The Sun's coronal tail wags its photospheric dog

October 12, 2016 by Tracey Regan, New Jersey Institute of Technology
High-resolution images captured by NJIT's New Solar Telescope at Big Bear Solar Observatory show solar flares speeding up the rotation of sunspots. Credit: NJIT

Solar physicists have long viewed the rotation of sunspots as a primary generator of solar flares - the sudden, powerful blasts of electromagnetic radiation and charged particles that burst into space during explosions on the sun's surface. Their turning motion causes energy to build up that is released in the form of flares.

But a team of NJIT scientists now claims that flares in turn have a powerful impact on , the visible concentrations of magnetic fields on the sun's surface, or photosphere. In a paper published in Nature Communications this week, the researchers argue that flares cause sunspots to rotate at much faster speeds than are usually observed before they erupt.

Their observations, based on high-resolution images captured through NJIT's 1.6 meter New Solar Telescope (NST) at Big Bear Solar Observatory (BBSO), come as something of a surprise. The sun's outer layer, or corona, where flares are released, has a plasma density about a hundred million times smaller than that of the photosphere.

"It's analogous to the tail wagging the dog. The lower-density regions are much less energetic and forceful," said Chang Liu, a research professor of physics at NJIT and the principal author of the study, "Flare differentially rotates sunspot on Sun's surface."

"We do think the rotation of sunspots builds up magnetic energy that is released in form of solar flares, but we have also observed conclusively that flares can cause sunspots to rotate about 10 times faster," he added. "This highlights the powerful, magnetic nature of ."

Previous images captured by space solar missions at lower resolutions hinted at this phenomenon, the researchers said, but were inconclusive.

"Our new images allow us to not only confirm it, but to also characterize the time-spatial dimension of the sunspot's rotation - to describe its progressive, non-uniform rotation - as the flare travels through it," Liu said.

Haimin Wang, a distinguished professor of physics at NJIT and a co-author of the paper, said the observations will prompt scientists to revisit the mechanisms of flares - and the basic physics of the Sun - in a fundamental way.

"We used to think that the surface's magnetic evolution drives solar eruptions. Our new observations suggest that disturbances created in the solar outer atmosphere can also cause direct and significant perturbations on the surface through magnetic fields, a phenomenon not envisioned by any major contemporary solar eruption models. This has immediate and far-reaching implications in understanding energy and momentum transportation in eruptions on the Sun and other stars," Wang said. "We will continue to study, and possibly re-interpret, the relationship between the different layers of the Sun."

Images captured by NST, the world's largest ground-based solar telescope, are providing an unprecedented glimpse into the complex dynamics of the Sun's many layers, as well as insights into the massive eruptions originating in the solar atmosphere that are responsible for space weather.

Last year, scientists at BBSO captured the first high-resolution images of magnetic fields and plasma flows originating deep below the Sun's surface, tracing the evolution of sunspots and magnetic flux ropes through the chromosphere before their dramatic appearance in the corona as flaring loops.

Another recent set of images give a first-ever detailed view of the interior structure of umbrae - the dark patches in the center of sunspots - revealing dynamic magnetic fields responsible for the plumes of plasma that emerge as bright dots interrupting their darkness. The show the atmosphere above the umbrae to be finely structured, consisting of hot plasma intermixed with cool plasma jets as wide as 100 kilometers.

Explore further: New solar telescope peers deep into the sun to track the origins of space weather

More information: Chang Liu et al, Flare differentially rotates sunspot on Sun's surface, Nature Communications (2016). DOI: 10.1038/ncomms13104

Related Stories

IRIS spots plasma rain on sun's surface

August 8, 2016

On July 24, 2016, NASA's Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph, or IRIS, captured a mid-level solar flare: a sudden flash of bright light on the solar limb – the horizon of the sun – as seen at the beginning of this video. ...

Image: NASA's SDO captures mid-level solar flare

April 19, 2016

The sun emitted a mid-level solar flare, peaking at 8:29 pm EDT on April 17, 2016. NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, which watches the sun constantly, captured an image of the event. Solar flares are powerful bursts of radiation. ...

Recommended for you

Traveling to the sun: Why won't Parker Solar Probe melt?

July 19, 2018

This summer, NASA's Parker Solar Probe will launch to travel closer to the Sun, deeper into the solar atmosphere, than any mission before it. If Earth was at one end of a yard-stick and the Sun on the other, Parker Solar ...

