Giant Ribbon Discovered at Edge of Solar System

[mharratsc]

Or both?

That was a hella good post there, Anaconda!

[Anaconda]

mharratsc:

Or both?

You are right, of course, so the issue becomes which body of plasma has the stronger effect on the heliospheric boundary?

It would seem the "bubble" is due the plasma and electromagnetic energy emitted by the Sun, but, on the other hand, the dynamics at the boundary could be strongly effected by interstellar bodies of plasma and their electromagnetic energy because it is more concentrated or focussed, yet varied in intensity.

Questions abound

[mharratsc]

The scary part of this is:


(Image from Wal Thornhill's Holoscience article Electric Sun Verified)

...there is a tiny sign right in the middle of that bubble that says "Humanity: You are HERE" with an arrow pointing inwards.

How the heck are we supposed to make sense of what is going on from inside that itty bitty (cosmically speaking) little bubble?

I'm sure studying ENA's at the edge of our Sun's little bubble is pertinent, but... wow, ya know? :\

[solrey]

Nice post Anaconda.

Seems a bit of an oversimplification so how about another potential piece of the puzzle?
It appears that the trigger of "magnetic reconnection" is a sudden collapse of the magnetic field that results from disrupting the current. In a two stage process, the rapid collapse of the magnetic field accelerates the charged particles within the current filament/sheet into the collapsing field where the particles are compressed. The rush of particles, like a strong pulse of current, into the collapsing magnetic field creates an even stronger transient magnetic field further compressing the particles which then rebound explosively at the end of the pulse when the secondary magnetic field suddenly collapses. Generally it occurs within the current sheets of double layers, but not necessarily as it could happen within a double layer, a single current sheet or along field aligned currents.

Cluster finds new clues on what triggers space tsunamis

Currently there are two competing models to explain the substorm process: the Current-Disruption model (CD) and the Near Earth Neutral Line Model (NENL). As we will see, using data from the four spacecraft of the Cluster mission, a group of scientists from both sides of the Atlantic have recently reported that data collected in the magnetotail during a substorm are consistent with the CD model.

For this case study, the observed features associated with the flow reversal region are complex, consisting of both dissipation and dynamo effects in localized sites. This result is consistent with plasma turbulence excited by multiple sites where the local electric current is disrupted. This observed pattern was not predicted by previous models of magnetic reconnection but is in agreement with a numerical simulation on the development of plasma processes driven by strong electric currents [Lui, 2004].

Might they be speaking of the multifaceted dynamics of a collapsing magnetic field in plasma when they state: the observed features associated with the flow reversal region are complex.

cheers

[solrey]

Thanks for the heads up on the paper Lukas, but it's the same paper/pre-print I posted a link for about two weeks ago.

In that paper, scenario 2 is closest to the EU description of a z-pinch with accompanying ring current around the middle of the pinch.

Another pair of related explanations [(2) and (3)] invoke the possibility of ribbon emissions coming from outside the heliopause, from regions where the external B·r = 0 [McComas et al., 2009b; Schwadron et al., 2009] (see above). Compression of the external field would increase densities and provide perpendicular heating, producing more perpendicular pitch-angle distributions (enhanced particles around 90o pitch angles) where they would preferentially emit in a plane that includes the inward radial direction. Thus, local compressions in the outer heliosheath magnetic field would preferentially emit ENAs that would be observable in the inner heliosphere by IBEX in exactly the regions where the average external field is most perpendicular to the radial LOS.

About the heliospheric current sheet:

Sorry I can't confirm for you the wikipedia numbers, but yes the heliospheric current sheet is a very real thing.

From the paper linked below:

The total strength of the radial current is ~ 3x109. Thus the surface density of the closure current flowing along the solar surface can be estimated as i = I/R[odot] ~ 4 A/m, and the magnetic field produced by this current is B = \mu _0 i ~5x10-6 T, i.e. several percent of the intrinsic magnetic field of the Sun. This seems to mean that any consideration of the solar magnetic field generation should take into account the heliospheric current circuit as well as the currents flowing inside the Sun. Such a conlusion corroborates our recent result (Israelevich et al. 2000) that there is a feedback between the solar wind flow and the main solar magnetic field.

MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric current sheet


Figure 1: a) Interplanetary magnetic field lines and electric current lines in the solar wind near the heliospheric current sheet surface. Solid lines show the magnetic field lines slightly above the surface, and dashed lines correspond to the field lines slightly below the current sheet surface. Empty lines show the direction of the electric current in the sheet. b) Heliospheric current circuit in the meridional plane. Thick lines show the closure of the radial component of the heliospheric electric current.

The only way to satisfy the electric current continuity is to close the radial electric current by field-aligned currents at the polar region of the sun. This current closure leads to the three-dimensional heliospheric current system schematically depicted by Alfvén (Fig. 1b). Thus, the heliospheric current system produced by the Sun acts like a unipolar generator.

The purpose of this note is to show that the three dimensional structure of the heliospheric current system obtained from a self-consistent, first-principles based numerical model of the solar wind outflow with realistic intrinsic solar magnetic field is consistent with Alfvén's conceptual model.

The numerical simulation has been performed for the main solar magnetic field configuration typical for Solar Minimum conditions. During the next Solar Minimum, the solar magnetic dipole polarity is reversed. Obviously, the radial component of the electric current also reverses its sign (Alfvén 1981).

From a paper available on google books based on data from the Ulysses mission:

Overall, there is a circulation of the cosmic rays from inward over the poles and out along the current sheet. This condition is for positive magnetic polarity of the heliospheric field in the north polar cap. In the alternate sunspot cycle, the field will be negative (inward) in the north polar cap and the direction of the drifts will be reversed.

There are two types of shock, a "forward" shock propagating outward in the solar wind (at ~ 100km s-1) and a "reverse" shock propagating sunward but convected outward by the more rapid motion of the solar wind.

It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to consider changes in the surrounding plasma/electromagnetic environment having an effect on our little cellular plasma uni-polar inductor we call the heliosphere.

The data are in but I don't think they are published yet and the differences AFAIK are not dramatic.
[..]
Would you predict any variation with solar cycle?

If the differences in the third map are not dramatic I would expect solar activity (F10.7cm flux) for the next 4 months to remain about where it's been lately at around 78 with only weak CME/flare activity. That would translate to the energy of the third map falling somewhere between the first two, which would not be a dramatic change. Considering the spike in solar activity a few months ago, I wouldn't be surprised if there is evidence of a new, smallish "knot" somewhere in the ribbon. Perhaps those knots precede spikes in solar activity? I believe I noticed a hint of that in the second map approximately on the other side of the ribbon from the first "knot".

I'm intrigued by Anaconda's description of a plasmoid associated with the knot, however, imho, I think those knots might instead result from phase space holes in the double layer of the heliosheath.

A little side note:
I wonder if that slight northward shift in the southern portion of the ribbon in the second map is related to the alignment of Jupiter and Uranus as they were moving toward conjunction? If that's the case that section of ribbon should shift southward again as Jupiter and Uranus move farther from conjunction. I expect the shifting back to be evident in the fourth map, while the third map probably shows little change in that region.

cheers

[saul]

Thanks Mike, Solrey, Anaconda

As to why look at ENAs Mike, good question. I think Solrey answered well. Sure it would be great to have a constellation of plasma instruments flying around the outer heliosphere but until then we are stuck with remote sensing, and that is the point of measuring ENAs, they can be used to determine what is going on far away. Of course, the voyager spacecraft shouldn't be ignored Unfortunately, the interpretation is not always so clear. Similar to astronomy, all you get is a line of sight integral, so distances, and what are producing the ENAs, are not obvious.

Interesting idea to consider the giant planets Anaconda, I hadn't heard that before. Another reason to keep IBEX up longer. Incidentally, although the Earth's moon has been seen with IBEX in ENAs Jupiter has not showed up yet.

Thanks for the current sheet info. How do you think the picture would change if there were some external current entering the heliosphere? There have been some indications of an asymmetrical current sheet, which got the catchy name of "bashful ballerina"..

