New simulation of the sun shows both large and small scale processes

March 25, 2016 by Bob Yirka report
Radial magnetic field at r=0.92R, where R is solar radius. Credit: Hideyuki Hotta, Chiba University

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers from the U.S., China, and Japan has developed a computer simulation of the sun that is able to show both large and small scale processes. In their paper published in the journal Science, the team describes how their simulation works and why they believe it will help solve one of the big questions in solar research.

Over the years, scientists have developed different tools for helping to understand how the sun works, in more recent years, simulations have been developed that seek to demonstrate the sun's activities, one of which is the 11 year cycle of reversal. But, such simulations have been divided into two main categories, those that simulate large processes, and those that simulate relatively small processes. The goal has been to merge the two to allow for a better overall look at how the sun works in general, and to answer the question of how it is that the sun manages to maintain a steady large-scale magnetic field in spite of a there being what appears to be nothing but chaos at smaller scales. In this new effort, the researchers believe they have moved closer to being able to answer that question, by developing a new type of simulation of the sun that finally allows for including both large and small processes.

To create the new simulation, the researchers used math to reduce small-scale diffusivities (parameters that are used to describe how the sun works as a whole), which allowed for minimizing the impact on the means by which the sun generates an electromagnetic field. That allowed for the creation of a whole new range of images.

Radial magnetic field at r=0.92R, where R is solar radius. Credit: Hideyuki Hotta, Chiba University

Thus far, the simulation has not answered the question of how the is able to maintain its large scale magnetic field, but the researchers suggest it has to do with small-scale but with low viscosity, suppressing the apparent chaos, thereby allowing for the maintenance of the large overall field. They hope to use their new method to better understand the 11 year cycle because of the important role it plays in sending particles to Earth, causing problems for satellites and other electronic equipment.

Explore further: Computer simulation shows the sun's "heartbeat" is magnetic

More information: H. Hotta et al. Large-scale magnetic fields at high Reynolds numbers in magnetohydrodynamic simulations, Science (2016). DOI: 10.1126/science.aad1893

Abstract
The 11-year solar magnetic cycle shows a high degree of coherence in spite of the turbulent nature of the solar convection zone. It has been found in recent high-resolution magnetohydrodynamics simulations that the maintenance of a large-scale coherent magnetic field is difficult with small viscosity and magnetic diffusivity (square centimenters per second). We reproduced previous findings that indicate a reduction of the energy in the large-scale magnetic field for lower diffusivities and demonstrate the recovery of the global-scale magnetic field using unprecedentedly high resolution. We found an efficient small-scale dynamo that suppresses small-scale flows, which mimics the properties of large diffusivity. As a result, the global-scale magnetic field is maintained even in the regime of small diffusivities—that is, large Reynolds numbers.

Related Stories

Computer simulation shows the sun's "heartbeat" is magnetic

April 5, 2013

(Phys.org) —A research team made up of Paul Charbonneau, a physicist with the University of Montreal and Piotr Smolarkiewicz, a weather scientist with the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in the U.K., ...

Using maths to unravel the Sun's magnetic fields

December 22, 2015

Complex magnetic fields in the Sun's atmosphere help heat it to multi-million degree temperatures and create explosive events such as solar flares that affect us here on Earth.

Understanding the magnetic sun

January 29, 2016

The surface of the sun writhes and dances. Far from the still, whitish-yellow disk it appears to be from the ground, the sun sports twisting, towering loops and swirling cyclones that reach into the solar upper atmosphere, ...

Image: Picturing the sun's magnetic field

March 16, 2016

This illustration lays a depiction of the sun's magnetic fields over an image captured by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory on March 12, 2016. The complex overlay of lines can teach scientists about the ways the sun's magnetism ...

Recommended for you

ALMA finds unexpected trove of gas around larger stars

August 25, 2016

Astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) surveyed dozens of young stars—some Sun-like and others approximately double that size—and discovered that the larger variety have surprisingly ...

35 years on, Voyager's legacy continues at Saturn

August 25, 2016

Saturn, with its alluring rings and numerous moons, has long fascinated stargazers and scientists. After an initial flyby of Pioneer 11 in 1979, humanity got a second, much closer look at this complex planetary system in ...

Rosetta captures comet outburst

August 25, 2016

In unprecedented observations made earlier this year, Rosetta unexpectedly captured a dramatic comet outburst that may have been triggered by a landslide.

Rocky planet found orbiting habitable zone of nearest star

August 24, 2016

An international team of astronomers including Carnegie's Paul Butler has found clear evidence of a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our Solar System. The new world, designated Proxima b, orbits its cool ...