Team creates high-fidelity images of Sun's atmosphere

July 18, 2018

In 1610, Galileo redesigned the telescope and discovered Jupiter's four largest moons. Nearly 400 years later, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope used its powerful optics to look deep into space—enabling scientists to pin down ...

37 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2016
the observations will prompt scientists to revisit the mechanisms of flares - and the basic physics of the Sun - in a fundamental way.

There are numerous other observations that should have caused them to revisit their pseudoscience a long time ago, but these are rote trained astrophysicists so original thinking is foreign to them. The solar physics are in desperate need of a reassessment of the basic physics, in a fundamental way...
This may help;
https://youtu.be/sFGb7NlUvgg
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2016
The solar physics are in desperate need of a reassessment of the basic physics
@cantread
i noticed that you still can't actually produce evidence supporting this claim, nor can you produce evidence that supports your eu claims about plasma physics or the electric sun crap-o-la

so again, because you can't seem to comprehend basic english:

repeating a lie doesn't make it more true

regurgitating a blatant lie that has been proven false repeatedly makes you a demonstrated cult acolyte of pseudoscience, so your post and frustrated false claim rant is called transference

see also: http://www.pppl.gov/

http://dx.doi.org...mms13104

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2016
@cd,
Science by Youtube. Yep, that'll have them running scared at the Mainstream Science Club (invite only).
Has Scott found his Sun powering current yet? Or realised that if it did exist we would have detected it?
What is it with EEs? Jeez.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2016
Has Scott found his Sun powering current yet? Or realised that if it did exist we would have detected it?

Ulysses detected "twisted" magnetic fields at the poles of the Sun, evidence of Birkeland currents.

And lest we not forget the influx of electrons Voyager measured.

http://electric-c...2013.pdf
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2016
http://electric-c...2013.pdf
PSEUDOSCIENCE PHISHING LINK

ya can't produce a reputable peer reviewed journal paper on the subject?
that demonstrates that you're incapable of finding any evidence based science

it also demonstrates more of the same biased Dunning-Kruger based blatantly regurgitated fanatical radical cult rhetoric false claim (AKA- delusion based LIE)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2016
Cap'n Stoopid, please speak up, I can't hear you.

Captain Stumpy5 / 5 (1) 43 minutes ago
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ...


Oh, right...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2016
This link was to be included in last post describing twisted fields at Sun's poles.
https://science.n...t15feb_1
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 18, 2016
Has Scott found his Sun powering current yet? Or realised that if it did exist we would have detected it?

Ulysses detected "twisted" magnetic fields at the poles of the Sun, evidence of Birkeland currents.

And lest we not forget the influx of electrons Voyager measured.

http://electric-c...2013.pdf


Only in the minds of electric woo supporters. If this is the long sought after current to power their electric sun, which would overturn all current models of the Sun, why did it not make front page news? As it surely would? Possibly due to the fact that they weren't actually Birkeland currents? http://onlinelibr...623/full
And Voyager doesn't help either. Scott's misunderstandings of that data aside, they aren't doing much out there, are they? They have to reach the Sun in his 'model'. In which case they have to be detectable at, say, 1 AU. Where are they?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 18, 2016
It should also be noted that Birkeland currents (as Peratt knew) would be detectable in radio and microwave. Thornhill, in support of this electric sun lunacy, invokes 'dark' currents, showing, yet again, his ignorance of all things scientific. 'Dark' just means that they aren't detected in visible light. They still emit in radio and microwave. Why don't we see them? If we've got one as close as 1 AU, why don't we see it?
I think you'll find that this is why 'Solar nuclear theories go out of the window', was never a headline. Essentially down to the people who were trying to overturn it not actually knowing what they were talking about. As usual.
Still, they could always write it up, and we could all have a laugh; sorry, I mean assess it
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2016
Here is a thought exercise for the electric geniuses: they are always telling us that electric current = magnetic field; magnetic field = electric current.
So, what would this so far invisible incoming electric current, and its magnetic field (presumably), do to the solar wind, and the IMF? What sort of observations should we make? What would they expect us to see? Bearing in mind that we already have an awful lot of data and observations of such?
Now, you can't get the Sun in a laboratory, so how will you go about determining this?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2016
Wow. I expected at least one electric genius to have answered this by now. Seems like they have no answers, eh?
So, no offence, why don't you do us all a favour, and STFU?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2016
Now, you can't get the Sun in a laboratory, so how will you go about determining this?

