Ripples in space key to understanding cosmic rays

October 17, 2016, Expertsvar
The MMS satellites encounter a shock wave that forms when a fast wind of charged particles from the Sun slams into Earth’s magnetic field. Credit: APS/Carin Cain

In a new study researchers at the Swedish Institute of Space Physics have used measurements from NASA's MMS (Magnetospheric MultiScale) satellites to reveal that there are ripples, or surface waves, moving along the surface of shocks in space. Such ripples in shocks can affect how plasma is heated and are potential sites of particle acceleration. These results have been published in the latest issue of Physical Review Letters.

Most visible matter in the Universe consists of ionized gas known as plasma. Shock waves in plasmas form around planets, stars and supernovas. Shocks in space plasma are efficient particle accelerators. Shocks in supernova explosions are thought to be the main source of cosmic rays – very high energy charged particles from space.

The details on how particles are accelerated and how plasma is heated at shocks in space plasmas are still unclear. The are usually considered planar surfaces but numerical simulations have previously showed that ripples can form on the surface of shock waves. The elusive ripples have been hard to study in space due to their small size and high speed.

A new study, by researchers at the Swedish Institute of Space Physics (IRF) in Uppsala, shows that these ripples do in fact exist in the Earth's bow shock. The study uses the newly launched MMS mission to study the shock in unprecedented detail.

"With the new MMS spacecraft we can, for the first time, resolve the structure of the at these small scales," says Andreas Johlander, PhD student at IRF, who led the study.

The results are of importance to the broader field of astrophysics where these ripples are thought to play an important role in accelerating particles to very high energies. The structure of the shock wave also determine how plasma is deflected and heated at shocks.

"These direct observations of shock ripples in a allow us to characterize the physical properties of the . This brings us one step closer to understanding how can produce ," says Andreas Johlander.

Explore further: Experiments shine light on exotic cosmic rays

More information: A. Johlander et al. Rippled Quasiperpendicular Shock Observed by the Magnetospheric Multiscale Spacecraft, Physical Review Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.165101

Related Stories

Experiments shine light on exotic cosmic rays

May 4, 2016

The Earth is under constant bombardment by subatomic particles called cosmic rays, including some, known as ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, which pack much more punch than the world's most powerful particle accelerators. Fortunately, ...

Cassini sheds light on cosmic particle accelerators

February 20, 2013

(Phys.org)—During a chance encounter with what appears to be an unusually strong blast of solar wind at Saturn, NASA's Cassini spacecraft detected particles being accelerated to ultra-high energies. This is similar to the ...

Voyager 1 revealing regularity of interstellar shock waves

December 16, 2014

(Phys.org)—The "tsunami wave" that NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft began experiencing earlier this year is still propagating outward, according to new results. It is the longest-lasting shock wave that researchers have seen ...

Cosmic particle accelerators get things going

November 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- ESA's Cluster satellites have discovered that cosmic particle accelerators are more efficient than previously thought. The discovery has revealed the initial stages of acceleration for the first time, a process ...

Recommended for you

Pond dwellers called Euglena swim in polygons to avoid light

September 25, 2018

In any seemingly quiet pond the still waters actually teem with tiny pond dwellers called Euglena gracilis. Unseen to the naked eye, the single-celled organism spirals through the water, pulled along a relatively straight ...

Explainer: The US push to boost 'quantum computing'

September 24, 2018

A race by U.S. tech companies to build a new generation of powerful "quantum computers" could get a $1.3 billion boost from Congress, fueled in part by lawmakers' fear of growing competition from China.

A new way to count qubits

September 24, 2018

Researchers at Syracuse University, working with collaborators at the University of Wisconsin (UW)-Madison, have developed a new technique for measuring the state of quantum bits, or qubits, in a quantum computer.

38 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (16) Oct 17, 2016
The details on how particles are accelerated and how plasma is heated at shocks in space plasmas are still unclear.

