Scientists observe first planet-induced stellar pulsations

February 14, 2017 by Jennifer Chu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
For the first time, astronomers have observed a star pulsing in response to its orbiting planet. The star, HAT-P-2, pictured, is one of the most massive exoplanets known today. The planet, named HAT-P-2b, tracks its star in a highly eccentric orbit, flying extremely close to and around the star, then hurtling far out before eventually circling back around. Credit: NASA (edited by MIT News)

For the first time, astronomers from MIT and elsewhere have observed a star pulsing in response to its orbiting planet.

The star, which goes by the name HAT-P-2, is about 400 light years from Earth and is circled by a gas giant measuring eight times the mass of Jupiter—one of the most massive exoplanets known today. The planet, named HAT-P-2b, tracks its star in a highly , flying extremely close to and around the star, then hurtling far out before eventually circling back around.

The researchers analyzed more than 350 hours of observations of HAT-P-2 taken by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and found that the star's brightness appears to oscillate ever so slightly every 87 minutes. In particular, the star seems to vibrate at exact harmonics, or multiples of the planet's orbital frequency—the rate at which the planet circles its star.

The precisely timed pulsations have lead the researchers to believe that, contrary to most theoretical model-based predictions of exoplanetary behavior, HAT-P-2b may be massive enough to periodically distort its star, making the star's molten surface flare, or pulse, in response.

"We thought that planets cannot really excite their , but we find that this one does," says Julien de Wit, a postdoc in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. "There is a physical link between the two, but at this stage, we actually can't explain it. So these are mysterious pulsations induced by the star's companion."

De Wit is a the lead author of a paper detailing the results, published today in Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Getting a pulse

The team came upon the by chance. Originally, the researchers sought to generate a precise map of an exoplanet's temperature distribution as it orbits its star. Such a map would help scientists track how energy is circulated through a planet's atmosphere, which can give clues to an atmosphere's wind patterns and composition.

With this goal in mind, the team viewed HAT-P-2 as an ideal system: Because the planet has an eccentric orbit, it seesaws between temperature extremes, turning
cold as it moves far away from its star, then rapidly heating as it swings extremely close.

"The star dumps an enormous amount of energy onto the planet's atmosphere, and our original goal was to see how the planet's atmosphere redistributes this energy," de Wit says.

The researchers obtained 350 hours of observations of HAT-P-2, taken intermittently by Spitzer's infrared telescope between July 2011 and November 2015. The dataset represents one of the largest ever taken by Spitzer, giving de Wit and his colleagues plenty of observations to allow for detecting the incredibly tiny signals required to map an exoplanet's temperature distribution.

The team processed the data and focused on the window in which the planet made its closest approach, passing first in front of and then behind the star. During these periods, the researchers measured the star's brightness to determine the amount of energy, in the form of heat, transferred to the planet.

Each time the planet passed behind the star, the researchers saw something unexpected: Instead of a flat line, representing a momentary drop as the planet is masked by its star, they observed tiny spikes—oscillations in the star's light, with a period of about 90 minutes, that happened to be exact multiples of the planet's orbital frequency.

"They were very tiny signals," de Wit says. "It was like picking up the buzzing of a mosquito passing by a jet engine, both miles away."

Lots of theories, one big mystery

Stellar pulsations can occur constantly as a star's surface naturally boils and turns over. But the tiny pulsations detected by de Wit and his colleagues seem to be in concert with the planet's orbit. The signals, they concluded, must not be due to anything in the star itself, but to either the circling planet or an effect in Spitzer's instruments.

The researchers ruled out the latter after modeling all the possible instrumental effects, such as vibration, that could have affected the measurements, and finding that none of the effects could have produced the pulsations they observed.

"We think these pulsations must be induced by the planet, which is surprising," de Wit says. "We've seen this in systems with two rotating stars that are supermassive, where one can really distort the other, release the distortion, and the other one vibrates. But we did not expect this to happen with a planet—even one as massive as this."

"This is really exciting because, if our interpretations are correct, it tells us that can have a significant impact on physical phenomena operating in their host-stars," says co-author Victoria Antoci, a postdoc at Aarhus University in Denmark. "In other words, the star 'knows' about its planet and reacts to its presence."

The team has some theories as to how the planet might be causing its star to pulse. For example, perhaps the planet's transient gravitational pull is disturbing the star just enough to tip it toward a self-pulsating phase. There are stars that naturally pulse, and perhaps HAT-P-2b is pushing its star toward that state, the way adding salt to a simmering pot of water can trigger it to boil over. De Wit says this is just one of several possibilities, but getting to the root of the stellar pulsations will require much more work.

"It's a mystery, but it's great, because it demonstrates our understanding of how a planet affects its star is not complete," de Wit says. "So we'll have to move forward and figure out what's going on there."

