Parker Solar Probe and the curious case of the hot corona

July 27, 2018 by Lina Tran, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
Most of what we know about the corona is deeply rooted in the history of total solar eclipses. Parker Solar Probe will fly through this very region, seeking clues to the Sun's behavior. This photo was taken in Madras, Oregon, during the total solar eclipse on Aug. 21, 2017. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Gopalswamy

Something mysterious is going on at the Sun. In defiance of all logic, its atmosphere gets much, much hotter the farther it stretches from the Sun's blazing surface.

Temperatures in the —the tenuous, outermost layer of the solar atmosphere—spike upwards of 2 million degrees Fahrenheit, while just 1,000 miles below, the underlying surface simmers at a balmy 10,000 F. How the Sun manages this feat remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in astrophysics; scientists call it the . A new, landmark mission, NASA's Parker Solar Probe—scheduled to launch no earlier than Aug. 11, 2018—will fly through the corona itself, seeking clues to its behavior and offering the chance for scientists to solve this mystery.

From Earth, as we see it in visible light, the Sun's appearance—quiet, unchanging—belies the life and drama of our nearest star. Its turbulent surface is rocked by eruptions and intense bursts of radiation, which hurl solar material at incredible speeds to every corner of the solar system. This solar activity can trigger space weather events that have the potential to disrupt radio communications, harm satellites and astronauts, and at their most severe, interfere with power grids.

Above the surface, the corona extends for millions of miles and roils with plasma, gases superheated so much that they separate into an electric flow of ions and free electrons. Eventually, it continues outward as the , a supersonic stream of plasma permeating the entire solar system. And so, it is that humans live well within the extended atmosphere of our Sun. To fully understand the corona and all its secrets is to understand not only the star that powers life on Earth, but also, the very space around us.

A 150-year-old mystery

Most of what we know about the corona is deeply rooted in the history of total solar eclipses. Before sophisticated instruments and spacecraft, the only way to study the corona from Earth was during a total eclipse, when the Moon blocks the Sun's bright face, revealing the surrounding, dimmer corona.

The story of the coronal heating problem begins with a green spectral line observed during an 1869 total eclipse. Because different elements emit light at characteristic wavelengths, scientists can use spectrometers to analyze light from the Sun and identify its composition. But the green line observed in 1869 didn't correspond to any known elements on Earth. Scientists thought perhaps they'd discovered a new element, and they called it coronium.

Not until 70 years later did a Swedish physicist discover the element responsible for the emission is iron, superheated to the point that it's ionized 13 times, leaving it with just half the electrons of a normal atom of iron. And therein lies the problem: Scientists calculated that such high levels of ionization would require coronal temperatures around 2 million degrees Fahrenheit—nearly 200 times hotter than the surface.

The coronal heating problem remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in astrophysics. Learn how astronomers first discovered evidence for this mystery during an eclipse in the 1800s, and what scientists today think could explain it. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

For decades, this deceptively simple green line has been the Mona Lisa of solar science, baffling scientists who can't explain its existence. Since identifying its source, we've come to understand the puzzle is even more complex than it first appeared.

"I think of the coronal heating problem as an umbrella that covers a couple of related confusing problems," said Justin Kasper, a space scientist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Kasper is also principal investigator for SWEAP, short for the Solar Wind Electrons Alphas and Protons Investigation, an instrument suite aboard Parker Solar Probe. "First, how does the corona get that hot that quickly? But the second part of the problem is that it doesn't just start, it keeps going. And not only does heating continue, but different elements are heated at different rates." It's an intriguing hint at what's going on with heating in the Sun.

Since discovering the hot corona, scientists and engineers have done a great deal of work to understand its behavior. They've developed powerful models and instruments and launched spacecraft that watch the Sun around the clock. But even the most complex models and high-resolution observations can only partially explain coronal heating, and some theories contradict each other. There's also the problem of studying the corona from afar.

We may live within the Sun's expansive atmosphere, but the corona and solar plasma in near-Earth space differ dramatically. It takes the slow solar wind around four days to travel 93 million miles and reach Earth or the spacecraft that study it—plenty of time for it to intermix with other particles zipping through space and lose its defining features.