It's because astrophysicists chose to ignore decades of laboratory research begun in the 1920's by Langmuir and continued on by Alfvén and others. The physics of double layers is fairly well understood by those who acknowledge the electrical properties of plasma, those who continue to believe it's a gas and use failed MHD models will continue to be confounded by that which some understood 80 years ago.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 17, 2016
It's because astrophysicists chose to ignore decades of laboratory research
@cantread or think
if there was evidence you could demonstrate this with you would be the superhero of the pseudoscience world

considering the fact that every time you've made that claim i've easily refuted it with a single link that demonstrates you're not only wrong, but continuing to promote a blatant lie ( http://www.pppl.gov/ ) ...

then your post is what most people would call "fanatical radical cult rhetoric"
failed MHD models
another blatantly regurgitated fanatical radical cult rhetoric false claim (AKA- LIE)

see CFD ( http://www.pppl.gov/node/3269 ) or modern research instead of relying on your pseudoscience site for knowledge
http://www.pppl.gov/search/node/MHD

repeating your lies doesn't make them more true
http://phys.org/n...s-crimes
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2016
What was that Cap'n Stoopid?

Captain Stumpy5 / 5 (3) 1 hour ago
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ...

Ok, got it.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 17, 2016
What was that Cap'n
@cant-read
wow
you don't want to acknowledge the evidence that directly proves your idiocy cult fetish beliefs wrong, as demonstrated here: http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

more to the point, you're ad acolyte who only listens to what she believes in (as demonstrated above) while the world proves you're an idiot:
https://briankobe...niverse/

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/06/scott-rebuttal-ii-peratt-galaxy-model.html

if ya don't like blogs, try the actual evidence against you: https://arxiv.org...1588.pdf

https://arxiv.org...5956.pdf

there is a lot more, if you ever want to address it and not lie
feel free to let me know
OR
get published in a reputable journal with peer review and refute the evidence with actual science instead of whining about it here
LMFAO
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2016
It's absolutely stunning to see cantdrive's remark down-voted, for he is absolutely correct on this point. The "ripples" are plainly double layers. Let's not forget that they've already been observed in the Van Allen radiation belts ...

https://physics.a...s/v6/131

"In Physical Review Letters, Forrest Mozer at the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues [1] report the first in situ observations in the radiation belts of streams of thousands of 'double layers'"

The double layer is arguably the most foundational concept in all of laboratory plasma physics. There is no science in simply assuming that it cannot occur in space. That is dogma.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2016
To be clear, the double layer is probably THE most fundamental concept of laboratory plasma physics. Any approach which assumes that they cannot occur in space cannot be considered an empirical approach.

Scientists have already admitted that they are observed in the Van Allen radiation belts. The burden is upon anybody who wants to claim they cannot occur elsewhere to explain why not.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2016
Double layers are one of THE most fundamental processes observed in the plasma laboratory. Scientists have confirmed their presence in the Van Allen radiation belts. If somebody wants to claim that they cannot occur elsewhere, the burden is upon that person to explain WHY NOT.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2016
@hannes/reeve
It's absolutely stunning to see cantdrive's remark down-voted
and i quoted the reasons why it was downvoted by me

more to the point: when you are so fanatically devoted to a delusion that anything that even slightly discusses or can be argued to resemble your fanatical cult belief due to the intentional manipulation of interpretations of data & cherry-picked points, then it ceases to be argument from science or evidence and becomes, literally, another blatantly regurgitated fanatical radical cult rhetoric false claim (AKA- a LIE)

now, considering your arguments in the past re: Daniel Kahneman, then i am more surprised that you're not arguing against his post as well considering the parts like
astrophysicists chose to ignore decades of laboratory research
or this gem
believe it's a gas and use failed MHD models
both of which are blatantly false claims from delusion
http://www.auburn...ion.html
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2016
@hannes/reeve cont'd
There is no science in simply assuming that it cannot occur in space
there is also no science or scientists that say or assume it can't happen in space
proof: Goertz, C.K. & Joyce, G. Astrophys Space Sci (1975) 32: 165. doi:10.1007/BF00646223

or you can simply hit up arxiv and see the recent stuff the idiot cd keeps saying isn't there, like
https://arxiv.org...4388.pdf

which also directly refutes his (and your) contention that astrophysicists are ignoring plasma in space or the science of plasma physics
If somebody wants to claim that they cannot occur elsewhere, the burden is upon that person to explain WHY NOT
by all means, quote where someone is claiming that they cannot occur, please

it aint the double layer claims that get people like you & the eu cult labeled trolls or pseudoscience idiots...

it's the misrepresentation of facts, repeated blatant lies and delusional rants that are directly contradicted by evidence
Uncle Ira
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2016
It's absolutely stunning to see cantdrive's remark down-voted, for he is absolutely correct on this point.