Explore further: Bright star reveals new exoplanet

More information: Astrophysical Journal Letters, DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/836/2/L17

Related Stories

Bright star reveals new exoplanet

January 22, 2014

An international team of astronomers at Stellar Astrophysics Centre in Aarhus, Denmark, have discovered a new exoplanet, christened "Kepler-410A b." The planet is about the size of Neptune and orbits the brightest star in ...

Theft behind Planet 9 in our solar system

May 31, 2016

Through a computer-simulated study, astronomers at Lund University in Sweden show that it is highly likely that the so-called Planet 9 is an exoplanet. This would make it the first exoplanet to be discovered inside our own ...

Monster planet is 'dancing with the stars'

December 16, 2015

A team made up almost entirely of current and former Carnegie scientists has discovered a highly unusual planetary system comprised of a Sun-like star, a dwarf star, and an enormous planet sandwiched in between.

New exoplanet too big for its stars

May 1, 2015

The Australian discovery of a strange exoplanet orbiting a small cool star 500 light years away is challenging ideas about how planets form.

Migrating exoplanets

September 19, 2016

Many known exoplanets orbit close to their host star, within one-tenth of an astronomical unit (one AU is the average distance of the Earth from the Sun). Since their orbital periods are therefore very short and their gravitational ...

Recommended for you

Study details the history of Saturn's small inner moons

May 22, 2018

The small inner moons of Saturn look like giant ravioli and spaetzle. Their spectacular shape has been revealed by the Cassini spacecraft. For the first time, researchers of the University of Bern show how these moons were ...

Two bright high-redshift quasars discovered

May 21, 2018

Astronomers have detected two new bright quasars at a redshift of about 5.0. The newly found quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) are among the brightest high-redshift quasars known to date. The finding was presented May 9 in a paper ...

First interstellar immigrant discovered in the solar system

May 21, 2018

A new study has discovered the first known permanent immigrant to our Solar System. The asteroid, currently nestling in Jupiter's orbit, is the first known asteroid to have been captured from another star system. The work ...

100 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Chris_Reeve
Feb 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
691Boat
5 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2017
[qSeems, once again, that the training has apparently biased the researchers against an explanation that they already see local support for.
So go ahead and explain why we don't see these pulsations every 8 minutes when the Sun and Earth "electrically connect" to support your theory. I am assuming that you believe the reconnection and subsequent flow of charged particles is what explains the pulsation they are seeing? If so, why don't we see this in our solar system?
Macksb
1 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2017
This is yet another example of Art Winfree's theory of coupled oscillators in the world of physics. For more, see my many other Physorg posts on this topic. Google search term: Winfree macksb physorg.

Winfree applied his theory to biology (heart cells, Malaysian fireflies, gaits of a horse and much more). He did not venture into physics. But as I have shown in many posts, Winfree's theory of coupled oscillators applies usefully to physics. Winfree's theory readily explains such "surprises" as this periodic relationship between planet and star.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2017
This is yet another example of Art Winfree's theory of coupled oscillators in the world of physics.


Is it? Tell you what - why don't we wait for the people who are more than qualified and capable of assessing the data, to actually do so, before we declare the mystery solved?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2017
The precisely timed pulsations have lead the researchers to believe that, contrary to most theoretical model-based predictions of exoplanetary behavior, HAT-P-2b may be massive enough to periodically distort its star, making the star's molten surface flare, or pulse, in response.

As usual the astrophysicists likely have their cart in front of their horse. It is more likely the electrical oscillations are driving the planet's orbit.

Chris_Reeve
Feb 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2017

Is it? Tell you what - why don't we wait for the people who are more than qualified and capable of assessing the data, to actually do so, before we declare the mystery solved?

Ah yes, the appeal to authority. You really have these fallacious arguments down pat.
Macksb
1 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2017
Jones Dave: I bow to your superior wisdom, so I will proceed as you suggest:. Here's what qualified experts (the authors) report as the facts.

1. "..a star pulsing in response to its orbiting planet."

2. "..the star's brightness appears to oscillate... every 87 minutes."

3. "...the star seems to vibrate at exact harmonics, or multiples of the planet's orbital frequency."

4. "... there is a physical link between the two."

5. "Mysterious pulsations induced by the star's companion."

6. "They observed tiny spikes--oscillations in the star's light."

7. "....the tiny pulsations... seem to be in concert with the planet's orbit."

8. "these pulsation must be induced by the planet, which is surprising."

My theory, which is Art Winfree's theory of coupled periodic oscillators, seems quite relevant. But In my next post I will follow your instruction and report on the theory offered by the qualified experts.
Macksb
1 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2017
Here now is the theoretical explanation offered by the authors, in haec verba:

1. "...we actually can't explain it."

2. "...mysterious."

