The sun's core rotates nearly four times faster than the sun's surface, according to new findings by an international team of astronomers. Scientists had assumed the core was rotating like a merry-go-round at about the same speed as the surfa
"The most likely explanation is that this core rotation is left over from the period when the sun formed, some 4.6 billion years ago," said Roger Ulrich, a UCLA professor emeritus of astronomy, who has studied the sun's interior for more than 40 years and co-author of the study that was published today in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics. "It's a surprise, and exciting to think we might have uncovered a relic of what the sun was like when it first formed."
The rotation of the solar core may give a clue to how the sun formed. After the sun formed, the solar wind likely slowed the rotation of the outer part of the sun, he said. The rotation might also impact sunspots, which also rotate, Ulrich said. Sunspots can be enormous; a single sunspot can even be larger than the Earth.
The researchers studied surface acoustic waves in the sun's atmosphere, some of which penetrate to the sun's core, where they interact with gravity waves that have a sloshing motion similar to how water would move in a half-filled tanker truck driving on a curvy mountain road. From those observations, they detected the sloshing motions of the solar core. By carefully measuring the acoustic waves, the researchers precisely determined the time it takes an acoustic wave to travel from the surface to the center of the sun and back again. That travel time turns out to be influenced a slight amount by the sloshing motion of the gravity waves, Ulrich said.
The researchers identified the sloshing motion and made the calculations using 16 years of observations from an instrument called GOLF (Global Oscillations at Low Frequency) on a spacecraft called SoHO (the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory)—a joint project of the European Space Agency and NASA. The method was developed by the researchers, led by astronomer Eric Fossat of the Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur in Nice, France. Patrick Boumier with France's Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale is GOLF's principal investigator and a co-author of the study.
The idea that the solar core could be rotating more rapidly than the surface has been considered for more than 20 years, but has never before been measured.
The core of the sun differs from its surface in another way as well. The core has a temperature of approximately 29 million degrees Fahrenheit, which is 15.7 million Kelvin. The sun's surface is "only" about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, or 5,800 Kelvin.
Ulrich worked with the GOLF science team, analyzing and interpreting the data for 15 years. Ulrich received funding from NASA for his research. The GOLF instrument was funded primarily by the European Space Agency.
SoHO was launched on Dec. 2, 1995 to study the sun from its core to the outer corona and the solar wind; the spacecraft continues to operate.
Explore further:
Has SOHO ended a 30-year quest for solar ripples?
More information:
E. Fossat et al. Asymptotic g modes: Evidence for a rapid rotation of the solar core, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2017). DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730460 , www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/ … 0-17/aa30460-17.html
Old_C_Code
And the Sun's corona above the 'cool' surface is 2 million kelvin. Go figure.
wduckss
The scientist must know that stars generate solar wind and that the minor value of solar wind opposite the friction material within the Sun.
"The sun, whose hot, dense core produces nuclear fusion" from article
Sunspots are proof that within the star there is dislocation of matter between the layers. Observing nuclear fusion without the existence of radioactive radiation is not a science.
For a discussion faster rotation center of body , see:
http://www.svemir...#cykloni (2013.y.)
Old_C_Code
There is a lot of fusion at the Sun, it's just TWO THIRDS LESS (emitted neutrinos) than to be expected with that size H-He conversion.
IMP-9
No, the number of emitted neutrinos matches expectations, it's the number of electron neutrinos that was lower than expected before neutrino oscillations were established and experimentally confirmed.
billpress11
How would this explain the difference? Could a much more possibly dense core explain the difference? If so how would we explain the solid core? Oliver, where are you?
Gigel
Well, the Sun's core is far denser than its outer layers. The core is compressed to enormous pressures.
cantdrive85
Wild conjecture stated as a fact due to belief in unfounded maths.
Captain Stumpy
then by all means, please present your evidence that the MS models are false
and before you mention the whole "current solar model cannot explain" argument again, remember this: just because they don't know it now doesn't mean that
1- it will never be known (Newton)
2- it can't be known (again, Newton)
3- that the current model is wrong (again, Newton)
i used Newton for it's obvious relevance: not only was his model expansion bringing knowledge to what was not known, but he gave up and said it couldn't be known and it is still used because, though it's not 100% accurate, it's still a functional model that works and isn't falsified (excepting relativistic speed)
it just didn't explain everything, yet it lead to that which explained far more - which is very relevant to the above
Captain Stumpy
now, i downrated your comment because of this you make the claim, but you don't demonstrate it's fairy tale status
the mathematics of solar physics are based upon known plasma physics and stable particle physics with application of known data that is measured, modeled and then observed
so if you want to poo-poo helioseismology and it's physics, you should be very specific, otherwise you're no better than the eu nutters
as for this you've made what you feel is a valid observation without having knowledge of the requisite data, maths or evidence
otherwise you would have presented the falsification of the study and physics
the rest is your venting at the org that refuses to allow pseudoscience or your beliefs over the current evidence
see Newton above
Dingbone
Aug 03, 2017Dingbone
Aug 03, 2017nikola_milovic_378
Aug 04, 2017nikola_milovic_378
Aug 04, 2017Dingbone
Aug 04, 2017nikola_milovic_378
Aug 04, 2017antialias_physorg
Where else would he do it? There's no way he'd do it where actual physicists are around. Shouting about how all is oh-so-terrible is cool as long as one can hide in safe anonymity. But actually going out and publishing something (or even presenting it at a conference)? No way. That'd take actual work
...which isn't the point. His point is merely to make it look like he's worth something to anyone. And on the internet he can just go the full hog and make believe that he's worth something to *everyone* by claiming to be super-genius.