Studying this homogenous soup of plasma for clues to coronal heating is like trying to study the geology of a mountain, by sifting through sediment in a river delta thousands of miles downstream. By traveling to the corona, Parker Solar Probe will sample just-heated particles, removing the uncertainties of a 93-million-mile journey and sending back to Earth the most pristine measurements of the corona ever recorded.

"All of our work over the years has culminated to this point: We realized we can never fully solve the coronal heating problem until we send a probe to make measurements in the corona itself," said Nour Raouafi, Parker Solar Probe deputy project scientist and solar physicist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland.

Traveling to the Sun is an idea older than NASA itself, but it's taken decades to engineer the technology that makes its journey possible. In that time, scientists have determined exactly what kinds of data—and corresponding instruments—they need in order to complete a picture of the corona and answer this ultimate of burning questions.

Above the surface, the corona (illustrated here) extends for millions of miles and roils with plasma. Eventually, it continues outward as the solar wind, a supersonic stream of plasma permeating the entire solar system. View animated GIF: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/sunloop1.gif Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Lisa Poje/Genna Duberstein
Explaining the corona's secrets

Parker Solar Probe will test two chief theories to explain coronal heating. The outer layers of the Sun are constantly boiling and roil with mechanical energy. As massive cells of charged plasma churn through the Sun—much the way distinct bubbles roll up through a pot of boiling water—their fluid motion generates complex magnetic fields that extend far up into the corona. Somehow, the tangled fields channel this ferocious energy into the corona as heat—how they do so is what each theory attempts to explain.

One theory proposes electromagnetic waves are the root of the corona's extreme heat. Perhaps that boiling motion launches magnetic waves of a certain frequency—called Alfvén waves—from deep within the Sun out into the corona, which send charged particles spinning and heat the atmosphere, a bit like how ocean waves push and accelerate surfers toward the shore.

Another suggests bomb-like explosions, called nanoflares, across the Sun's surface dump heat into the solar atmosphere. Like their larger counterparts, solar flares, nanoflares are thought to result from an explosive process called magnetic reconnection. Turbulent boiling on the Sun twists and contorts magnetic field lines, building up stress and tension until they explosively snap—like breaking an over-wound rubber band—accelerating and heating particles in their wake.

The two theories aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, to complicate matters, many scientists think both may be involved in heating the corona. Sometimes, for example, the magnetic reconnection that sets off a nanoflare could also launch Alfvén waves, which then further heat surrounding plasma.

The other big question is, how often do these processes happen—constantly or in distinct bursts? Answering that requires a level of detail we don't have from 93 million miles away.

"We're going close to the heating, and there are times Parker Solar Probe will co-rotate, or orbit the Sun at the same speed the Sun itself rotates," said Eric Christian, a space scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and member of the mission's science team. "That's an important part of the science. By hovering over the same spot, we'll see the evolution of heating."

A closeup of the Sun’s convective, or boiling, motion, with a small sunspot forming on the right, from Hinode, a collaboration between NASA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). The outer layers of the Sun are constantly boiling and roil with mechanical energy. This fluid motion generates complex magnetic fields that extend far up into the corona. Credit: NASA/JAXA/Hinode
Uncovering the evidence

Once Parker Solar Probe arrives at the corona, how will it help scientists distinguish whether waves or nanoflares drive heating? While the spacecraft carries four instrument suites for a variety of types of research, two in particular will obtain data useful for solving the coronal heating mystery: the FIELDS experiment and SWEAP.

Surveyor of invisible forces, FIELDS, led by the University of California, Berkeley, directly measures electric and magnetic fields, in order to understand the shocks, waves and magnetic reconnection events that heat the solar wind.

SWEAP—led by the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts—is the complementary half of the investigation, gathering data on the hot plasma itself. It counts the most abundant particles in the solar wind—electrons, protons and helium ions—and measures their temperature, how fast they're moving after they've been heated, and in what direction.