3. Penultimate Paragraph: Honest hand waiving.

4. Last paragraph: "It's a mystery."

The facts fit my theory. There is no opposing theory on offer. If you have one, present it.

I congratulate the authors on their outstanding work and their excellent report.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (9) Feb 15, 2017
^^^^You are reading a bloody press release!!!!! Understand? It is NOT A PRIMARY SOURCE. How many times do you people need to be told that? Are you all taking lessons from the idiot Thornhill?
From the easily accessible abstract alone, you have:

These pulsation modes correspond to exact harmonics of the planet's orbital frequency, ***indicative of a tidal origin.*** Transient tidal effects can excite pulsation modes in the envelope of a star, but, to date, such pulsations had only been detected in highly eccentric stellar binaries. ***Current stellar models*** are unable to reproduce HAT-P-2's pulsations, suggesting that our ***understanding of the interactions at play in this system is incomplete****.


Not that they haven't got a clue. They have good reason to believe it is a tidal effect. I have no doubt that models of this system are being devised and/ or run.
So let's hold off on the "I know what it is" BS.
And look up the scientific definition of "theory".
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2017
The facts fit my theory. There is no opposing theory on offer. If you have one, present it.


You haven't got a "theory." You haven't even got a hypothesis. When you have, having downloaded the paper, and calculated your "idea" based on the orbital parameters, stellar mass, planetary mass, stellar class, etc, etc, etc, then perhaps you could link us to it.
Until then you have nothing, other than a couple of comments on a science news website! You'll find that science isn't actually done like that. Thankfully.
691Boat
5 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2017
The idea that such connections might in some cases deplete the star of its ions -- which might in turn dim the star -- should also not be especially controversial.

The issue is that the star is increasing in brightness, not dimming. Per the abstract, it is increasing in 4.5um emissions ~40ppm. But, if you feel that our solar system can "electrically connect" every 8 minutes but not cause a flare, while another system does flare, with the cause being an electrical connection, more power to you.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 15, 2017
^^^^You are reading a bloody press release!

They wouldn't know the difference between a fairy tale, an ad, a press release a news article or a scientific paper if their life depended on it. Don't even bother.

They're just all waving giant "I am an idiot" flags over their heads - and they don't even notice.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
691Boat
5 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2017
The Earth presumably has an iron core, and is the focus at its magnetic poles of a flow of charged particles directed by the Sun.

The Sun creates a medium -- plasma -- which is widely recognized as being as conductive as copper.


I agree that there is a solar wind, I don't think anyone will argue that. What I do not agree with is your statement regarding the solar wind being as conductive as copper. Show me where that data is. I am more than happy to admit being wrong, but I think that the low density of the solar wind itself is preventing such high conductivity as you are claiming.
If the solar wind was that conductive, why would the earth then have a net charge like you claim? Should it not be neutral referenced to the Sun since they "electrically connect" every 8 minutes? I know when voltage differences get shorted with copper, bad things happen, yet we don't see these things when the Sun "electrically connects" to the Earth via a copper-like conductor EVERY 8 MINUTES.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2017
We plainly see electrical connections -- like sprites and blue jets -- connecting thunderstorms to the very edge of space.


No, we plainly don't.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2017
It sounds like the usual EU inability to realise that if the Sun had a substantial charge, then the solar wind wouldn't exist as it does - positive ions AND negative electrons, flowing away at the SAME speed. If it had, one of those would go one way, and the other the other way. They need to look up quasi-neutrality.
Currents can be induced by the Earth's magnetosphere, or any other atmosphere, such as at a comet, interacting with the solar wind. As is well known.
As usual, it is total non-science, interlaced with total misunderstanding. And zero evidence.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2017
To support just the "normal" part of science while being overtly hostile to "revolutionary" science is self-serving and a rejection of the larger process of change in the sciences -- which is honestly what makes science unique.


Swap out the word 'normal' for 'evidence based'. Then swap out the word 'revolutionary' for 'crank', and then 'self-serving' for 'self-regulatory', and I think that science is doing a very good job of protecting us from such pseudoscientific lunacy.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2017
.......yet we don't see these things when the Sun "electrically connects" to the Earth via a copper-like conductor EVERY 8 MINUTES.