Yeah...that it ain't working hasn't really sunk in. But then again - if someone is stupid enough to think this kind of scam would work, they're never gonna get wise that all they're doing is shouting "I'm an idiot" at the top of their lungs to the world.
Dingbone
Aug 04, 2017Ojorf
Well unless you have a theory/idea that you can prove with rigorous math, backed up by real data that does not conflict with other thoroughly and exhaustively well tested theories.
Captain Stumpy
1- as Ojorf points out, you're full of sh*t because you don't know squat about the scientific community except what you dreamed up in your delusional D-K brain
2- to prove you're a whinging idiot with no evidence and Ojorf is correct, go here: https://www.ncbi....=5.55556
holy sh*t! pot-kettle!
were you attempting to go for irony or just describing your own tactics for confirmation?
LOL
pseudoscience falsified aether =/= science!
Dingbone
Aug 04, 2017Captain Stumpy
it isn't about verbosity, nor is it about verbose critiquing or reply
*!it's all about the evidence!*
this is why you can't break into the community: you don't have evidence that isn't already falsified by better (copious amounts of) evidence
that you don't understand the evidence means nothing to the community, nor does railing against scientists because you don't understand
there is only one solution: https://en.wikipe...c_method
failure to use it = pseudoscience
not accuracy
not reality
your beliefs are religion, not science
Captain Stumpy
LOL
so you got caught lying and OT ranting about scientist, and now you want to point the finger at others for outing you?
if it's not relevant then why did you comment about it right here?
I mean, this is all in direct reply to your own false claims about the scientific community
it is also backed by evidence of a level that you, yourself, have never presented in refute of the science (and scientists) you denigrate
it may well not be relevant to the article, but it is directly relevant to your own pseudoscience BS lying posts
and downrating it only shows i am correct about you! LMFAO
it doesn't make you more correct (or correct at all)
LMFAO
antialias_physorg
Total bull. I've seen it happen at the last conference I was at. In a session on brain connectivity studies the last talk was from someone who critiqued the use of brain atlases as the various atlases can lead to studies that show significance whereas the use of a different atlas might have lead a study to not be able to show significance.
Guess what: That talk got the most applause.
You're just a loser who lives in a fantasy you're concocting inside your tiny brain. The real world works nothing like you imagine. Nothing.
If you actually have something to publish the do so. Don't hide in fear from your own failure. People out there are doing good work. You're just a loser-troll. Guess who is worth something? You certainly aren't. Your life is/was a waste.
Captain Stumpy
1- argument from ignorance
2- since you obviously know far more than the myriad world plasma physicists in labs, feel free to write up your observations and publish in a peer reviewed journal with an impact in astrophysics sigh
important point- please, for all laymen out there: why should anyone accept "your (or any) argument or suppositions with no evidence etc" over the "still working and adapting to new data current MS theory" that is backed by validated evidence?
the only way to make incremental steps based on fact is to utilise the scientific method
this means: https://en.wikipe...c_method
asking questions is fine
stating something is "mathematical fairytales" when you have neither the education nor the evidence means you're talking religion, not science
it's also delusional and D-K
RealityCheck
This is a news site with comments/discussion section open to all interested in commenting/discussing fairly, with the understanding that the logical/scientific validity or otherwise of any OPINIONS and/or CLAIMS in posts made here are the responsibility of the READER to check out further FOR THEMSELVES via further research/cogitation having regard to ALL available facts and possibilities of revision and correction which THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD dictates MUST be done/applied on a case-by-case basis and as the evolving observational/re-examinational situation demands of ANYONE purporting to be 'doing science discourse', whatever the venue or milieu, here on PO or elsewhere....and WITHOUT FEAR, FAVOR, RANCOR or BIAS of ANY KIND.
NOTE: If one is merely looking to get the current textbook orthodoxy, they should consult same in forums catering for same; as distinct from forums such as these which discuss new/developing science/issues. Cheers.
f_darwin
RealityCheck
TimLong2001