You're right that you can not get your pseudoscientific MHD sun in the lab, the Electric Sun model doesn't suffer from the same failings. The Electric Sun model should do just fine in laboratory experiments.
http://isciencefo.../safire/
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2016
Now, you can't get the Sun in a laboratory, so how will you go about determining this?

You're right that you can not get your pseudoscientific MHD sun in the lab, the Electric Sun model doesn't suffer from the same failings. The Electric Sun model should do just fine in laboratory experiments.
http://isciencefo.../safire/


You are seriously having a laugh!? SAFIRE? Lol. How are they going to write this up?
"Dear Editor, we put a squillion volts through a metallic sphere. This is what happened."
Editor/ Peer reviewer: "Fine. Hardly increases the sum of human knowledge, does it? You plugged your sphere into the mains, yes? What is the solar system equivalent? Evidence, please. Observation. No? Bugger off."
Doubt it would even get to peer review in a serious journal.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2016
Here is a thought exercise for the electric geniuses: they are always telling us that electric current = magnetic field; magnetic field = electric current.
So, what would this so far invisible incoming electric current, and its magnetic field (presumably), do to the solar wind, and the IMF? What sort of observations should we make? What would they expect us to see? Bearing in mind that we already have an awful lot of data and observations of such?
Now, you can't get the Sun in a laboratory, so how will you go about determining this?


I'll repeat this post, just in case anybody missed it. Any ideas, EU geniuses? Have we thought about this? Is anybody actually capable of figuring this out? Within EU?
Bloody unlikely, would be my guess.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2016
I'll spell this out for the hard of thinking; the SAFIRE experiment is absolutely pointless. A complete waste of money. What does it prove? What the idiot EU supporters should be asking is, "where is the current?". N'est-ce pas? Find that, and then you can waste $2.2m on an experiment. As it stands, you've got Jack S**t.
And this experiment proves absolutely nothing. As any peer reviewer will tell you.
If it isn't clear enough by now: FIND YOUR CURRENT. Then do the experiment. Logic. Yes?
Sticking a squillion volts through a metallic sphere proves zilch. End of story.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2016
Some other questions that cantthink has avoided;
Where is this Birkeland current? Why don't we see it?
Where are Scott's electrons? Why don't we see them?
Why does the Sun have a thermal spectrum? Not an electrical spectrum?
I could go on, but it's pointless. Idiots will believe what they want to believe.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2016
Editor/ Peer reviewer: "Fine. Hardly increases the sum of human knowledge, does it? You plugged your sphere into the mains, yes? What is the solar system equivalent? Evidence, please. Observation. No? Bugger off."

That's the same response people like you gave to Kristian Birkeland and his Terella experiments, how'do that work out for you?
I not only showed you the "twisted field lines" over the poles which clearly wouldn't be there without an electric current, it was also shown that extra-solar electrons are entering the heliosphere at a density far greater than needed to power the Sun via drift currents.
Doubt it would even get to peer review in a serious journal.

There is no doubt, due to blinding ignorance and dogmatic beliefs from individuals such as yourself.

"I have no trouble publishing in Soviet astrophysical journals, but my work is unacceptable to the American astrophysical journals." Hannes Alfven
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2016
The vulgar name callers who get emotional and experience fits of rage while discussing topics are always seen as the rational ones in my book...
Not.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2016
I would also ask, when/how did we discover Earth's Birkeland currents? Via radio? MW? Nope, not until spacecraft flew through them via in situ observation. Just like how Ulysses measured them via in situ observation at the Sun's poles.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2016
the Electric Sun model doesn't suffer from the same failings
@cantread
1- the electric sun isn't even a hypothesis
becuase
2- the electric sun is a delusion
and
3- there is no model, nor experiment, nor prediction that isn't already debunked by the evidence
therefore
it's pseudoscience to believe it still exists as anything logical to agree with
See also: http://www.tim-th...sun.html