What I don't understand is where has Reeve found this 8 minutes from? That is the time it takes for light to reach the Earth from the Sun. What relevance has that to the price of fish? The solar wind is not travelling at light speed. Thankfully. I think we might have noticed that.
The Earth is constantly bombarded by the SW. It doesn't reach the surface. Nor the surface of Venus, or Mars. Or even a moderately outgassing comet. It does, however, reach the surface of the Moon. Where.........not very much happens. A bit of mechanical sputtering. Possibly differential charging. Nothing to get excited about.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
First off, sprites and elves are related to thunderstorms. That is how they are created. Purely an earthly phenomenon, as a recent story on here pointed out. If you want to call the ionosphere the edge of space, fine, but it is overwhelmingly neutral. It isn't, for sake of argument "a discharge in space."
From the above WIikipedia quote: ""The ionosphere is a shell of electrons and electrically charged atoms and ***molecules*** that surrounds the Earth"

At the altitude of these sprites and elves it will be more neutral than higher up.

http://www.spacea...iono.htm

https://en.wikipe...ightning

jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2017
As for the ***magnetic*** connection - that was believed to be permanent, but now it is seen by Cluster and THEMIS to be intermittent. This is no biggie. We know the (non-current carrying) solar wind reaches the magnetosphere, and have done for a long time. Hence aurorae.
Cluster and THEMIS, by the way, along with the current MMS mission, have provided much more evidence for, and measurement of, magnetic reconnection! But I guess those particular results will be binned by the EU people. Just keep the stuff they like, misrepresent it as an ***electrical*** connection, and forget everything else.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2017
Whoops. You will notice that the Flux transfer events in the original article linked by CR, rely on magnetic reconnection!
original link: https://science.n...oct_ftes
"Approximately every eight minutes, the two fields briefly merge or "reconnect," forming a portal through which particles can flow."

And also here: http://onlinelibr...219/full

"We report THEMIS spacecraft observations on 2007-06-14 of an FTE generated by multiple X-line reconnection at the dayside magnetopause."
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
http://www.latime...ory.html


And, from the article (why link press releases? Arrrghhh):

"The researchers think it could have to do with electrically charged cold gas in a zone called the plasmasphere, which starts around 600 miles above the Earth "

You'll find that the upper atmosphere lightning is much lower than that (~<100 km).
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
We already know about ***small*** transient DLs in the magnetosphere. However, there are none of the big, exploding ones that Alfvén predicted. What he wanted them to do is now seen to be due to magnetic reconnection, as you have now apparently accepted.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2017
So, the answer to this question (2) can be had by just observing that -- however you want to explain it -- charge separation occurs in space. It's apparently quite normal.


Err, no, it isn't 'normal'. It requires certain conditions. Such as interaction with an atmosphere. We have electric currents at comets, due to the pile up of the IMF around the coma. The solar wind has no net current. It is quasi neutral, and measurements of it have been made for decades. It never carries a current until it meets an atmosphere, magnetosphere, coma, etc, and then interesting things can happen to it.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2017
Well, probably some electrons are entrained by the ions, no?


No. Why would they be? And there is no 'charge' to protect! Wherever it is measured in 'space' it is just electrons and ions, tootling along, minding their own business. No current is measured by instruments that would measure it, until it reaches a comet, or planet, etc. Then you can have the electrons and ions sent in different directions due to a magnetic field, intrinsic or induced.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2017
And 'some' electrons means exactly the amount required to make the SW quasi-neutral! For every ion there is at least one electron. For an O^5+ there will be 5 electrons, etc.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2017
There was as story on here just a few days ago. I read the paper. Elves and sprites are related to thunderstorms. End of.

Placing an arbitrary box around these layers and calling them neutral leaves us with a malformed idea of their structure/function.


Yet again, you are making no sense whatsoever. The areas in question have been well investigated over the last ~ 30 years. I cannot see what you are getting at. As usual. Maybe somebody needs to write it up, and spell out exactly what they are saying, because I, for one, haven't a clue what you are on about.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2017
You do realise that in cities, there can be ~1500 ions per cc? Sometimes much higher. Would you like to call that 'space'? Or call it a plasma? It is well known that there are parts of the atmosphere that are weakly ionised (i.e. where this lightning is happening). And there are areas that are moderately ionised. The further you go, the more highly ionised it becomes, generally. This is not news.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2017
Six years later, they realized that actually, they do indeed reach the ionosphere (a complex series of layers demarking the boundary with space).


Read what you wrote. The ionosphere is a very large area. The lightning is happening at 100 km or less, Where it is overwhelmingly dominated by neutrals. The ionosphere reaches from ~ 75 - 1000km.
http://solar-cent...ere.html

jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2017
There is a good overview paper on TLEs here:
https://www.resea...adf6.pdf

And the paper accompanying the article on here the other day, is here:
http://onlinelibr...311/full

Thunderstorms. End of.
barakn
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2017
Plasma is extremely conductive because of its availability of electrons, and because those electrons are -- more so than physical conductors -- free to move around.

"The solar plasma conductivity is at most about that of copper at room temperature."

(https://books.goo...f=false) -Chris_Reeve

That quoted conductivity is for solar plasma within the sun, not the solar wind. Solar wind conductivity is far smaller because of the reduced density of charge carriers. I'll give you a little fishing tip. If you bait your hook with solar wind bait and drop it into the Google pool, there's a chance the solar wind fish will not bite but some other fish will.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2017
Plasma is extremely conductive because of its availability of electrons, and because those electrons are -- more so than physical conductors -- free to move around.

