Plasma from lasers can shed light on cosmic rays, solar eruptions

November 10, 2017 by Raphael Rosen, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Lasers that generate plasma can provide insight into bursts of subatomic particles that occur in deep space, scientists have found. Such findings could help scientists understand cosmic rays, solar flares and solar eruptions—emissions from the sun that can disrupt cell phone service and knock out power grids on Earth.

Physicists have long observed that like electrons and can accelerate to extremely high speeds in space. Researchers believe that processes associated with , the hot fourth state of matter in which electrons have separated from atomic nuclei, might be responsible. Some models theorize that , which takes place when the in plasma snap apart and reconnect, releasing large amounts of energy, might cause the acceleration.

Addressing this issue, a team of researchers led by Will Fox, physicist at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), recently used lasers to create conditions that mimic astrophysical behavior. The laboratory technique enables the study of outer-space-like plasma in a controlled and reproducible environment. "We want to reproduce the process in miniature to conduct these tests," said Fox, lead author of the research published in the journal Physics of Plasmas.

The team used a simulation program called Plasma Simulation Code (PSC) that tracks plasma particles in a virtual environment, where they are acted on by simulated magnetic and electric fields. The code originated in Germany and was further developed by Fox and colleagues at the University of New Hampshire before he joined PPPL. Researchers conducted the simulations on the Titan supercomputer at the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, through the DOE's Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE) program.

The simulations build on research by Fox and other scientists establishing that laser-created plasmas can facilitate the study of acceleration processes. In the new simulations, such plasmas bubble outward and crash into each other, triggering magnetic reconnection. These simulations also suggest two kinds of processes that transfer energy from the reconnection event to particles.

During one process, known as Fermi acceleration, particles gain energy as they bounce back and forth between the outer edges of two converging plasma bubbles. In another process called X-line acceleration, the energy transfers to particles as they interact with the electric fields that arise during reconnection.

Fox and the team now plan to conduct physical experiments that replicate conditions in the simulations using both the OMEGA laser facility at the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics and the National Ignition Facility at the DOE's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. "We're trying to see if we can get particle acceleration and observe the energized particles experimentally," Fox said.

Explore further: Team produces unique simulation of magnetic reconnection

More information: W. Fox et al, Astrophysical particle acceleration mechanisms in colliding magnetized laser-produced plasmas, Physics of Plasmas (2017). DOI: 10.1063/1.4993204

Related Stories

Team produces unique simulation of magnetic reconnection

September 8, 2017

Jonathan Ng, a Princeton University graduate student at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), has for the first time applied a fluid simulation to the space plasma process behind ...

Fields and flows fire up cosmic accelerators

May 16, 2017

Every day, with little notice, the Earth is bombarded by energetic particles that shower its inhabitants in an invisible dusting of radiation, observed only by the random detector, or astronomer, or physicist duly noting ...

Recommended for you

The hunt for leptoquarks is on

September 19, 2018

Matter is made of elementary particles, and the Standard Model of particle physics states that these particles occur in two families: leptons (such as electrons and neutrinos) and quarks (which make up protons and neutrons). ...

Searching for errors in the quantum world

September 19, 2018

The theory of quantum mechanics is well supported by experiments. Now, however, a thought experiment by ETH physicists yields unexpected contradictions. These findings raise some fundamental questions—and they're polarising ...

Researchers push the boundaries of optical microscopy

September 19, 2018

The field of optical microscopy research has developed rapidly in recent years. Thanks to the invention of a technique called super-resolution fluorescence microscopy, it has recently become possible to view even the smaller ...