Together, the two instrument suites paint a picture of the electromagnetic fields thought to be responsible for heating, as well as the just-heated solar particles swirling through the corona. Key to their success are high-resolution measurements, capable of resolving interactions between waves and particles at mere fractions of a second.

Parker Solar Probe will swoop within 3.9 million miles of the Sun's surface—and while this distance may seem great, the spacecraft is well-positioned to detect signatures of coronal heating. "Even though magnetic reconnection events take place lower down near the Sun's surface, the spacecraft will see the plasma right after they occur," said Goddard solar scientist Nicholeen Viall. "We have a chance to stick our thermometer right in the corona and watch the temperature rise. Compare that to studying plasma that was heated four days ago from Earth, where a lot of the 3-D structures and time-sensitive information are washed out."

This part of the corona is entirely unexplored territory, and scientists expect sights unlike anything they've seen before. Some think the plasma there will be wispy and tenuous, like cirrus clouds. Or perhaps it will appear like massive pipe cleaner-like structures radiating from the Sun.

"I'm pretty sure when we get that first round of data back, we'll see the solar wind at lower altitudes near the Sun is spiky and impulsive," said Stuart Bale, University of California, Berkeley, astrophysicist and FIELDS principal investigator. "I'd lay my money on the data being much more exciting than what we see near Earth."

Artist’s concept of NASA’s Parker Solar Probe. The spacecraft will fly through the Sun’s corona to trace how energy and heat move through the star’s atmosphere. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins APL

The data is complicated enough—and comes from multiple instruments—that it will take scientists some time to piece together an explanation for coronal heating. And because the Sun's surface isn't smooth and varies throughout, Parker Solar Probe needs to make multiple passes over the Sun to tell the whole story. But scientists are confident it has the tools to answer their questions.

The basic idea is that each proposed mechanism for heating has its own distinct signature. If Alfvén waves are the source of the corona's extreme , FIELDS will detect their activity. Since heavier ions are heated at different rates, it appears that different classes of particles interact with those waves in specific ways; SWEAP will characterize their unique interactions.

If nanoflares are responsible, scientists expect to see jets of accelerated particles shooting out in opposite directions—a telltale sign of explosive magnetic reconnection. Where magnetic reconnection occurs, they should also detect hot spots where magnetic fields are rapidly changing and heating the surrounding plasma.

Discoveries lie ahead

There is an eagerness and excitement buzzing among solar scientists: Parker Solar Probe's mission marks a watershed moment in the history of astrophysics, and they have a real chance of unraveling the mysteries that have confounded their field for nearly 150 years.

By piecing together the inner workings of the corona, scientists will reach a deeper understanding of the dynamics that spark space weather events, shaping conditions in near-Earth space. But the applications of this science extend beyond the solar system too. The Sun opens a window into understanding other stars—especially those that also exhibit Sun-like heating—stars that could potentially foster habitable environments but are too far to ever study. And illuminating the fundamental physics of plasmas could likely teach scientists a great deal about how plasmas behave elsewhere in the universe, like in clusters of galaxies or around black holes.

It's also entirely possible that we haven't even conceived of the greatest discoveries to come. It's hard to predict how solving coronal heating will shift our understanding of the space around us, but fundamental discoveries such as this have the capacity to change science and technology forever. Parker Solar Probe's journey takes human curiosity to a never-before-seen region of the solar system, where every observation is a potential discovery.

"I'm almost certain we'll discover new phenomena we don't know anything about now, and that's very exciting for us," Raouafi said. "Parker Solar Probe will make history by helping us understand —as well as solar wind acceleration and solar energetic particles—but I think it also has the potential to steer the direction of solar physics' future."

Explore further: NASA prepares to launch Parker Solar Probe, a mission to touch the Sun

Related Stories

The mystery of coronal heating

December 1, 2016

Imagine standing around a roaring campfire, roasting s'mores. You feel the warmth of the flames as the marshmallows crackle. Now back away. You get cooler, right?

NASA's Sun-observing IRIS mission

December 1, 2016

While it seems static from our vantage point on Earth 93 million miles away, the sun is constantly changing. Under the influence of complex magnetic forces, material moves throughout the solar atmosphere and can burst forth ...