"The solar plasma conductivity is at most about that of copper at room temperature."

(https://books.goo...f=false) -Chris_Reeve

That quoted conductivity is for solar plasma within the sun, not the solar wind. Solar wind conductivity is far smaller because of the reduced density of charge carriers. I'll give you a little fishing tip. If you bait your hook with solar wind bait and drop it into the Google pool, there's a chance the solar wind fish will not bite but some other fish will.


Well spotted. I must have missed that one!
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
691Boat
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
You're refusing to ask why plasmas produce layers. Plasmas produce layers even within the laboratory in an evacuated bell jar, when a metal sphere is charge-loaded. If you pump enough charge onto the ball, you will observe layers.


Are you trying to talk about electric double layers? If you are, and so far a large part of your argument has been plasma layers in the ionosphere, you need to read up on Debye lengths and how they relate to double layers in our atmosphere.The scale of Debye lengths in the ionosphere is ridiculously short even thought there is a decent electron density.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
691Boat
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
Debye lengths do not apply to an electrodynamic system where plasmas can form filaments which extend to infinite distances.


so the back-of-the-envelope calculations of known physics regarding Debye lengths is instantly tossed aside by your claim of infinite plasma filaments? Wow.

With regards to layering outside the ionoshpere, it should be entirely possible if there is sufficient electron density. Debye lengths in interstellar space are orders of magnitude larger than in the ionoshpere, so significant layers may actually be possible. Do they have infinitely long filaments? No. That is just hogwash.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
so the back-of-the-envelope calculations of known physics regarding Debye lengths is instantly tossed aside by your claim of infinite plasma filaments? Wow.

Direct observation/experimentation should suffice to refute theoretical beliefs, no?
691Boat
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
do me a favor and define infinite.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2017
The use of misleading terminology leads to this confusion, as well as other obfuscating tactics. Let's take this Sun-Earth "flux transfer event" as an analogy. The "flux transfer tube" is in other words a Birkeland current "flopping" around in space and every 8 mins or so "magnetically reconnects" with the Earth. An analogy would be a powerline flopping around an alley, if someone were to grab it would they claim there was a "flux transfer event" or that they were "magnetically reconnecting" with it. Nope, only morons and astrophysicists use such terminology.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2017
The use of misleading terminology leads to this confusion, as well as other obfuscating tactics. Let's take this Sun-Earth "flux transfer event" as an analogy. The "flux transfer tube" is in other words a Birkeland current "flopping" around in space and every 8 mins or so "magnetically reconnects" with the Earth. An analogy would be a powerline flopping around an alley, if someone were to grab it would they claim there was a "flux transfer event" or that they were "magnetically reconnecting" with it. Nope, only morons and astrophysicists use such terminology.


Says the person who believes Earth used to orbit Saturn! Lol.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
Reeve, you have nothing. You and your lot do not understand science, and your whole belief system is based on mythology. Nobody gives a flying **** about what unqualified woo peddlers like you and Thornhill think or write. It has nothing to do with science. It is about time that you realised that. People have been telling you for long enough. When asked for an explanation of something, you link to Dunderdolts! How is quoting a crank science site helping your cause? It just generates laughter, given what they believe in:
http://www.maveri...turn.htm
jonesdave
5 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2017
@Reeve,

https://en.wikipe...o_galaxy


You forgot this bit:

"Since the plasma must be neutral, it must also contain either protons or positrons."

Debye length doesn't come into it, as it isn't a current. Find a paper on said galaxy, and try reading it, instead of cherry picking from Wikipedia.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
Nope, only morons and astrophysicists use such terminology.


And Carl-Gunne Falthammar. So, I guess you are saying he's a moron too. Fine, we'll add that to EUs core beliefs.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
The use of misleading terminology leads to this confusion, as well as other obfuscating tactics. Let's take this Sun-Earth "flux transfer event" as an analogy. The "flux transfer tube" is in other words a Birkeland current "flopping" around in space and every 8 mins or so "magnetically reconnects" with the Earth. An analogy would be a powerline flopping around an alley, if someone were to grab it would they claim there was a "flux transfer event" or that they were "magnetically reconnecting" with it.


Wrong. It is the IMF reconnecting with the Earth's magnetic field. I already linked a paper on it:
http://onlinelibr...219/full

If you'd like to misunderstand it further, you could take your ignorance to cosmoquest, or ISF; one of the co-authors posts regularly there.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
Says the person who believes Earth used to orbit Saturn! Lol.

So when you were a kid and you stuck that paper clip in the socket I guess your doctor told you how you suffered from the magnetic reconnection...