The vulgar name callers who get emotional and experience fits of rage while discussing topics are always seen as the rational ones in my book...
Not
people like the eu cult who can't actually produce source material from reputable peer reviewed journals as evidence for their claims are the very definition of pseudoscience and the reason the following article was written: http://phys.org/n...mes.html

just because you fell for it doesn't mean we're all just as stupid
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 19, 2016
Oh dear. Cantthink is living up to his name! Pray tell, what are these electrons, that are nowhere near enough to power Scott's Sun, doing at 100AU? Surely they have to make it TO the Sun? Yes? Why are they detected at 100 AU, but not at 1 AU? Because they aren't there. What would happen if they were? As I've asked.
It is an idiotic hypothesis by people who haven't got a clue about what they talk of. I'm sure I'd let Prof. Scott rewire my house. Teach astrophysics to my kids? Not a chance.
The Ulysses mission did NOT detect Birkeland currents. Nobody has suggested they did. Except the idiots at Thunderdolts. Not really science that, is it?
Incoming current. Dark side of every planet in the solar system. Think about it. What is the Sun's power at 1 AU, outbound? What would the incoming current need to be at 1 AU? Duh.
Scott's misinterpretation of what Voyager detected simply doesn't help his model. We'd detect it at 1 AU. It would have implications for s/c and astronauts.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 19, 2016
Here is the maths that Scott should have done:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/electric-universe-fantasies-heliopause.html
Like I said,it doesn't help. Apart from the fact that such electrons would easily be detected at 1 AU. And aren't. And would have implications for spacecraft and astronauts. Or are we now moving on to other EU electric sun models, that also don't come close to working, nor agreeing with measurement, observation, scientific sense, etc?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 19, 2016
Some more maths in here from a plasma astrophysicist, something EU seem to lack:
https://forum.cos...tric-Sun
Funny how Alfven and Peratt didn't buy into this electric sun malarkey, eh? Perhaps they DID do the maths, and realised what various observations were telling us. Still, I guess a couple of EE s faffing around in their spare time have got it all figured out, eh?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 19, 2016
And a bit more discussion of how Scott managed to fudge his (non-published) data to try to support his impossible model:
https://forum.cos...t-claims
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 19, 2016
Here is just some of the immense scientific logic of EUs main protagonists, against which we are powerless to argue:

http://electric-c...erse.htm

"Interdisciplinary physicist Wal Thornhill (Jesus wept!*) ventures that, at one time, Earth may have been within the protective aura of a cool brown dwarf star, the proto-Saturn, which provided an ideal atmosphere for life on Earth. Given this configuration, Earth would have been bathed in Saturn's constant beneficent glow with no difference between day and night and a continual benign single season. This would have been the time "before time" that Dave Talbott theorizes was the "Golden Age", "Age of Perfect Virtue", or "Garden of Eden", depicted in one way or another in all diverse myths and religions."

*My addition :)

Well worth a read, if you need cheering up. The bit on dinosaurs is especially hilarious!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2016
It's laughable you continue to use the self proclaimed crank astronomer Tom "can't figure his way out of a wet paper bag" Bridgman to support your arguments.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2016
It's laughable you continue to use the self proclaimed crank astronomer Tom "can't figure his way out of a wet paper bag" Bridgman to support your arguments.


Really? Evidence of that, please. A qualified astrophysicist, versus the idiot Thornhill? Guess who I'd trust? Besides, he's far from the only scientist to say that this electric sun nonsense is .....nonsense. See the cosmoquest links.
That's why it only exists on crank science/ mythology/ book sales websites. Nobody takes it seriously.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2016
A qualified astrophysicist, versus the idiot Thornhill?

Therein lies the rub, astrophysicists (especially TB) are completely ignorant of real plasma processes in favor of their fanciful MHD models "that we know from experiments to be wrong". There have been several responses from the Thunderbolts guys to TB's completely steady stream of erroneous claims.
Ooh, ooh.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2016
astrophysicists (especially TB) are completely ignorant of real plasma processes
@cantread or think
except i just proved this is a complete lie that you're repeating in order to convince yourself

more to the point: i can back my arguments up with evidence ( http://www.pppl.gov/ ) whereas all you can do is keep repeating the same tired lie

kinda like your arguments like
There have been several responses from the Thunderbolts guys
sure, but are they valid scientific responses?

nope

otherwise you would have been able to produce studies or evidence supporting your claims

which would mean adherence to the scientific method

which would mean you could argue with links/references from reputable studies

and because you can't, we can prove that you're full of bullsh*t
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2016
@cd85

astrophysicists (especially TB) are completely ignorant of real plasma processes in favor of their fanciful MHD models


Crap


First step is to recognize the problem, you acknowledge the MHD models are crap. Good job!
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2016
@cd85

astrophysicists (especially TB) are completely ignorant of real plasma processes in favor of their fanciful MHD models


Crap


First step is to recognize the problem, you acknowledge the MHD models are crap. Good job!