[solrey]

While thinking about evidence for energy directed inward to the sun I recalled the recent discovery of changing radioactive decay rates. They noted seasonal changes and monthly changes but the most intriguing was the change in decay rate associated with a solar flare.

Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements

On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.

It was assumed that neutrino's were responsible for the change in decay rate via some process in the sun which precedes and triggers the solar flare. Another study found that neutrino's had no effect on decay rate. Which doesn't disprove that the flare effects the decay rate, only that neutrino's are probably not involved.

Perhaps the energy that triggered the flare and altered the decay rate came from outside the solar system, rather than within the sun, and passed through our Earth on the way in.

I had originally thought the velocity of inward propagation of energy might be related to solar wind speed since the data in the maps seemed to lead F10 solar flux by around 6 months and the solar wind takes around 12 months to reach the inner heliosheath. Thus the conclusion:

So the ENA's are probably detected about 4 - 6 months ahead of the corresponding effect in solar activity. That matches well with the timing of when the data was collected in the two IBEX maps and the similar 10-15% drop in activity noted in the F10.7 flux chart I posted earlier.

The higher energy ENA's take an estimated 6 to 8 months to reach Earth from the source. How does a 4 to 6 month lead time fit into an inward propagation detected in the change of decay rate before the flare?

The change in decay rate occurred about 36 hours before the flare.
What's the velocity (v)?
d/t=v
1AU = 149,597,870 km/36hrs = 4,155,496.388888889 km/hr
v = 4,155,496.388888889 / 60 / 60 = 1,154.304552469 km/s

Since there are a range of estimates on the radius to the outer edge of the heliopause, I'll choose a distance in that range of 250 AU to estimate the time it would take (t) at the velocity (v) above for an energetic wave originating at the boundary to reach Earth (d).
149,597,870 km x 250 AU = 37,399,467,500 km
d/v=t
37,399,467,500 km / 1,154.304552469 km/s = 32,400,000.000003812 seconds
32,400,000 / 60 / 60 / 24 = 375 days

So an inward propagating wave of energy from the heliopause boundary, (perhaps an as yet undetected form of superalfvenic wave?), would take about 12 months to reach Earth assuming the velocity and distance used above. The higher energy ENA's take around 6 or 8 months to reach Earth resulting in a lead time of around 4 to 6 months. Pretty much in line with the timing of the maps leading the F10 solar flux index by about that many months.

Or it could just be a coincidence.

cheers

[solrey]

Or it could just be a coincidence.

It's just a coincidence. I forgot there was a chart at the very end of the McComas paper with transit times for ENA's at 100 AU. So the 6 - 8 month ENA transit time is from 100 AU, not the 250 AU I selected for the energy source.
The Enominal column shows the transit time for 4.3 KeV ENA's is 195 days which comes to about 890 km/s. That's about double the average solar wind speed, but slower than the 1,100 km/s calculated for the radioactive decay/solar flare scenario.

However, that leads me to wonder how ENA velocity is calculated. Is velocity measured directly or is it inferred from the energy flux? They also correct for spacecraft relative velocity (Compton-Getting correction).

cheers

[solrey]

Thanks for the current sheet info. How do you think the picture would change if there were some external current entering the heliosphere? There have been some indications of an asymmetrical current sheet, which got the catchy name of "bashful ballerina"..

You're welcome.
I think there's a combination of induction and a drift or leakage current. Would the cosmic rays that enter at the poles and exit at the equatorial plane, which reverses every other solar cycle, be considered as a current entering/flowing thru the heliosphere? Could the asymmetricness be an indicator of an external current entering the heliosphere?

Interesting idea to consider the giant planets Anaconda, I hadn't heard that before. Another reason to keep IBEX up longer.

I think that was my idea actually, but there's been so many good ideas from a number of people that it's hard to keep track sometimes.
If I can find the time I'd like to view the coordinates of the hot spots and where the section of ribbon shifted to compare against the coordinates of the Jupiter/Uranus conjunction as well as the other giant planets.

Can't find it right now, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that IBEX was boosted into a higher orbit in order to extend the mission. With such an abundance of new information coming from IBEX it would be quite disappointing if the mission was not prolonged.