One day the physics of these exploding double layers and circuit reconnection will be "discovered" once again. Sadly it will still likely be labeled "magnetic reconnection" and just as planets have nothing to do with planetary nebulae, neither will magnetic reconnection have anything to do with "magnetic reconnection".
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2017
And Carl-Gunne Falthammar. So, I guess you are saying he's a moron too. Fine, we'll add that to EUs core beliefs.

You don't read very well do you, I said morons and astrophysicists. Falthammar is an astrophysicist, you're not. BTW, if you actually understood what Falthammar wrote about reconnection you would see he follows nearly all of what Alfvén describes. The major difference is he is resigned to the fact that the scientific community has decided to call it what it is not and not be as critical as Alfvén seemed to have been.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2017
And Carl-Gunne Falthammar. So, I guess you are saying he's a moron too. Fine, we'll add that to EUs core beliefs.

You don't read very well do you, I said morons and astrophysicists. Falthammar is an astrophysicist, you're not. BTW, if you actually understood what Falthammar wrote about reconnection you would see he follows nearly all of what Alfvén describes. The major difference is he is resigned to the fact that the scientific community has decided to call it what it is not and not be as critical as Alfvén seemed to have been.


Sorry; where did he say he was 'resigned' to anything? Even Alfvén is saying it is possible in 1987. He would just rather have DLs do what he sees in solar flares, etc. He was wrong. Falthammar lived longer, and saw the evidence. Read the papers by Mozer. That is what Falthammar is accepting. No way you can spin it otherwise. A little bit of research would have saved you the embarrassment of calling him a moron.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2017
Says the person who believes Earth used to orbit Saturn! Lol.

So when you were a kid and you stuck that paper clip in the socket I guess your doctor told you how you suffered from the magnetic reconnection...

One day the physics of these exploding double layers and circuit reconnection will be "discovered" once again. Sadly it will still likely be labeled "magnetic reconnection" and just as planets have nothing to do with planetary nebulae, neither will magnetic reconnection have anything to do with "magnetic reconnection".


Don't be stupid. These huge DLs would be bleeding obvious. They are not seen. They can even see the little ones, that have nothing to do with reconnection. Reconnection is seen. Read the literature. i.e. not the crap on Dunderdolts.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2017
Actually, to clarify, DLs do actually have something to do with reconnection; they appear to be caused by it. Not the other way round;

"Those observed outside of ~15 RE are related to either the PS-lobe boundary or activity generated by magnetic re-connection."
http://www2.fzg.o...009a.pdf

jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2017
One day the physics of these exploding double layers and circuit reconnection will be "discovered" once again.


I wouldn't get your hopes up. MMS can see reconnection at more detailed resolution than ever before. And they still aren't stupid enough to call it an exploding double layer, which would be obvious.

http://science.sc.../aaf2939

http://onlinelibr...787/full

http://onlinelibr...166/full

Chris_Reeve
Feb 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2017
Re: "Says the person who believes Earth used to orbit Saturn! Lol."

You're getting your insult wrong. The Saturnian configuration is a Herbig-Haro geometry; it's a straight line of planets.

The fact that you don't understand that is an admission that you don't actually know what David Talbott's Saturnian theory is.


I know what the Saturn Theory is - a bunch of idiotic, physics defying claptrap, that nobody in their right mind, let alone anybody who is scientifically literate, would give any time to at all. It is junk. Complete and utter fantasy, dreamed up by some burke who, like Veliokovsky, misinterprets ancient mythology in order to sell a few books. It is asinine rubbish.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2017
jonesdave should be reminded that I document scientific controversies. And you are making very quotable public statements, sir.

Controversies of Science
https://plus.goog...on/Yhn4Y


I couldn't, quite frankly, give a toss what you do. You are not a scientist; neither, as far as I can tell, do you even understand it. I have also kept a list of the lies and obfuscations of the idiot Thornhill, And have also written about it! And these only apply to his comet nonsense. To cover all his rubbish would take a huge tome:
http://www.intern...unt=3232

http://www.intern...unt=3288

http://www.intern...unt=3290

cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2017
These huge DLs would be bleeding obvious. They are not seen. They can even see the little ones, that have nothing to do with reconnection....
Actually, to clarify, DLs do actually have something to do with reconnection; they appear to be caused by it. Not the other way round;

LOL, "these huge DLs" are only in your mind. The "little ones" you admit are there fit quite nicely with Alfvén's claims. The fact that these DLs are present validates Alfvén's views that the particle/circuit models are required and MHD physics are completely meaningless. It's also quite amusing how you dance around the obvious and then admit that these ubiquitous plasma phenomena are now part of the process. Just as these DLs aren't really DLs, and electrochemistry is in fact "electrochemistry", and electric discharge is really "electric discharge", etc... is all just woo just goes to show you really don't have an effing clue to the claims being made.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2017
you really don't have an effing clue to the claims being made.