Recommended for you

Active galactic nuclei and star formation

October 15, 2018

Most galaxies host a supermassive black hole (SMBH) at their nucleus. (A supermassive black hole is one whose mass exceeds a million solar-masses.) A key unresolved issue in galaxy formation and evolution is the role these ...

79 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2018
the temperature is related to density, it is a diffuse temperature is equvilant some molecules in hot liqids are at higher temperature than the cooler molecules
Solon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2018
"Scientists calculated that such high levels of ionization would require coronal temperatures around 2 million degrees Fahrenheit—nearly 200 times hotter than the surface."

How strong an electric field would be required to do the same?

jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Jul 27, 2018
How strong an electric field would be required to do the same?


Why don't you tell us? Having figured it out. then tell us which way the ions and electrons travel in this field, and which way they are actually observed to travel.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2018
From: https://www.scien...0320.htm

Operating under the idea that chaotically tangled magnetic field lines exist throughout astrophysical plasmas, the team used high-performance computer simulation to gain an understanding of these chaotic field lines. Specifically, they investigated conditions that create ribbons of intense electric current, known as current sheets.

The current sheets, believed to be produced in the coronal plasma, are potential sites for magnetic reconnections, which provide a mechanism for extreme heating of the corona. Moreover, within the current sheets, the electric field peaks up and accelerates charged particles.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2018
Operating under the idea that chaotically tangled magnetic field lines exist throughout astrophysical plasmas, the team used high-performance computer simulation to gain an understanding of these chaotic field lines. Specifically, they investigated conditions that create ribbons of intense electric current, known as current sheets.

The current sheets, believed to be produced in the coronal plasma, are potential sites for magnetic reconnections, which provide a mechanism for extreme heating of the corona. Moreover, within the current sheets, the electric field peaks up and accelerates charged particles.


Indeed. However, I think you'll find that Solon, and the rest of the EU crew, don't believe in magnetic reconnection. Despite it being demonstrated in laboratories, and observed in-situ countless times. In their fantasy world, the Sun is a giant lightbulb, powered by an invisible, undetectable incoming current.
Solon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2018
My model is not in keeping with the Thunderbolts model in many respects. I do believe in magnetic reconnection, but it is the terminology that is confusing. The Sun in my model is capable of creating electric fields that go beyond the Schwinger limit, but we can not as yet produce those energies in the lab to be able to perform experiments. By magnetic confinement and charge accumulation the Sun can create ions up to iron, and as with the proton, they will accelerate away from the Sun when they breach confinement, iron accelerating the fastest, a proposal that goes as far back as the ancient Greeks, and is confirmed by data from observations of what mainstream calls a supernova, but which I believe are really failures of the spherical double layers that are present within the Sun. The outer double layer is the weakest, and protons escape quite easily.
The Thunderbolts woo pales in comparison to mine.
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2018
@solon
not going to rate your post yet because I want feedback first
I do believe in magnetic reconnection, but it is the terminology that is confusing
Why?

It is plasma physics, pure and simple
even as an engineer, it's all the same terminology
The Sun in my model is capable of
peer reviewed studies?
links/references?

anything other than a dot-com link or some personal pages
...but we can not as yet produce those energies in the lab to be able to perform experiments
but you can produce data that should be predicted by your hypothesis and publish (testable material - not speculation)

that would lead to the development of a Theory, which would be far better than just randomly arguing for the eu stuff because then you could actually supply evidence for [x] rather than reference pseudoscience links (like CD does with eu BS links)
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2018
the EU crew, don't believe in magnetic reconnection.

That's correct, the EU relies on real science and not the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo of MRx.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2018
That's correct, the EU relies on real science and not the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo of MRx.


Really? Since when? Tell us where the real science is in the electric comet; or the electric sun; or Venus hurtling out of Jupiter; or Earth formerly orbiting Saturn; or habitable planets within the atmospheres of brown dwarves. Just for starters. Sorry, it relies purely on mythology.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2018
.......what mainstream calls a supernova, but which I believe are really failures of the spherical double layers that are present within the Sun.