And Scott's model is crap. As proved by TB. So do the maths, and show us how it really isn't. It was also shown to be crap by Tim Thompson, Brian Koberlein and Martin Volwerk (aka Tusenfem). Care to tell us who is actually supporting this garbage? Other than the idiot Thornhill? Got anything more than mythology to back this crap up?
Nah, didn't think so.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2016
The thing that amazes me, is that these idiots think that they are actually somewhere near the cutting edge of science! It has never occurred to them that nobody is taking the slightest bit of notice! Electric comets, electric craters, electric suns, electric bloody everything!
Give it up!!!!!! Nobody gives a sh*t. You are talking to a (by definition) sub 100 IQ audience. How can I put this politely?
Nobody is listening. Is that understood? Deary me.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2016
Shall we have some more from the genius Wallace Thornhill? Why not!

"It seems that when a dwarf star or gas giant planet "gives birth" to a rocky satellite, parent and child usually remain closely bound......This seemingly wild conjecture is supported by the global stories of prehistoric planetary encounters....The most benign situation for life in an Electric Universe is inside the electrical cocoon of a brown dwarf star. Radiant energy is then evenly distributed over the entire surface of any planet orbiting within the chromosphere of such a star, regardless of axial rotation, tilt, or orbital eccentricity....
The exceedingly thin atmosphere of such stars has the essential water and carbon compounds to mist down onto planetary surfaces.....Such a model provides one reason why the (SETI) project is unlikely to succeed. Any advanced civilization on such a planet will be unaware that the universe exists outside its own stellar environment...."
Et frigging cetera. Nutjob.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2016
Not only the above, but Wal goes on to caution us that:

"Our education systems are not suited to the broad interdisciplinary knowledge required in an Electric Universe."

What a fuxxwit. Seriously. What a tw*t. Anybody else think of more appropriate words for this uneducated, arrogant piece of sh*te? The guy is a tosspot of the highest order. Come on EEs, you can't all be that daft. Stand up for yourselves!

Read all about it here: http://www.holosc...-itself/
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2016
And before cantthink gets on his high horse about me calling the genius Thornhill all kinds of names,
let's remind ourselves of some of his idiotic blunders, and outright lies.
Comets. Lol. SW. 400 km/s. Combines with non-existent O-. Creates OH. Lol. Scientists (and their machines) mistake it as H2O. At least 20 comets with H2O unambiguously detected. LIE.
Pre-impact flash at Tempel 1; LIE.
Solid ice excavated at Tempel 1; not mentioned for some reason. LYING by omission.
Ridiculous paper in Open Astronomy Journal; reference paper to say Birkeland current was seen. Paper mentions all kinds of things, but NOT Birkeland currents. LIE.
I could go on, but his scientific illiteracy is well known to all but those who fall at his feet and worship.
In reality, he is a complete tosser, who wouldn't know a comet from an asteroid (obviously).
Anyone from the intellectual side (lol) of EU like to defend the con artist?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2016
Feel free to read this rebuttal to Bridgeman's obfuscation and misinterpretation, it's quite laughable how ignorant he shows himself to be.
http://electric-c...utTB.pdf
jonesdumb is quite the parrot of the two-faced Bridgeman, peas in the pod and all...
jonesdumb is Tom Bridgeman's parrot, Cap'n Stoopid being Tim (Timmy) Thompson. Here is a Scott's response to the equally adroitless Timmy.
http://electric-c...nder.pdf

The four of you complete a circle of cockpuppets.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2016
http://electric-c...utTB.pdf
PSEUDOSCIENCE, PHISHING and SPAM LINK
Cap'n ... being Tim (Timmy) Thompson
and apparently you're the stooge of scott and anyone else who can publish a book (which is anyone literate enough to put a sentence together and with enough cash to pay for it to be published)

more to the point: i noticed that you don't have any actual journal studies that refute my arguments, which *do* have journal studies (validated studies, actually) supporting their conclusions

i've listed more than Thompsons arguments, and Thompson also has the benefit of having actual evidence and studies to support his comments (unlike you)...

so where is your evidence other than the posting of scott's OPINION?????

.

[crickets]
.

.
[crickets]

.

.

[crickets]

.

so... that's pretty much it then, right?

the evidence clearly shows that you're a liar and can't actually produce anything other than opinion

and other people's opinion at that!

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.