Yes I do. Read the literature. Read Falthammar and his mate Mozer. You classify the Gulf Stream as an electric discharge. And circuit theory is more of an approximation than MHD!! It tells you nothing about the finer detail. I would suggest actually educating yourself in the subject. EU is batting zero for good reasons - none of its adherents are scientifically qualified to understand the relevant science. Hence why Scott thinks a planetary nebula is a Z-pinch!
I would suggest reading the whole of this thread, particularly the posts by Tusenfem, who did his PhD on DLs at Alfvén's lab, and knew the bloke. Maybe you'll learn something, but I doubt it.
http://www.intern...t=204366

Meanwhile EU continues to be an absolute irrelevance in the world of real science. By definition, anything built around Velikovskian woo is never going to be science.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2017
^^^^Talbott's nonsense is crap. End of story. As Leroy Ellenberger so eloquently put it:

Do not let Talbott's feigned erudition obscure the fact that he is just another in a long line of intellectual con men, such as Lyndon LaRouche, whose verbiage exceeds his grasp of reality.


http://abob.libs....dote.txt
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2017
.......theory you are ridiculing


"Theory"? You have got to be kidding! LMAO.
Ellenberger again:

In conclusion, the "Saturn thesis"/p.c. is a fantasy/delusion that should be given no credence. It is promoted by self-taught, amateur "mythologists" who have no understanding of, or respect for, the
constraints of the laws of physics or the importance of physical evidence on Earth for cataclysms that affected Earth.


In other words, it's bunk.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2017
And circuit theory is more of an approximation than MHD!! It tells you nothing about the finer detail.

That is quite laughably the most ironically moronic thing you have said. It is a known and understood fact that MHD completely omits DL's and any derivation of circuits. MHD is meaningless in this instance.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2017
^^^^Wrong, idiot. Alfvén was wrong about DLs precisely because he was using the rather imprecise circuit theory. You cannot even model MRx in circuit theory. And it cannot happen in IDEAL MHD. That is why you need more accurate modelling. Plus lab confirmation. Plus spacecraft confirmation. Falthammar knew that. I suspect Alfvén did too. I would suggest reading the following, from the aforementioned plasma astrophysicist, from whom you may actually learn something. Or not.

http://www.intern...ount=296
http://www.intern...ount=354
http://www.intern...ount=382
http://www.intern...ount=515
http://www.intern...ount=520
http://www.intern...ount=531

jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2017
@cantthink,
Ever wondered why nobody believes you on this? Including Falthammar? Has it ever crossed your mind that you are WRONG? I've may email Falthammar (I assume he's still alive). I'll be happy to post any reply I receive on here, and a few other places, on his thoughts on MRx, and Alfvén's views on it. Not everything would have been written down, I think you'll find.

Meanwhile, continue to educate yourself via people who are far more qualified than any of the idiots involved with EU:
http://www.intern...ount=217 ***
http://www.intern...ount=242
http://www.intern...ount=261
http://www.intern...ount=262
http://www.intern...ount=297

*** "circuit theory is an even greater approximation of plasma physcis than MHD"
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2017
And here's a reply to another EU pillock, who thinks DLs can explain what is seen in MRx (and also hasn't got a clue about the subject):

http://www.intern...ount=143
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2017
You cannot even model MRx in circuit theory.

True, because MRx is pseudoscience. One can't rely on real well developed EE principles to explain faerie tales. You are ready admitted DL's exist in these phenomena, as Alfven explained;
"a double layer must be treated part of a circuit which delivers the current I. As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers."
So even if you are correct in which the DL's are a secondary phenomena (highly unlikely given decades of lab research) one still must account for the energy transfer via the DL. And as such MHD models are meaningless in such an exercise.
What is occurring is not MRx, it is circuit reconnection.
And it cannot happen in IDEAL MHD.

True, because ideal MHD is pseudoscience and does not exist but in fanciful imaginings of astrophysicists and equations.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2017
^^^^ You really are an idiot. That is not what Alfvén said. nor is it true. And you are now calling Carl-Gunne Falthammar a pseudoscientist! What a bunch of clueless, arrogant nutjobs you are. And what the hell is circuit reconnection? We never got an answer from the idiot Mozina, perhaps you could spell it out. Quantitatively, with diagrams and equations. And you wonder why nobody takes your unscientific gibberish seriously! You are decades behind the times!
http://www.intern...count=87
http://www.intern...ount=262
Anyway, I did email C-G F. If I get a reply I am sure it will not be at all helpful for the EU fantasists, and I'll be happy to spread it all over the internet.
cantdrive85
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2017
That is not what Alfvén said. nor is it true.