In your model, where are the neutrinos in supernovae, and from our own star, coming from? We know of only one way to create neutrinos, and there are sufficient of them to show that the Sun is powered solely by fusion.

jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2018
.....failures of the spherical double layers that are present within the Sun.


The Sun is far too turbulent a place to have DLs lasting for any length of time. In particular, 'within' it. The outer zone is convective, as observed, and there is no way a star encircling DL could form. Not in any plasma physics I've ever read, anyway.
Solon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
"In your model, where are the neutrinos in supernovae, and from our own star, coming from?"

Neutrino Production by Two-Photon Annihilation
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2018
"In your model, where are the neutrinos in supernovae, and from our own star, coming from?"

Neutrino Production by Two-Photon Annihilation


Nope. There are, inconveniently, sufficient neutrinos to precisely match the amount of nuclear fusion estimated to be happening in the Sun. How is your mechanism magically matching this number? What are the energies of the produced neutrinos in this so-called mechanism? Does it match observation? Aren't electron anti-neutrinos produced in this process? Where are they?
I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing in the standard model of the Sun that requires it to be thrown out in favour of some ill defined alternative.
SCVGoodToGo
3 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2018
@jonesdave

The Electric Sun is real. It was formed by Uli John Roth after he left the Scorpions in 1978.
jonesdave
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2018
@jonesdave

The Electric Sun is real. It was formed by Uli John Roth after he left the Scorpions in 1978.


The Scorpions? They were Germans, weren't they? The buggers bombed my Granny.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2018
The Sun is far too turbulent a place to have DLs lasting for any length of time.

This is a completely false assumption based in nothing. If there is so much "turbulence" then how is there so much structure at every level. And how do the cells of the photospheric granules remain coherent as long as they do?
Solon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2018
"Nope. There are, inconveniently, sufficient neutrinos to precisely match the amount of nuclear fusion estimated to be happening in the Sun."

Estimated? Is that science? The standard model relies on many assumptions, so why shouldn;t I? Light is the primary energy source, but the light in the case of the Sun is hard gamma, and it is generated by what I would call magnetic reconnection, which is 'sparking the vacuum'.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2018
The Sun is far too turbulent a place to have DLs lasting for any length of time.

This is a completely false assumption based in nothing. If there is so much "turbulence" then how is there so much structure at every level. And how do the cells of the photospheric granules remain coherent as long as they do?


Err, what are you talking about? Where are these DLs? What are they supposed to be doing? Why do we need them?
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2018
"Nope. There are, inconveniently, sufficient neutrinos to precisely match the amount of nuclear fusion estimated to be happening in the Sun."

Estimated? Is that science? The standard model relies on many assumptions, so why shouldn;t I? Light is the primary energy source, but the light in the case of the Sun is hard gamma, and it is generated by what I would call magnetic reconnection, which is 'sparking the vacuum'.


Wrong. How do you think we knew that there was a neutrino deficit? Because the amount predicted was not measured. Now it is. As are the energy levels. I asked you about that. What are they, and where are the electron anti-neutrinos? Stop making crap up, and show us the science.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2018
Err, what are you talking about? Where are these DLs? What are they supposed to be doing? Why do we need them?

jonesdumb displays his typical tactics, dodge, duck, dive and dodge... And also displays his utter ignorance of plasma physics and the ubiquitous double layer discovered by Langmuir almost one hundred years ago.
Solon
2 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2018
"..and where are the electron anti-neutrinos?"

"Four experiments have demonstrated new levels of sensitivity to neutrinoless double-beta decay, a process whose existence would prove that neutrinos are their own antiparticles."

https://physics.a...s/v11/30
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2018
Err, what are you talking about? Where are these DLs? What are they supposed to be doing? Why do we need them?

jonesdumb displays his typical tactics, dodge, duck, dive and dodge... And also displays his utter ignorance of plasma physics and the ubiquitous double layer discovered by Langmuir almost one hundred years ago.