47 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

shavera
4.9 / 5 (16) Mar 25, 2016
You mean to tell me that all these physorg commenters have been lying to me all along? Astrophysicists really *DO* consider plasma physics and electromagnetism and magnetohydrodynamics in their work? I'm shocked, shocked! /sarc
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2016
No, there's no mistake and nobody is lying to you. The above is another exercise in GIGO simulations. BTW, nobody has ever argued astrophysicists don't know MHD, they are actually quite adept at using it.
Therein lies the problem, using simplistic MHD models to try to explain this complexity is futile and meaningless GIGO. MHD glosses over and eliminates vital aspects of the plasma processes such as double layers which are of utmost importance. Alfven showed decades ago that MHD is useless in describing complex plasma phenomena, astrophysicists choose ignorance and continue down a dead end path. No, the only ones lying are the astrophysicists suggesting they have a clue.
Whydening Gyre
Mar 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
barakn
3 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2016
Good job, Whydening Gyre. Even though the original spam post was reported and deleted, it lives on in your comment. Which is why I am reporting it.
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 25, 2016
@cd
Therein lies the problem, using simplistic MHD models to try to explain this complexity is futile and meaningless GIGO
OK, so fire up your computer, write the algorithm which explains "this complexity" using your advanced knowledge of those
vital aspects of the plasma processes such as double layers which are of utmost importance,
produce some intelligible results, write them up and get them published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Otherwise, STFU.
...the only ones lying are the astrophysicists suggesting they have a clue
and if they really believe they have a clue, and think what they're doing is meaningful, then they're not lying.

In any case, STFU.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2016
OK, so fire up your computer, write the algorithm which explains "this complexity" using your advanced knowledge of those

It's been done, for quite sometime now. Astrophysicists prefer to ignore this fact in lieu of their pet MHD models.
produce some intelligible results, write them up and get them published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Otherwise, STFU.

Once again, laboratory experiments since the end of the 19th century have shown this to be the case, astrophysicists just prefer their own little psudoscientific bubble of ignorance.
and if they really believe they have a clue, and think what they're doing is meaningful, then they're not lying.

Willful ignorance is no defense.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2016
Good job, Whydening Gyre. Even though the original spam post was reported and deleted, it lives on in your comment. Which is why I am reporting it.

I'm the one who reported it.... (After making the comment)
You reported ME....
barakn
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2016
Yes, because you made the spam live on. The URL is still visible.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2016
It's been done, for quite sometime now
@cd
is that why you linked it and it's publication in a peer reviewed journal above... oh, wait...
No, the only ones lying are the astrophysicists suggesting they have a clue
funny thing here: you have repeated this lie for years now, but you have never once been able to actually prove it to be true

especially with validated verifiable factual evidence.
sure, you can link your pseudoscience site where people "say" it, but you still never proved anything except that you can prove nothing of what you claim

this means, by definition, that you are not only willfully ignorant of science, but you intentionally promote a known fallacy for the sake of finding converts

that is religion, not science

i can only leave you with your own words to echo ironically on the web

Willful ignorance is no defense
FineStructureConstant
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2016
laboratory experiments since the end of the 19th century have shown this to be the case
So, no papers in reputable journals, then?

Quelle surprise... You EU dogmatists are so full of hot air, sneering condescension when you can't get your own way, and little else.

Q. And the sum total contribution to science from decades of EU blather is?
A. Zilch.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2016
laboratory experiments since the end of the 19th century have shown this to be the case
So, no papers in reputable journals, then?

Quelle surprise... You EU dogmatists are so full of hot air, sneering condescension when you can't get your own way, and little else.

Q. And the sum total contribution to science from decades of EU blather is?
A. Zilch.

Although I'm well aware of your (and Cap'n Stoopid's) inability to research and/or learn being obvious, me linking to well understood concepts of real plasma physics will not change your dogmatic beliefs.
Decades? The EU has barely been around for one decade, and its contributions to real experimental laboratory plasma physics is unsurpassed.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2016
me linking to well understood concepts of real plasma physics
@cd
the reason you don't link to plasma physics is far simpler:
1- you don't understand it well enough to demonstrate any comprehension
2- you can't actually validate most of your claims with real physics (including plasma physics)
3- your idiot pseudoscience site also can't validate it because they can't actually comprehend the differences between their beliefs and, say... the proven validated astrophysics which open up knowledge of our Sol, UY Scuti, VX Sagittarii, or other stars

just because you believe in something doesn't mean it is true

the biggest and most important reason you don't link evidence is because you don't have evidence, nor can you actually find evidence supporting your belief

this is why you continually repeat lies that have been debunked
because you have no other means for proving anything