22 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2017
It looks like someone has been quietly noting the urgings, posted here at PO for years now by cantdrive85, HannesAlfven etc, for mainstream experimentalists to actually do all the plasma experiments in the lab and finally try to actually get a real handle on what is happening that may explain the 'hybrid forces' cosmic plasma-involving 'dynamical feedbacks' phenomena which may not be as simplistically(m-hydrodynamically) modeled/interpreted by the mainstream-preferred approaches so far. Good show, mainstream!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2017
:) @idiot rc the pseudoscience martyr-victim troll
It looks like someone has been quietly noting the urgings
or, if you took the 20 seconds to actually read the abstract and references listed, you could plainly see that this is just typical plasma physics laboratories doing what they always do: http://aip.scitat....4993204

for crying out loud, this is just pppl.gov and their plasma physics/science - the exact same site that i repeatedly link to debunk 90% of what the eu idiots claim!

http://dataspace....920g025r

sheesh!

.

even your pontification about the science you just read (and theoretically read the references of linked above) is not based upon fact!

just your belief!

you're worse than the eu-idiots!

then again, it's kinda like your 7,569 posts without any evidence
(as of November 11, 2017, 3:45 pm)

LMFAO

:)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2017
@CS,
Agreed! The idiocy of RC using this as an argument that scientists are listening to cranks, and finally conducting lab experiments! When the very same lab have been conducting MRx experiments in the lab for decades! Which the cranks dismiss! Irony, much?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2017
@jonesdave
Irony, much?
it's more about the strength of a belief than anything

what you're seeing above by rc is attempt to legitimize her own pseudoscience by pushing a known false claim made by other pseudoscience idiots while promoting the above scientific evidence, forgetting that to get the above evidence requires repeated experimentation that in and of itself refutes and debunks the false claim!

it's actually quite fascinating in some ways

similar to watching a violent horrible collision being filmed for a movie: everyone can see the destruction coming but the "players" in the script, apparently

LMFAO
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2017
@Captain Stumpy and @jonesdave.

Very disappointed in you. Did you even read the article or try to 'get' what I was actually alluding to before you kneejerked to personal insults without any idea of the specifics? It's your sort of insult-merchant posting/reaction that gives 'ammunition' to the less-forgiving posters here. Why keep doing this? Please control yourselves. Thanks. :)

Anyway, before you two again post something which you may regret, if you actually had read the above article, you would have seen that it specifically points out that this mainstream team:
recently used lasers to create conditions that mimic astrophysical behavior.
It was THAT SPECIFIC "mimic astrophysical behavior" experimental approach/goal by plasmas that was the novel approach I was applauding (and cantdrive et al urged long since). The team's rationale was that PREVIOUS GENERIC lab-plasma experiments did NOT "mimic" space plasma situations/behaviors. OK?

Relax and play nice, guys. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2017
:) @idiot POS rc the pseudoscience martyr-victim troll
Did you even read the article or try to 'get'...
no, we used a freakin' ouija board to determine what you were saying because the interwebz died

[sarc/hyperbole, just in case you didn't get it, moron]
It was THAT SPECIFIC "mimic astrophysical behavior" experimental approach/goal by plasmas that was the novel approach I was applauding
well, ya complete moronic idiot troll, just for starters:
1- FOAD, it aint "novel"

2- had you taken just a few seconds to search the links i left you would have read about
PPPL researchers - W. Fox, G. Fisksel (LLE), A. Bhattacharjee
November 10, 2014
so you're still an idiot liar

because, thanks to the scientific method and the rest of us being able to read

3- the method of laser use in plasma astrophysics goes back before 2015, as i just proved (again)
Relax and play nice
STFU
learn to read and
LEARN 2 SCIENCE :)
:)
FOAD
:)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2017
MRx has been doing experiments on this stuff since 1995. And the discoveries based on these experiments have been coming out recently in the scholarly literature at an increased pace; we've seen several this year. Articles have been published here on them.

In just about every case one of the EUdiots has shown up claiming against these experimental results.