That is exactly what he said, here is a link to IAEA.org where the paper is not paywalled;
https://inis.iaea...18060222
The abstract, i.e the first words you see;
"As the rate of energy release in a double layer with voltage DeltaV is P corresponding to IDeltaV, a double layer must be treated part of a circuit which delivers the current I. As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory. A simple circuit is suggested which is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources. Application to the heliospheric current systems leads to the prediction of two double layers on the sun's axis which may give radiations detectable from earth...."
(con't)
cantdrive85
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2017
..."Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object (one example is the double radio sources). It is tentatively suggested in X-ray and gamma-ray bursts may be due to exploding double layers (although annihilation is an alternative energy source). A study of how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts like double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects and circuits is made. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these, in spite of the fact that some of them have been well known for half a centry (e.g., double layers, Langmuir, 1929: pinch effect, Bennet, 1934). The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of the astrophysicist. Earth bound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory..."
(con't)
cantdrive85
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2017
..."At least by volume the universe consists to more than 99 percent of plasma, and electromagnetic forces are 10^39 time stronger than gravitation"
So, as you can see, that is exactly what he said. Have you read his Nobel lecture? He is the only scientist in history to lament that the discovery for which he was being awarded (MHD) was incorrect and erroneous.
http://www.nobelp...ture.pdf
Where he said;
"The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come."
You still have the debate backwards, the "formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong" is the MHD that he was being awarded the Nobel for. LOL
Chris_Reeve
Feb 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Feb 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Macksb
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2017
I made three posts within the first ten posts following this Physorg article. (Let's call the article a press release.) Another commenter challenged my posts by saying that press releases mean nothing. One has to study the full scholarly article. Fair enough. Then he quoted the critical material that from the scholarly article that refutes my three posts. I thank the gentleman for that material.

I have now done as he requested. Here is the material he asked me to consider, followed by my responses.

1. "These pulsation modes correspond to exact harmonics of the planet's orbital frequency." Response: this was the core of the press release, and the core of my posts.

2. "Transient tidal effects can excite pulsation modes in ... a star." Response: the press release is similar: "the planet's transient gravitational pull is disturbing the star just enough to tip it into a self-pulsating phase."

3. See following post.
Macksb
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2017
3. "...but to date, such pulsations had only been detected in highly eccentric stellar binaries...". Response: again, this is in the press release: "We've seen these pulsations in systems with two rotating stars...but we did not expect this to happen with a planet."

4. "...current stellar models are unable to produce HAT-P-2's pulsations." Response: This "failure of the stellar models" is clear in the press release. This mystery is why I offered my thoughts.

5. "...suggesting that our understanding of the interactions at play in this system is incomplete." Again, this is reported in the press release.

So: the press release tracks the scholarly material quite well, including the very passages that supposedly challenged, contradicted or somehow refuted the comments in my three posts.

Why did the other commenter go to such great lengths to trash and rubbish the press release? His only argument in opposition to mine is completely invalid. His case fails.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2017
And what the hell is circuit reconnection?

First, the explosive event is likely caused by the interruption of the current system of the circuit. Just as when a fuse/rectifier blows in a manmade circuit (as Alfven resolved in Sweden back in the 20's) it can be explosive. As Alfven described;
"Every circuit which contains an inductance L is intrinsically explosive (cf. II.D)....If we try to interrupt the current I the inductance tends to supply its energy to the point of interruption"
To spell this out for the hard of reading, he is suggesting the entire inductance of the circuit is released explosively at the location of the interruption. Often these interruptions are caused by instabilities that form in the plasmas and DL's as shown here;
https://phys.org/...ity.html
So, we have an exploding circuit.
(to be con't)
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2017
The "reconnection";
A new circuit configuration springs into being from the remaining plasma. This is what causes the magnetic fields to reconfigure. Just as when Maxwell flicked the switch to close the circuit and enable the magnetic field to arise, so too does this plasma circuit "re-close" to create a whole new current system and in response a whole new magnetic field configuration. No pseudoscientific magical field line action is creating any of this, it is the currents in the plasma which create the magnetic fields which is reconfiguring the system.
Plasma systems must be considered with EE concepts as all plasma interactions are electrodynamic. EM theory, particle models, and circuitry must be the primary techniques to describe these fundamental plasma processes. The fact that astrophysicists are largely ignorant of these concepts lead to erroneous beliefs, hypotheses, and "mysterious" observations that require the invention of dark entities to salvage failed guesses.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2017
Hi Macksb. :)

Just to thank you for your above well-argued-in-response posts, and for your polite, objective approach to science discussion. Much appreciated. :)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2017
Hi cantdrive85. :)

I just want to thank you also, for your own well-argued-in-response posts above; and for your calm, polite and objective approach to science discussion with your interlocutor in this instance. Much appreciated. :)

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.