repetition doesn't equal validation
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2016
@cd cont'd
The EU has barely been around for one decade, and its contributions to real experimental laboratory plasma physics is unsurpassed
and i can prove this false by simply asking why you keep deleting and removing previously made predictions from the eu sites and blogs that have been repeatedly proven to be abject failures (cassini killer shocks, or your fails with moon craters, grand canyon, shoemaker-levy 9 etc)

the scientific method doesn't remove them from their record... they use it as demonstrations of how science and it's method works. see aether for more proof of that

this is just one more reason why your religion fails, BTW

you can't make predictions
you can't prove your comments
you tend to denigrate everything else but you refuse to actually prove yourselves with evidence (means you're a bunch of whiners)

If you're what constitutes a typical member or even the leadership of the eu, then it is an epic fail for eu
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2016
@cd last post
Although I'm well aware of your ... inability to research and/or learn
the funniest thing about this particular claim is that it is actually our ability to learn and do research that has continually proven you and your religious followers to be wrong

take your claims about the Cassini probe being killed here ( http://phys.org/n...ume.html ) that was proven to be prematurely stupid because real science ( http://phys.org/n...oon.html )

this is linked directly to your inability to separate fantasy with reality, like your conspiracy "Secret mind control programs" crap here ( http://phys.org/n...ris.html )

shall i talk about your other delusions, like the ones here: http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

if you can't learn physics, at least learn how to differentiate between reality and fantasy
fantasy is the one you believe in
my2cts
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2016
[inability to research and/or learn being obvious,

What could anyone learn from you ? And how?
Lischyn
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2016
I wonder if the 11 yr cycle could be some external influence as the sun moves thru space. The sun could just be some huge sensor that reacts to some subtle periodic space-time deviations.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2016
its contributions to real experimental laboratory plasma physics is unsurpassed.
Hey, mom, I'm so unsurpassed!

So let's look at these "experiments": you take a small amount of some gas, put it into a container, subject it to externally applied magnetic fields and heat it up. Voila - a plasma! Then you play with it, make some measurements. Then you go home. you might even write it up in something like one of the IEEE journals, make the sweeping generalization that your results apply not only in the lab, but also at cosmic scales, and to astrophysical phenomena.

But how about trying to do the numbers, modelling stuff like the ISM or stellar or galactic winds, threaded by weak magnetic fields, subject to EM radiation, cosmic ray particles, gravitational fields, supersonic shocks, etc? You people don't have a hope of doing any of this because you have no MATH; because your "physics" of which you are so inordinately proud is not rooted in quantitative analysis. Epic fail.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2016
Yes, because you made the spam live on. The URL is still visible.

Only an idiot like you, would actually click on that link.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2016
Hey, mom, I'm so unsurpassed!

Let's take the alternative astrophysicists rely upon: you take some equations which have no relation to reality, put it on some paper and subject it to mathematical gymnastics. Voila-"Reality"! Then you carry the 1... Then you go to the calculator, you might even write it up for other pseudoscientists to "confirm" in an astrophysical journal, then make sweeping claims that that math represents reality at cosmic scales.

But how about testing the claims via experimentation? Oh right, NOT POSSIBLE! And what happens when the math doesn't line up with reality? Just invent 95% more invisible/undetectable magic stuff to explain away the epic failure of the pathetic mathematicians!
Yep, much better plan, especially when we can continuously alter the properties of the 95% of other stuff as it is shown by observation to not match what was previously expected. Rube!
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2016
Rube!
Pot, kettle...
bschott
1 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2016
Weird how when you use simulations of motion based on hydro dynamics, you get a picture of the sun that looks like ocean swells...nice job.

Find an actual photo of the sun in any wavelength where it looks like either picture above.
matt_s
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2016
Find an actual photo of the sun in any wavelength where it looks like either picture above.


Reading the caption of the picture would be good.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2016
its contributions to real experimental laboratory plasma physics is
funny thing, what?
if you look at the lead author, he is a plasma physicist working in an engineering school...

so, why is the eu posting anti-study comments?
LMFAO
http://www.chiba-...ing.html

Rube!
so that would make you an illiterate rube for not actually reading the authors affiliations and training, right?
(or the study, or the.... we get the pic, do you?)

gkam
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2016
Is "LMFAO" what passes for insults these days in the lower classes?

Not very clever, is it?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2016
Is "LMFAO" what passes for insults these days in the lower classes?
@beni-kam
i don't know, is being a chronic liar posting known lies and fallacious data what passes as honesty, integrity and evidence driven science in your house?

Not very clever, is it?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2016
Find an actual photo of the sun in any wavelength where it looks like either picture above.