Thanks again for checking in with us Lukas.

cheers

[Anaconda]

solrey wrote:

Seems a bit of an oversimplification so how about another potential piece of the puzzle?

Perhaps, it is an oversimplification, however, identifying the physical dynamics of the heliospheric boundary is a critical first step to correctly identifying the physical processes occurring within or immediately associated with the heliospheric boundary. Anthony L. Peratt provides a two-step statement of physical facts which lead to the conclusion that Electric Double Layers are ubiquitous within the solar system, which can, now, be observed & measured by in situ satellite probes.

“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, retired

“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, retired

In other words, colliding bodies of plasma cause accelerated charged particles which are segregated (consisting of either solely electrons or ions) electric currents, and Double Layer boundary sheaths. Truly, Electric Double Layers are the Universal Process that drives other electromagnetic phenomenon. And since collisions of self-magnetized plasma bodies are ubiquitous, both within the solar system and beyond, then, necessarily, Electric Double Layers are also ubiquitous as well.

Also, there are different kinds & shapes of Electric Double Layers, as outlined in Hannes Alfven's 1986 presentation to NASA, Double Layers in Astrophysics, Proceedings of a workshop held at George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 013880.pdf

(Beyond the lecture of Hannes Alfven, there is a compendium of Double Layer scientific papers, both laboratory and space plasma -- * review is highly recommended.)

The heliospheric boundary is, at the very least, a steady state Electric Double Layer contact between different plasmas.

(Certainly, electromagnetic energy via charged particles can and almost assuredly does impinge from both the outside and inside of the heliospheric boundary -- I'm simply laying an analytical foundation for further investigation.)

ELECTRIC FIELDS AND DOUBLE LAYERS IN PLASMAS, Nagendra Singh, H. Thiemann, and R. W. Schunk, Center for Atmospheric and Space Sciences, Utah State University (one of the papers in the Alfven compendium)

CONTACT BETWEEN DIFFERENT PLASMAS
The existence of contact potentials (electric fields) near the contact surface between two materials having
different electrical properties is a well-known phenomenon. In plasmas, the existence of such potentials has been
investigated in connection with plasma confinement (e.g., see Sestero, 1964).

Steady-state double layer structures in the interstellar medium, V. A. Antonov, A. S. Baranov and V. V. Pashkevich

Abstract
A one-dimensional, self consistent theoretical model is constructed for double layers in a thermodynamically nonequilibrium astrophysical plasma. A steady state is maintained by an asymmetry in the fluxes from both sides. The range of possible values of the parameters is determined.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/56333340022u7l34/

solrey wrote:

It appears that the trigger of "magnetic reconnection" is a sudden collapse of the magnetic field that results from disrupting the current. In a two stage process, the rapid collapse of the magnetic field accelerates the charged particles within the current filament/sheet into the collapsing field where the particles are compressed.

First, just to clarify, solrey, do you identify the heliospheric boundary as an Electric Double Layer?

And, assuming that you do identify the heliospheric boundary as an Electric Double Layer, it seems that the above statement makes a distinction between a steady-state physical object and "events" that happen within or associated with the heliospheric boundary or sheath. solrey, may I suggest it's preferable to refer to the physical process as an Electric Double Layer, as opposed to placing magnetic reconnection in quotes.

a sudden collapse of the magnetic field that results from disrupting the current.

The above description is appropriate for a changing Electric Double Layer, a change in charged particle vectors and energies, and a resultant change in electric & magnetic fields associated with those charged particles, or, perhaps, even an exploding Electric Double Layer. solrey, which of these two possibilities are you referring to?

I agree with the Current-Disruption model (CD) as presented.

Energetic neutral atoms (ENA's) do appear to be a result of Marklund convection.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.ph ... convection

solrey, do you have another hypothesis to account for these energetic neutral atoms (ENA's) in the ribbon?

solrey, do you object to the hypothesis that the "knot" which is "untied" is a Plasmoid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid

And, if not, what do you think is the "knot's" physical dynamics?

saul, I appreciate your participation in this thread. However, I didn't write about "giant planets", I wrote about Electric Double Layers, Plasmoids, and Marklund convection.

