Ballerina Skirt magnetic field idea is wrong

[celeste]

If you look at the explanation here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphe ... rent_sheet
First note a problem with the ballerina skirt/Parker spiral idea:
" As the Sun rotates, its magnetic field twists into a Parker spiral, [6] a form of an Archimedean spiral, as it extends through the solar system. This phenomenon is named after Eugene Parker's work:[6] he predicted the solar wind and many of its associated phenomena in the 1950s. The spiral nature of the heliospheric magnetic field had been noted earlier by Hannes Alfvén,[7] based on the structure of comet tails."
Then note that both of those cited works http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph- ... etype=.pdf
and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 855.x/epdf required the idea of magnetic fields frozen in, and propagating with the plasma. That idea was shown to be wrong.

[celeste]

Next, notice that the magnetic field at the Earth's distance, was found to be 100 times too strong to be due to the dipole field of the sun at that distance. That's another clue that the ballerina skirt idea may be wrong.

What is more, remember that if Donald Scott's idea of Titius-Bode's law is right, the dominant magnetic field at Earth's orbit must be from the large scale filament in which our solar system resides. That means it is not the sun's dipole field that matters at Earth's distance (and still consistent with the sun having a dipole field which falls off as first expected).
If Don's idea is right, then a comet coming in from the outer solar system would see that ever spiraling magnetic field direction. That is what would have explained the comet tail directional changes discussed here
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 855.x/epdf

[jacmac]

Celeste,
Some time ago (more than a year at least) I saw a video of the sun that was presented, I believe, in something from David Talbot. The video clearly showed the corona rotation faster than the solar photosphere. I think that would support your points above.
I did not mark the video in any way and promptly lost it ???
If anyone can find that it would be great to see it again.

Also, I thought the ballerina shape referred to the boundary between the positive and negative halves of the solar magnetic field not necessarily of the field itself, or are you using that to describe the field shape also ?

Jack

[celeste]

Celeste,
Some time ago (more than a year at least) I saw a video of the sun that was presented, I believe, in something from David Talbot. The video clearly showed the corona rotation faster than the solar photosphere. I think that would support your points above.
I did not mark the video in any way and promptly lost it ???
If anyone can find that it would be great to see it again.

Also, I thought the ballerina shape referred to the boundary between the positive and negative halves of the solar magnetic field not necessarily of the field itself, or are you using that to describe the field shape also ?

Jack

Jack,
Yes,the rotation of the sun, does tie in here.
The idea of faster rotation with greater radius (why the Sun or Jupiter rotates faster at the equator than at the poles, or why larger planets like Jupiter rotate faster than smaller planets), is due to them being offset from center in some larger scale filament. This was what Jim was going for in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFnUdaHM7OE

The idea more simply is this:
We currently think of the interplanetary magnetic field as being caused by the sun. Then we have the problems of why the the sun's dipole magnetic field is 100 times too strong out by Earth, and how that magnetic field gets carried out towards us. Again, we are starting to figure out that the magnetic field is not frozen into the plasma emanating from the sun. So how does that field get carried out to us?
Instead, think of the Sun and Earth being in a large scale filament, with a magnetic field that works exactly as Donald Scott has modeled. Here we just need to get the reference frame right. The magnetic field we see around us is caused by the current flowing right through our solar system. It is not "frozen in" to the plasma. Changes in current may cause a change in magnetic field direction at a given radius, but also, the motion of the sun within the filament, can give the illusion of a field propagating from the sun.

[Robertus Maximus]

We currently think of the interplanetary magnetic field as being caused by the sun. Then we have the problems of why the the sun's dipole magnetic field is 100 times too strong out by Earth, and how that magnetic field gets carried out towards us. Again, we are starting to figure out that the magnetic field is not frozen into the plasma emanating from the sun. So how does that field get carried out to us?
Instead, think of the Sun and Earth being in a large scale filament, with a magnetic field that works exactly as Donald Scott has modeled. Here we just need to get the reference frame right. The magnetic field we see around us is caused by the current flowing right through our solar system. It is not "frozen in" to the plasma. Changes in current may cause a change in magnetic field direction at a given radius, but also, the motion of the sun within the filament, can give the illusion of a field propagating from the sun.

celeste in my post ‘The Heliosphere and the Solar Cycle’ on the Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0 thread I wrote:

‘The long accepted view of the shape of the heliosphere (HS) is that it is a comet-like object with a long tail opposite to the direction in which the solar system moves through the local interstellar medium (LISM). However, in the paper by Parker (The Stellar Wind Regions, 1961) we find from figure 1 (in the original paper) that the comet-like shape occurs under certain conditions namely: ‘The streamlines of the subsonic, nearly incompressible, hydrodynamic flow of a stellar wind beyond the shock transition (r=R) in the presence of a subsonic interstellar wind carrying no significant magnetic field.’ Indeed, Parker described the special condition under which a comet-like shaped HS would occur: ‘Steady subsonic interstellar wind without interstellar magnetic field’. (1) (my emphasis).