Reading the caption of the picture would be good.

What, so one knows what the " simulation" of the "radial magnetic field at r=0.92R, where R is solar radius" looks like?
matt_s
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2016
@CD

Pray tell, how are you going to "Find an actual photo of the sun in any wavelength" at .92R? Let me go through my pictures of the interior of the sun a second and see if I can find that one...

Moreover, which wavelength corresponds to radial magnetic field strength?
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2016
@CD

Pray tell, how are you going to "Find an actual photo of the sun in any wavelength" at .92R? Let me go through my pictures of the interior of the sun a second and see if I can find that one...

Moreover, which wavelength corresponds to radial magnetic field strength?


How about absolutely nothing we have ever seen from solar observations shows ANY phenomenon which would correspond with this "watery" representation of the suns "radial magnetic field" ( that term cracks me up).

Or did we forget that charged particles would align with these fields in a way that would correlate surface observations of the plasma with the varying field strengths represented by this "simulation".

Sorry for not saying exactly how or why any photo at any wavelength is required to validate this completely shitty simulated image of the suns "radial field" as it exists beyond our imaging capabilities.

Understanding how plasma works would be good Matt.
matt_s
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2016
@bschott

So you're saying charged particles will align with the field at .92R? Why wouldn't they align with the field at 1R? Or 1.1R?

Once again... I defer to your infinite wisdom.

Thirteenth Doctor
5 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2016
shall i talk about your other delusions, like the ones here: http://phys.org/n...ggs.html


Whew this one had to hurt. This is delusion in its very definition.,
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2016

How about absolutely nothing we have ever seen from solar observations shows ANY phenomenon which would correspond with this "watery" representation of the suns "radial magnetic field" ( that term cracks me up).

Or did we forget that charged particles would align with these fields in a way that would correlate surface observations of the plasma with the varying field strengths represented by this "simulation".

Sorry for not saying exactly how or why any photo at any wavelength is required to validate this completely shitty simulated image of the suns "radial field" as it exists beyond our imaging capabilities.

Understanding how plasma works would be good Matt.

R E S P E C T. You remain the King of Morons !
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2016
Yes, because you made the spam live on. The URL is still visible.

Only an idiot like you, would actually click on that link.

Down, Chucky !
bschott
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2016
@bschott

So you're saying charged particles will align with the field at .92R? Why wouldn't they align with the field at 1R? Or 1.1R?

Once again... I defer to your infinite wisdom.



Actually, they will move according to the magnetic fields at any r...wow, that was tough. Got any more puzzles you can't solve?

R E S P E C T. You remain the King of Morons !


Given the accuracy of most of your posts, thank you.

It's always nice when the supreme idiot pledges his allegiance.
matt_s
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2016
Actually, they will move according to the magnetic fields at any r


No duh. But how are you supposed to see that alignment inside the sun? Observing it wouldn't reveal the internal structure, you'd see the surface structure of the field lines... so once again?
bschott
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2016
No duh.


Well then why did you ask? Duh.

But how are you supposed to see that alignment inside the sun? Observing it wouldn't reveal the internal structure, you'd see the surface structure of the field lines... so once again?


UM... above I mentioned correlation with surface features, this "simulation" shows hemispherically connected magnetic waves underneath the part of the sun which is said to be in a state of super rotation. There is this claim from NASA

http://www.nasa.g...hru.html

So NASA can detect sunspots 65000KM deep based on the suns surface yet failed to mention anything about the magnetic ocean the simulation above churned out. Or any surface features indicating anything like it.

The first thing to do with a simulation is attempt validation. If what you find only discredits it...it likely isn't accurate. There is nothing to validate this except...once again...math.

matt_s
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2016
UM... above I mentioned correlation with surface features


There may be correlation for certain locations, but would you expect overall the radial field lines at .92R to be the exact same as R? If not, then how similar would the magnetic field be at that depth? I guess that's the overall question then? Your link doesn't address that.

So once again, comparing this simulation to actual observations would be an inaccurate comparison.

As to why they simulated it at .92R and not R (to validate it, as you say), I have no idea.

Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2016
@bschott

So you're saying charged particles will align with the field at .92R? Why wouldn't they align with the field at 1R? Or 1.1R?

Once again... I defer to your infinite wisdom.



Actually, they will move according to the magnetic fields at any r...wow, that was tough. Got any more puzzles you can't solve?

R E S P E C T. You remain the King of Morons !


Given the accuracy of most of your posts, thank you.

It's always nice when the supreme idiot pledges his allegiance.