Well I think it is absolute stunning too that you would take the time to write that. You realize he is the NAZI-Skippy, right? That is all the reason anybody needs to down vote him in karma scores.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2016
Hi cantdrive85, HannesAlfven. :)

I am interested to know your thoughts/answer re my question in the thread:

http://phys.org/n...its.html

Thanks.

PS: Uncle Ira, please try to keep your comments/votes on the science not the persons. Eg, your comment re Nazis is rather hypocritical anyway; seeing as Werner Von Braun and his Space Rocket team were Nazis helping Hitler kill thousands of innocent women and children via indiscriminate V1 and V2 attacks on cities and towns. So keep it about the science not the persons, hey? Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2016
OOps, double post removed.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2016
@ cantdrive85, HannesAlfven.

Speaking of Double Layers: I am interested to know your thoughts/answer re my question in the following thread: http://phys.org/n...its.html

Thanks.

PS @ Uncle Ira: Please try to keep your comments/votes on the science not the persons. Eg, your comment re "Nazi-Skippys" is rather hypocritical anyway; seeing as Werner Von Braun and his Space Rocket team were also "Nazi-Skippys" helping Hitler kill thousands of innocent women and children via indiscriminate V1 and V2 attacks on cities and towns; yet your country happily learned from their advanced Science & Technology, despite their personal status/history. So keep it about the Science not the persons, hey? Thanks.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2016
Again, triple post deleted.

Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2016
You realize he is the NAZI-Skippy, right?

Do you have a source for that?


Other than all his anti-Semitic comments here at the phyorg about Jews,,,, Zionists plots to scare people on Global Warming,,,,,, Israel and international Hebrew conspiracies to control science? Non, I am just going on that.

Maybe Captain-Skippy might have some of them bookmarked but I don't. He's been on my ignore-him list for years and years.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2016
Uncle Ira: Please try to keep your comments/votes on the science not the persons. Eg, your comment re "Nazi-Skippys" is rather hypocritical anyway; seeing as Werner Von Braun and his Space Rocket team were also "Nazi-Skippys" helping Hitler kill thousands of innocent women and children via indiscriminate V1 and V2 attacks on cities and towns; yet your country happily learned from their advanced Science & Technology, despite their personal status/history.
If it were up to me Von-the-Braun-Skippy would have been put on trial. Science be damned, the NAZI's were the worst evil that ever was on this earth, and that goes for the ones who aided and abetted them or even stood by enjoying the "good things" Hitler did for the Germans. Non Cher, there is non such thing as a good NAZI.

Thanks.

You are welcome to my opinions anytime.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2016
Revisionist history is deceitful and duplicitous, as shown by the paedophile uncle and propagandists throughout history.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2016
For those that didn't pick up on the assumption cleverly embedded within the wikipedia entry,

Or the assumption that the Sun isn't a source of energy.
"Unlike experiments in the laboratory, the concept of such double layers in the magnetosphere, and any role in creating the aurora, suffers from there so far being no identified steady source of energy."

Or that the Earth isn't already known to be connected to the Sun;
http://www.i-sis....ield.php
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2016
It's because astrophysicists chose to ignore decades of laboratory research
@cantread or think


nor drive
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2016
In a sense, it is circular logic: Since the wiki's author assumes that the system is electrically closed
@chris/alfven
what? no scientific refute or studies showing where i am wrong WRT your intentional gaffe and blatant false claims about double layers and "There is no science in simply assuming that it cannot occur in space"????

and here i thought you were a researcher (LOL)

while you are at it, why not dissect this threads comments into Daniel Kahneman's arguments regarding slow/fast brain... make sure you annotate the responses and they evidence so we can all see it, ok?

and then take a few moments to notice that your arguments are entirely subjective from OPINION - or rather, your "interpretations" of science with a touch of "sententious verbosity" (thank otto for that one)
http://www.auburn...ion.html