‘Parker, however, did model a HS constrained by a: ‘Large scale interstellar field in the absence of significant interstellar gas pressure and interstellar wind’, only this HS is not comet-like.

‘So, the accepted model of the HS is one based on the assumption that there is no significant LISMF. But we now know that there must exist a significant magnetic field, coupled with a slower relative inflow motion we can ask- would a comet-like HS form at all?

‘In this paper: ‘Imaging the Interaction of the Heliosphere with the Interstellar Medium from Saturn with Cassini’ by S. M. Krimigis, et al. 2009, the authors suggest, following a review of data from the Cassini spacecraft and based on the morphology of the ‘Cassini Belt’, that the HS is indeed shaped as Parker described, if it were influenced by a: ‘Large scale interstellar field in the absence of significant interstellar gas pressure and interstellar wind’ and not the conventional comet-like shape, the authors admit that: ‘It is very different from the contemporary paradigm.’ (2)

‘To my mind a picture is emerging that is at odds with the mainstream view of the HS.’

Although it may have not come across in my posts my view is that the Solar Cycle is a product of current arriving from interstellar space- this current is responsible for the features not only at the Sun itself but also those of the heliosphere. As a charged rotating body the Sun will generate a magnetic field but I see this field as being secondary to the magnetic field of the incoming current- as Ralph Juergens wrote: ‘…the interplanetary magnetic field is the proper magnetic field of the electric current that supplies the sun with all its radiant energy. (A possible clue to this phenomenon is perhaps to be found in lightning discharges on earth. In high-quality photographs of lightning, I fancy I see, not a zigzag path, but a tightly twisted channel strongly resembling a raveled strand of rope--as if the lightning channel were being forced into an almost helical shape by the proper magnetic field of the discharge current.)’

I see the role of the Sun’s intrinsic field as influencing the arriving current, for example the hemispheric order of leading and trailing sunspot polarity- which varies over the Solar Cycle.

But I agree, the mainstream have got the Parker Spiral/ Ballerina Skirt model all wrong they have been fooled by the illusion that the field emanates from the Sun.

[Solar]

I guess I’m a bit confused. The Parker Spiral configuration has only ever been an idealized “simplest model”:

The simplest model for the direction of the HMF, with which data are often compared, is that of the Parker spiral (Parker, 1958)… - The Heliosphere Near Solar Minimum: The Ulysses perspective By Andre Balogh, Richard G. Marsden, Edward J Smith

The PS basically constitutes a working hypothesis, a stepping stone, against which to perform comparative analysis. However, the situation exemplifies the origin of some of the “surprises” that occur when in situ data is made to contrast against “simplest model” EXPECTATIONS such as.

-frozen in
-rotate with the Sun
-exactly radial outflow of constant speed
-magnetic field lies fixed in the photosphere
-independent of radial and latitudinal position
-exert no force on solar wind plasma

As one resource put it: “Of course, a perfect Parker Spiral field configuration is never realized. There are always some magnetic field irregularities causing deviations from the Parker Spiral." [1]

I don't think a 'fixed' picture can be attached to such a dynamic entity as a star or galaxy etc. Maybe only relatively so but; not a rigid picture by any means.

[jacmac]

Robertus Maximus:

my view is that the Solar Cycle is a product of current arriving from interstellar space- this current is responsible for the features not only at the Sun itself but also those of the heliosphere. As a charged rotating body the Sun will generate a magnetic field but I see this field as being secondary to the magnetic field of the incoming current-

It is a little off topic but this new paper reminds us to not forget about the role of the planets in the solar system cycles.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.00641v1.pdf

Here we present a phenomenological model for quantitative
description of the cycles’ characteristics in terms of the number of M-class flares.
The main element of the model is the relative ecliptic longitude of the planets
Jupiter and Saturn.

My latest idea is that larger sources of power and influence(such as "current arriving from interstellar space") are relatively stable, while the more local events, such as the positions and movements of the planets, serve to MIX THINGS UP and cause or trigger or influence the sun spots, flares etc.
The solar magnetic field seems to be a big mish mash(notice the scientific term) of polarity all about, with one polarity dominating for about half of the solar cycle.

So, perhaps a SUBTLE SHIFT in the larger galactic environment can flip the suns polarity because the planets are mixing up the solar system magnetic field on a constant but irregular basis ?