed by the increase in the azimuthal solar wind speed. The assumed ‘connection’ between the Earth and the Sun evidenced by the increased number of strahl electrons reaching Earth is, I would suggest, no more than trapped electrons following the Sun’s intrinsic magnetic field, which is normally swamped by the magnetic field of HCS or pseudo-Alfven circuit. Indeed as one commentator noted: “Perhaps we are looking at a fundamentally new kind of solar wind, neither the high-speed flow associated with the polar coronal holes, nor the low-speed flow associated with the heliospheric current sheet (streamer belt).” (2)
That Earth’s magnetosphere expanded 5- 6 times its normal size during the May 1999 event suggests that the potential difference between Earth and the Sun is greater than that of the Earth and the HCS! Elsewhere (
An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics) and following Juergens I have suggested that tectonic activity is powered by an electric discharge, Earth has to source electrons from a less electron depleted region of the heliosphere- a virtual cathode if you prefer. Earth’s magnetotail is not due to ‘pressure’ of the solar wind but is an electrical phenomenon one which usurps electrons taking part in the solar discharge. Indeed, it appears that Earth has to intercept the very galactic electrons powering the Sun!
Taking the May 1999 SWDE observations together- rarefied solar wind plasma, cooler solar wind plasma, increased azimuthal solar wind speed etc. and if for this brief moment we viewed the Sun minus the pseudo-Alfven circuit a question presents itself- without galactic currents powering the solar arc discharge would the appearance of Sun change?
Was the Sun formerly a Red Giant star?
In the Electric Star model the appearance of a star to an outside observer is determined by the potential of the body of the star and the star’s environment; the relationship between the two determines the nature of the ensuing discharge.
At present, the relationship between Sun and its environment is such that the Sun undergoes an arc discharge, Ralph Juergens offered a number of conditions on why this is so: ‘…let us tentatively conclude that the photosphere is tufted for one or more of several possible reasons:
• ‘With respect to its discharge, the Sun is too small an anode.
• ‘In the primary plasma of the solar discharge (the solar corona and the solar wind in interplanetary space) the ratio of random- to drift-current densities is too low; the primary plasma is too "cool," the driving potential of the discharge is too great, or both.
• ‘Neutral gas is plentiful within and readily evolved from the body of the Sun, so that its lower atmosphere is of a density sufficient to permit tufting. (In this connection, let us note that too-ready evolution of gas from an anode would in itself be a threat to discharge stability; a phenomenon akin to tufting would be called upon to ionize excess neutral gas and prevent its quenching the discharge.)’ (5)
It follows that if one or more of the criteria outlined above were not met then the arc discharge and tufted appearance of the Sun’s photosphere would change.
It is clear that an evolutionary Hertzsprung-Russell type sequence of conventional astronomy is not applicable to the Electric Star model but some generalisations can be made.
In the Electric Star model a star following its formative phase is highly electron deficient.
“Red stars are those stars that cannot satisfy their hunger for electrons from the surrounding plasma. So the star expands the surface area over which it collects electrons by growing a large plasma sheath that becomes the effective anode in space. The growth process is self-limiting because, as the sheath expands, its electric field will grow stronger. Electrons caught up in the field are accelerated to ever-greater energies. Before long, they become energetic enough to excite neutral particles they chance to collide with, and the huge sheath takes on a uniform ‘red anode glow.’ It becomes a red giant star.
“The electric field driving this process will also give rise to a massive flow of positive ions away from the star, or in more familiar words—a prodigious stellar ‘wind.’ Indeed, such mass loss is a characteristic feature of red giants. Standard stellar theory is at a loss to explain this since the star is said to be too ‘cold’ to ‘boil off’ a stellar wind. So when seen in electric terms, instead of being near the end point of its life, a red giant may be a ‘child’ losing sufficient mass and charge to begin the next phase of its existence— on the main sequence.” (6)
It may very well be that the Sun is a fairly ‘young’ star however we also have to consider the Sun’s environment. A recent study looking into stellar activity cycles found: “It was shown that active stars lie closer to the Galactic plane but inactive stars tend to be farther away from the Galactic plane.” Furthermore: “It was shown that stars with cycles represent about 30 % of the total number of studied stars.”
Of the stars showing cyclical behaviour it was found: “The fact that the peak of the 11-year periodicity is not very sharp shows that the period of the 11-year cycle is not constant: it changes (for 2 centuries of observations) from 10 to 12 years.” And: “Figure 5a confirms the known fact that the period of the main solar activity cycle is about 11-yr in the XIX century and is about 10 yr in the XX century. It is also known that the abnormally long 23-rd cycle of solar activity ended in 2009 and lasted about 12.5 years. We can see all this facts in Figures 5a, b. Thus, it can be argued that the value of a period of the main cycle of solar activity for past 200 years is not constant and varies by 15-20 %.” (
Figures in original paper)
“They found that cycles of sun-like stars show systematic changes. The same phenomenon can be observed for the cycles of the Sun.” (7)
Cyclical behaviour is more closely associated with stars “closer to the Galactic plane” and drops off with distance away from the Galactic plane; in the electric model of the galaxy, electrical phenomena closely associated with the Galactic plane are Birkeland currents. We can infer that where we find Birkeland currents we also find stars that display cyclical behaviour.
But, what if in the past the Sun was at a greater distance from the Galactic plane than at present? Would there have been cyclical behaviour? Would the Sun have appeared differently to observers?
Ralph Juergens had speculated that the solar discharge was in part due to excessive amounts of dust in the Galactic plane: “If, as suggested, the Sun and other Population I stars exist in an environment of electron scarcity, we must suppose that the discharge currents in the cathode-drop regions of these stars are carried predominantly by positive ions travelling outward.” (8)
Current arriving from the Local Interstellar Medium (LISM) would be ethereal, overwhelmed by the positive ion current travelling outward perhaps only revealing itself in its cyclical nature.
Away from the Galactic plane how would a stellar discharge appear? “Population II stars, existing in regions where dust is not available to immobilize free electrons, may draw intense currents of electrons from their surroundings.” (8)
Away from the dust found in the Galactic plane the Sun would have almost certainly experienced a different discharge mode. What of any planets orbiting within the “anode glow” of the discharge? Given the plentiful supply of electrons would any ‘gas-giant’ planets orbiting within the anode glow begin to glow themselves? Would Jupiter appear more star-like? Would planetary orbits alter to reflect different changes in potential? Would planetary orbits have migrated as the mode of discharge changed? And what of the Earth orbiting within such a discharge either as an independent body or as a satellite of a glowing gas-giant?
Reliable observations of the Sun only exist for the last few hundred years, even so changes in the Sun’s behaviour have been recorded, varying from one cycle to the next as well as experiencing extended minima of weak activity. That the Sun has undergone change in recorded human history is clear- could humans have witnessed even greater changes in prehistory?
References:
1
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... t13dec99_1
2
http://solar.physics.montana.edu/ypop/N ... 91231.html
3
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 000077/pdf
4
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 00082/full
5 Juergens. Ralph. E. 1979. The Photosphere: Is It The Top Or The Bottom Of The Phenomenon We Call The Sun.
Kronos Vol. 4 No 4.
6
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/twinkle-t ... e=x49g6gsf
7
https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.08578
8 Juergens. Ralph. E. 1983. Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Concluded).
Kronos Vol. 8 No 2.