PS- ya can't be aphoristic if the evidence directly refutes your claims
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2016
Phails1, it seems, wants to join uncle paedo in his revisionism.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2016
What's striking is how much jargon and effort has gone into the trick
@chris/alfven
in philosophy and pseudoscience, the only requirement is for a logical sounding argument to take a person from point a to point b

in science, however, that argument must also be testable, falsifiable as well as supported with evidence

this is why pseudoscience (like the eu) will take the comments "endothermic vertebrates, characterised by feathers, toothless beaked jaws, the laying of hard-shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, a four-chambered heart, and a lightweight but strong skeleton living near water" and automatically assume: its a DUCK

but seagulls, pelicans, eagles, and any bird on the Brit isles or in FLA also perfectly fits this description

the difference between the eu and science: science requires clarification and evidence to define what type of bird whereas the eu automatically assume the bird and look for any reason not to change the description
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2016
@chris/alfven cont'd
It was in part the vandalism of wikipedia that has occurred over the past decade which inspired me to focus on scientific controversies
bullsh*t

it was solely your desire to advocate for what you *believe* in

there is a specific criteria for something to be called "science" - and the eu doesn't meet that criteria in any way except for the "think of interesting questions" stage ( https://en.wikipe...cess.svg ). and even that is limited to argument from ignorance

if there was valid verifiable evidence for the arguments made by the eu you would be publishing that BS in a reputable peer-reviewed journal and not attempting to gain acolytes on a pop-sci news aggregate site
The public needs a source which they can count on to learn ...
let them go to the AAAS or a reputable journal

just because you're on the net doesn't mean you're legit OR science
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2016
one last point re: @chris/alfven
The wikipedia entry is much like locking an electrical appliance into a safe, then exclaiming, "See! It doesn't work!".
so you would rather argue the semantics about the wiki page rather than produce the irrefutable evidence that demonstrates the science is wrong?

i gave you evidence that directly refuted your claims WRT the above but you're going to focus on the wiki page and it's wording?

you are *literally* ignoring the overwhelming physical evidence from not only a laboratory that employs electrical engineers and astrophysicists but from reputable journals that have been validated to argue about the perceived delusion you see...

and you can't see how that is the very definition of pseudoscience and crackpot?

http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
HannesAlfven
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2016
Notice that Captain Stumpy never took the time to defend or elaborate on the logic of the wikipedia article. All we get is a series of unrelated rants.

Apparently, anybody who refuses to accept the assumption that any voltage potential in space is contained by some volume is a pseudoscientist.

Sydney Chapman set the geosciences back by a half-century with this same claim for the aurora.

At what point does the universe become closed?

Where and why does this occur?

The approach of modern astrophysicists is to simply assume it is closed, and build theories upon that assumption ...

... which wouldn't be a big deal if they didn't go to so much effort to brand anybody who refuses to accept their assumption as unscientific.

The fact is that these obviously remain open questions, and nobody can be faulted for assuming that the universe is electrically connected -- because it will be some time before we definitively know one way or another.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2016
Notice that Captain Stumpy never took the time to defend or elaborate on the logic of the wikipedia article
@chris/alfven
because i aint here to talk about the semantics of articles - that is your strawman argument

the fact that you don't like wiki-semantics or definitions has absolutely no bearing at all whatsoever on the fact that you can't actually produce validated information to refute the studies i linked which directly undermine your argument and prove your posts are blatantly false claims (AKA-LIES)

so my point is not an "unrelated rant" - my point is directly related to the article as well as your own posts

in fact, it should produce a really huge red-flag in your own mind showing you that the arguments from the electric bullsh*t that you are making is based upon a cult-like religious argument and not one from evidence, science or even reality

Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2016
They want the entry to sound like science has concluded something, but rather than pointing to observations -- which make the opposite case -- they point to some math which simply asserts their preferred conclusion.


On the money. The perfect example is the Black Hole Math that Schwarzschild concocted right after Einstein published his thesis on General Relativity.