Why should we believe any of you are going to change that behavior? These results will come out, and yet again we'll have to listen to the EUdiots deny experimental results. After all, you've been doing it for decades.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

Mate, please don't keep demonstrating to all and sundry what an unpleasant character you are; it does you no credit and brings disrepute to you and to anyone associated with you. Thanks. :)

And the 'novelty' was the specific approach of "MIMIC astrophysics conditions", regardless of whether lasers or other processes/apparatus is involved in establishing that mimicking situation. It is that specific 'mimicking' (and not just 'generic' experiments based on prior simulation/assumption) that is the novel thing; something which has only been attempted recently by mainstream experimenters; which is why this team's work is so important/relevant to answering the questions raised but not capable of being answered previously using the previous/usual assumptions/simulations/interpretations. Try to be more constructive and less unpleasant, mate!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2017
:) @idiot POS rc the illiterate pseudoscience martyr-victim troll
And the 'novelty' was the specific approach of "MIMIC astrophysics conditions"
really?

are you really that f*cking stupid to repeat the same comment while completely refusing to read the site which directly contradicts what you just claimed above????????

.

BWAAAAHAHAHAhaahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

.

Try to be more constructive and less unpleasant, you idiot illiterate moron!

or at least pay someone to read the science to you before commenting about things you know nothing about
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

What exactly do you think those links said that I contradicted, mate? Please tell us in your own words so that we can find where possible misunderstandings may lay. Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2017
Back later/tomorrow. Bye for now.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2017
:) @idiot POS rc the illiterate pseudoscience martyr-victim troll
What exactly do you think those links said that I contradicted, mate?
holy bajeebus! really?
how about
1- FOAD, it aint "novel"

W. Fox, G. Fisksel (LLE), A. Bhattacharjee
November 10, 2014

3- the method of laser use in plasma astrophysics goes back before 2015
IOW, they've been using this "novel" approach for decades to "MIMIC astrophysics conditions" [sic] because that is what science does, you brainless illiterate idiot !!!!!
Please tell us in your own words
you mean like i just did above? with validating links? repeatedly?

and again in this post?
Bye for now
FOAD :)
gculpex
not rated yet Nov 14, 2017
Such bad manners from someone who should know better.
I had to lookup what FOAD means. Terrible!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2017
Such bad manners from someone who should know better.
I had to lookup what FOAD means. Terrible!
@gculpex
not really

tis far worse that said idiot would continue to denigrate the scientific method and it's foundation while presenting a known false claim that is debunked by decades of evidence than my literary use of common text-speech that indicates scorn for stupidity employed for the sake of brevity

given that evidence doesn't phase said idiot, nor do facts, then to examine said perceptions and beliefs its logical to utilise reversion to baser commentary as a functional tactic for psychological purposes establishing a baseline of behaviour
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

Please try to get the subtleties involved, mate. I said it's the specific mimicking aspect that was novel in recent years (since CD et al pointed out the need for that instead f the usual generic lab experiments which were done to test assumptions about what was expected rather than actually exploring objectively like the above team did); I never said the novel aspect was that lasers are used. Ok? Please try t be less unpleasant in your old age, CS.

As for this from you to gculpex:
given that evidence doesn't phase said idiot, nor do facts, then to examine said perceptions and beliefs its logical to utilise reversion to baser commentary as a functional tactic for psychological purposes establishing a baseline of behaviour
It flies against the recorded/evolving reality, mate! I am the one bringing scientific insights/observations increasingly confirmed by mainstream discovery/reviews; while you bring 'personal' insults/foul language. Do better, CS. :)
RealityCheck
Nov 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2017
:) @idiot POS rc the illiterate pseudoscience martyr-victim troll with a criminal record
Please try to get the subtleties involved
please learn to f*cking read first
I said it's the specific mimicking aspect that was novel in recent years
and yet again: it's not recent unless you're talking geological time, you moron
the usual generic lab experiments which were done to test assumptions about what was expected rather than actually exploring objectively like the above team did
unfortunately for you, the evidence proves you wrong on this as well because the evidence shows that not only do the labs produce objective science, but also they are testing assumptions (predicting and reproducing observations)

that is why i told you to read the links, you f*cking illiterate pseudoscience criminal idiot!