That being said, saul, do you have an opinion about the physical processes in the heliospheric boundary? And, if so, what is your opinion as to physical processes in the heliospheric boundary? Do you subscribe to the proposition that the heliospheric boundary is a form of Electric Double Layer sheath?

saul, are you familiar with the Electric Double Layer process? Perchance, have you previously reviewed Hannes Alfven's NASA presentation on astrophysical double layers?

[MrAmsterdam]

I am not sure if this question was already asked, but how about a correlation between these "ribbons" and sunspots?

To state it more generally, can we measure all properties (the amount of energy etc) in the "ribbon" and observe all the properties of the sun and see if any of them changes against eachother...? Maybe, you could even find an algorithm in the collected sun and ribbon data.

You could perhaps even use this mechanism as a sensor for some properties of our local plasma cloud. Although it would be quite an undertaking to empirically proof the plasma mechanisms involved.

[MrAmsterdam]

By the way.

Did you notice that all the links pointing to an discussion about this are closed or you cant seem to add any comments?

Not funny

[solrey]

Did you notice that all the links pointing to an discussion about this are closed or you cant seem to add any comments?

Really? Have any examples because I just posted a comment to the recent article on physorg and a similar recent article on space-dot-com. Perhaps you're looking at archived articles from a year ago?
Remember...paranoia may destroya.

I am not sure if this question was already asked, but how about a correlation between these "ribbons" and sunspots?

Yeah, exactly a year ago:

by solrey » Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:56 am
I think, with "real time" monitoring of the belt region (ring current), changes in energy levels (KeV), and neutrals to ions ratios, can be used to predict changes in solar activity weeks or months in advance (times depending on particle velocity/density/B strength).

As well as a recent prediction less than a week ago:

by solrey » Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:33 am
If the differences in the third map are not dramatic I would expect solar activity (F10.7cm flux) for the next 4 months to remain about where it's been lately at around 78 with only weak CME/flare activity. That would translate to the energy of the third map falling somewhere between the first two, which would not be a dramatic change. Considering the spike in solar activity a few months ago, I wouldn't be surprised if there is evidence of a new, smallish "knot" somewhere in the ribbon. Perhaps those knots precede spikes in solar activity? I believe I noticed a hint of that in the second map approximately on the other side of the ribbon from the first "knot".

So the question is...

To state it more generally, can we measure all properties (the amount of energy etc) in the "ribbon" and observe all the properties of the sun and see if any of them changes against eachother...? Maybe, you could even find an algorithm in the collected sun and ribbon data.

That's pretty much what I'm looking for.

cheers

[solrey]

Anaconda, I totally agree with you. I was just adding another layer to the exploding DL paradigm.

Yes, I believe the heliosheath is a double layer.

The semi-permeable membrane of a double layer at the heliosheath could allow for some charge exchange like a drift current that maintains the voltage potential between the helisophere and the ISM within a certain range maintaining a balanced potential.

As I said before, it's all about DL's...

Yeah, as I was reading that paper I realized...eureka, here's proof of what may be the backbone of EU theory, which is essentially, as they say right there in the introduction of the paper..."Sheaths matter."
Hah, no sheath sherlok.
Alfven said that DL's should be treated as a unique class of astronomical phenomena.
I would add "From which all others arise".

Perhaps we should call it the HelioSheath DoubleLayer or HSDL?

cheers

[MrAmsterdam]

Hi Solrey,

Thanks of reminding me that I seem to be running a year behind. Seems to be the explanation for the closing of comments.

"Although it would be quite an undertaking to empirically proof the plasma mechanisms involved"

Do we have any empirical examples of natural phenomena that resembles or shows us how this ribbon interacts with the sun? Ofcourse it should contain all properties,to name a few; magnetic field, currents and plasma. Could such a plasma experiment be scalable and be used for computer modelling ?

BTW, That would be really be a cool discovery, Solrey ;

"That trend would be pretty strong evidence for an externally powered sun. Time will tell."