Show me a post that is not accurate, bullschitt.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2016
@bullschitt
What do you mean "particles align with the field".
Give me a scientific text that gives meaning to this expression.
Which particles? Electrons? Protons? Ions?
All of the above?
Writing is like driving a car: make sure you are in gear.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2016
@bullschitt
What do you mean "particles align with the field".


You claim to "understand" physics and you just asked this? I no longer accept your allegiance king of the idiots.
Give me a scientific text that gives meaning to this expression.


LMAO...it's called a "field aligned current"...google it and read every reference before you come back and post anything here ever again....see you in a couple lifetimes moron.

Which particles? Electrons? Protons? Ions?

HMMM...magnetic field....charged particles....yup, looks good. Awesome job listing examples of charged particles .

Writing is like driving a car: make sure you are in gear.


If you say so....from what you post here I would have guessed you rode a special bus.

Show me a post that is not accurate, bullschitt.


"Stars are not effected by magnetic fields" - Direct quote from idiot king, posted under an article about the suns magnetic fields.

Still gets me...LMAO
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2016
@bullschitt
Charged particles are the source of the magnetic field so the field direction is related to the motion of the particles. In what way? You would have to know density, velocity distribution, temperature. Magnetohydrodynamics, in short. Hey, that is exactly what the is described in the PO article that you empty handedly criticise. Which particles? Likely electrons move faster than protons so that would be my guess. Those are the answers you would have given had you known any physics . You failed the test, again.
You know absolutely nothing about physics in spite of your pretence.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 01, 2016
@matt_s
As to why they simulated it at .92R and not R (to validate it, as you say), I have no idea.
I had a look around and I have no idea either. I did find a more comprehensive article on this paper, though: https://www2.ucar...ut-chaos

Maybe someone can make sense out of it from that.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2016
. Magnetohydrodynamics, in short.

That's why it can be "empty handedly" criticized, the results of the "simulation" are meaningless to the reality of the physics involved. This has been known for decades but astrophysicists choose to ignore these facts.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2016
@bullschitt
Charged particles are the source of the magnetic field


No idiot king, they are "a" source of "a" magnetic field

so the field direction is related to the motion of the particles.


Only in field generated by current, otherwise the field directs the motion of the particles.
Google a place called CERN

You know absolutely nothing about physics in spite of your pretence.


"Stars are not affected by magnetic fields" - Phys1

So once again, comparing this simulation to actual observations would be an inaccurate comparison.


That is pretty much the same as saying there are no observations which can be correlated to this simulation. Which was my initial point. Using a combination of Helioseismology and surface observations we can detect the presence of sunspots 65000KM below the surface, if these Bihemispheric magnetic waves were there, the same techniques would reveal them as well.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2016
@bullschitt
Charged particles are the source of the magnetic field


"a" source of "a" magnetic field

What do you mean, physics clown?

so the field direction is related to the motion of the particles.


Only in field generated by current, otherwise the field directs the motion of the particles.
Google a place called CERN

Do you suspect a row of superconducting magnets around the sun?

You know absolutely nothing about physics in spite of your pretence.


"Stars are not affected by magnetic fields" - Phys1

That is correct. The motion of the sun is not to any signifance affected by a magnetic field.
Again, quote me any time, ignoramus.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2016

That is pretty much the same as saying there are no observations which can be correlated to this simulation.

That is correct.
Which was my initial point.

This is not what your initial post said. Let me refresh your memory:
Weird how when you use simulations of motion based on hydro dynamics, you get a picture of the sun that looks like ocean swells...nice job.

Find an actual photo of the sun in any wavelength where it looks like either picture above


Using a combination of Helioseismology and surface observations we can detect the presence of sunspots 65000KM below the surface, if these Bihemispheric magnetic waves were there, the same techniques would reveal them as well.

You need to back that up with scientific work.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2016
Find an actual photo of the sun in any wavelength where it looks like either picture above


And

comparing this simulation to actual observations would be an inaccurate comparison.


And

That is pretty much the same as saying there are no observations which can be correlated to this simulation.


My initial point followed by 2 quotes idiot king thinks don't mean the same thing....

Stars are not affected by magnetic fields
- Idiot king

Using a combination of Helioseismology and surface observations we can detect the presence of sunspots 65000KM below the surface, if these Bihemispheric magnetic waves were there, the same techniques would reveal them as well.

You need to back that up with scientific work.


Reposting the NASA link for idiot king

http://www.nasa.g...XefkrK70
barakn
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2016
Yes, because you made the spam live on. The URL is still visible.

Only an idiot like you, would actually click on that link. -antigoracle

Only an idiot like you would think the link was clickable. Seriously, hyperlinks have been differentiated from normal text using a different color, traditionally blue, since the '80s.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.