at this point all you've done is prove my point WRT not reading or being illiterate and your delusional beliefs

thanks for the validation

again
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2017
:) @idiot POS rc the illiterate pseudoscience martyr-victim troll with a criminal record cont'd
Gotta log out again; very busy offline! Cheers all till next time. :)

running away when you've been so blatantly proven to be wrong yet again?

trying to find something to cling to in your D-K delusional rhetoric kit?

you'll post some stupidity about the above defending your delusional beliefs and arguments supporting pseudoscience because it's a compulsion

you can't help it

you will write up the argument to make yourself appear to be targeted, then you will add that you're being vindicated by mainstream science while being completely vague and non-specific (which is anti-science). then you will argue you're being objective and everyone else isn't while making the claim that i'm being insulting/personal/old/[insert projection claims here]

you will be validating that you're a liar

again
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
not only do the labs produce objective science, but also they are testing assumptions (predicting and reproducing observations)
Yes, as I said. They WERE previously only testing ASSUMPTIONS based n their PRESUMPTIONS and interpretations from theory; and NOT actually even attempting to MIMIC ASTROPHYSICS CONDITIONS and THEN seeing what arises and THEN make further adjustments to theory/assumptions based on what was actually found which was NOT 'expected' from their presumption/interpretation from naive theory. Hence why I APPLAUDED the ABOVE TEAM's OBJECTIVE SCIENCE via THEIR lab experiments firstly and foremostly trying to MIMIC conditions and THEN drawing conclusions (rather than the other way round which was how experimenters did it UNTIL VERY RECENTLY). Ok? :)

PS: CS, why keep up your foulmouthed personal vendettas when SCIENCE ISSUES need RETHINKING? It's not seemly. It makes a mockery of your claim to be defending objective science/discourse.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Nov 16, 2017
:) @idiot POS rc the illiterate pseudoscience martyr-victim troll with a criminal record
They WERE previously only testing ASSUMPTIONS blah blah lie blah and NOT actually even attempting to MIMIC ASTROPHYSICS CONDITIONS blah blah bullsh*t blah lie
*WRONG*

and again, you didn't bother to actually read the f*cking studies, links or references
why keep up your foulmouthed personal vendettas
because:
1- you're a liar and you keep proving my point

2- you have yet to actually produce any evidence to prove any comment you've made (starting with the epic failure of 7,599 posts where you fail to validate your claims current as of November 16, 2017, 7:31 pm)

3- you obviously don't respond to a logical methodical professional discourse where one person requests validation of a claim, therefore one has no obligation to treat you as anything other than an illiterate trolling pseudoscience moron troll

4- you're a criminal

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2017
:) @idiot POS rc the illiterate pseudoscience martyr-victim troll with a criminal record

i have to address this separately:
when SCIENCE ISSUES need RETHINKING
for starters, yes, perhaps there can be a better method for science.

the problem isn't that there isn't a better way but rather than you cannot produce a better system when you don't comprehend the original system

that you don't comprehend the scientific method is obvious to everyone who is even partially science literate because you absolutely do not understand what evidence is

more importantly, you have no respect for what has been proven with actual evidence or with proven validated studies

this is proven by the above discourse. not only are your claims in defense of the eu and pseudoscience completely wrong, but any literate person capable of reading, even only to the 6th grade level, can see it for themselves...yet you still repeat the same idiotic debunked claims?

Hmmmm
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2018
From almost all the previous explanations of the behavior of some celestial bodies, it seems that science does not know what magnetism is, how it arises, and who causes it in general in the universe.
The same situation with gravity. What scientists see as "coming out" from black holes is evidence that they do not know what the black holes are and how they form. Trying to form plasma lasers is not the right path of research. It is again evidence that it does not know how the plasma is produced and who provokes it.

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.