Shwarzschild took every law of physics established in Special & General Relativity & turned them on it's head to come up with Infinite Gravity Wells on the surface of a finite stellar mass. The Black Hole Math he concocted was a reverse application of the Inverse Square Law as applied to forces of gravity, whereby gravitational attraction was at it's maximum at the center of a MASS rather than at the surface where Einstein established it. Then the dummy mathematically inferred Infinite Density could occur by simply squeezing a given mass into ever smaller volumes, then like magic more gravity shows up.

Osiris1
5 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2016
Mr Phizz, by ODE you mean 'ordinary differential equation' , right? Of course that leaves open the number of dependent variables, the degrees, etc.....tends to lower the complexity of the matrices a bit the lower the variable numbers.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2016
Shwarzschild took every law of physics established in Special & General Relativity & turned them on it's head to come up with Infinite Gravity Wells on the surface of a finite stellar mass. The Black Hole Math he concocted was a reverse application of the Inverse Square Law


That's outright garbage. The man solved an ODE, something you can only dream of and do so here occasionally.


Below is copied from Wkipedia:

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[63] The singular region can be thought of as having infinite density. Observers falling into a Schwarzschild black hole cannot avoid being carried into the singularity, once they cross the event horizon. When they reach the singularity, they are crushed to infinity."

"Garbage" huh? You mean BHs?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2016
how can somebody "define" whether or not the universe is electrically connected?
@chris/alfven
that is your own strawman argument, not mine, nor is it relevant
What you're doing is making it seem normal to make claims that get far ahead of the data
like what?

what claim have i made that is a claim that got "far ahead of the data"?

.

[crickets]

that's right, spark-girl... i've made none
not one

whereas i can point to quite a few claims you, specifically, have made that is not only a blatant false claim (AKA- a LIE) but it is also intentionally repeated

who are you trying to convince as to the legitimacy of your claims?
it sure aint anyone with any common sense or logic... so it must be yourself

cult rhetoric is designed to be circular and oft-repeated (see 75% of cantdrive's posts here)
it aint true, it's just oft repeated to establish a rote regurgitation by the members of the cult in order to remove the thought process - you're exceptional WRT that
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2016
@chris/alfven cont'd
You and the wiki author insist that we accept your assumption.
actually, no
like i said, you are the one making the strawman wiki argument

you want to argue that point, bring your evidence to someone who gives a sh*t

not only am i not arguing that you accept any of my assumptions, but i aint arguing for you to accept ANY assumptions

more to the point, my argument is firmly grounded in factual validated evidence based science

not pseudoscience
not argument from authority
not faerie dust delusions like electric grand canyons or electric suns

factual validated evidence based science
in fact, one particular point has more than 100,000 experiments in a lab done by electrical engineers that is proving you to be either:
1- completely illiterate

2- blatantly stupid

3- part of a cult that truly can't see the evidence due to their religious devotion to a concept

you can choose which, but there aint no 4th option considering the evidence
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2016
@chris/alfven last
The Twilight of the Scientific Age
i can list references too... but mine are relevant to your tactics and pseudoscience bullsh*t regurgitation
What's the harm in 'alternative' science?
... Such decisions are all too often based on a poor understanding of how science works – and usually guided by someone's commercial interest.

The truth is that in science there are no authorities. There are experts at most, and even their opinions can be challenged by anyone – so long as there's evidence to back up the argument
http://phys.org/n...mes.html

all you need is evidence ... and you can't seem to come up with any of that, spark-worshipper
learn some science
http://www.auburn...ion.html

http://www.pppl.gov/node/3269

https://arxiv.org...4388.pdf

https://arxiv.org...5956.pdf

https://arxiv.org...1588.pdf

Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2016
In your quote it says clearly "according to GRT". They are communicating the consequences of GRT.


.......just the opposite of your re-interpretation of Wiki, they are mis-communicating consequences of General Relativity. If Schwarzschild would have had half the brain you praise him for, he would never have attempted to contaminate the laws of physics using his Black Hole Math to concoct a stellar mass that violated the Inverse Square Law.

It is beyond bizarre to dream up a concept of math that creates an infinite gravitational field at the center of a stellar mass for sole the concept of creating a region of infinite density, such a concept is better known as Perpetual Motion.

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.