Hey thicko, I asked a question, which requires some scientific explanation. If it is beyond you, you loon, just say so. Haven't got an answer, have you, woo boy?
jonesdave
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2018
"..and where are the electron anti-neutrinos?"

"Four experiments have demonstrated new levels of sensitivity to neutrinoless double-beta decay, a process whose existence would prove that neutrinos are their own antiparticles."

https://physics.a...s/v11/30


Lol. Give up you divvy. Science really isn't your thing, is it? What are the energies, and where the **** are they? Answer, woo child. Stop making sh1t up. Did you learn that from the idiots Thornhill and Talbott? All woo and word salad; zero science? Just give up mate, because you are horribly out of your depth, along with the idiot cantthink. Go away and read something you might understand, such as Velikovsky. Lol. Stay away from science, yes?
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2018
"..and where are the electron anti-neutrinos?"

"Four experiments have demonstrated new levels of sensitivity to neutrinoless double-beta decay, a process whose existence would prove that neutrinos are their own antiparticles."

https://physics.a...s/v11/30


Het, sh1t for brains, we can tell the frigging difference between a neutrino and an anti-neutrino, dummy. And guess what we don't see from the Sun? Idiot. How thick are you people? Has any one of you got past primary (grade) school science? I don't think you realise how stupid you make yourselves look, eh? Ignorance is bliss in the EU camp, yes? Can't do science, can't do maths. In which case we can believe in anything. Yey!
Dumb arses. Go back to school.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2018
.....but the light in the case of the Sun is hard gamma,....


No it isn't you idiot. We would detect that, you prawn. We would be bloody dead if it was, you cretin. How thick are you people? Seriously? How scientifically ignorant do you need to be to follow this EU crap? Stop making sh1t up, and do some science, woo boys. Yes?
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2018
Estimated? Is that science? The standard model relies on many assumptions, so why shouldn;t I?


Yes, estimated, woo boy. We know how much energy the Sun is giving off. Do you know why that is, woo child? And then we can work out how much %^&*ing fusion that requires from the p-p chain. Understand? Thought not. From that, we can work out how many %^&$ing neutrinos ought to be produced per second. Comprende, thicko? Nah, course not. Guess what is measured?
Christ you people are thick.
Solon
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2018
I always wondered how Asperger Syndrome would exhibit itself in print.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2018
Hey thicko, I asked a question, which requires some scientific explanation. If it is beyond you, you loon, just say so. Haven't got an answer, have you, woo boy?

As I pointed out, you display the four D's of dodgeball, dodge, duck, dive, and dodge. There are a couple questions in my comment you so conveniently answered with your usual childish name calling and diversion.
Langmuir won his Nobel for his description of surfaces that naturally arise between plasmas. Just because you choose to ignore known ubiquitous plasma phenomena doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If one really knows real plasmas, he knows there will be DL's
barakn
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2018
And how do the cells of the photospheric granules remain coherent as long as they do? -cantdrive85

Because they're 1000 miles across.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2018
I always wondered how Asperger Syndrome would exhibit itself in print.


So, no answers then? As expected.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2018
I always wondered how Asperger Syndrome would exhibit itself in print.


And I've known for some time what scientific illiteracy looks like in print - just following posts by the likes of you and cantthink, or a trip over to Dunderdolts, will show that.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2018
Still no answer from jonesdumb.

And how do the cells of the photospheric granules remain coherent as long as they do? -cantdrive85


Because they're 1000 miles across.

And barkn interjects with a non-answer. The comment was that the Sun was too turbulent to allow for DL's to exist. Yet, here are these 1000 mile across granules which remain coherent in all this turbulence. How? What are these granules separated by? Why does jonesdumb continue to ignore the questions?
theredpill
5 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2018
"I always wondered how Asperger Syndrome would exhibit itself in print."

Made my morning.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2018
Still no answer from jonesdumb.

And how do the cells of the photospheric granules remain coherent as long as they do? -cantdrive85


Because they're 1000 miles across.

And barkn interjects with a non-answer. The comment was that the Sun was too turbulent to allow for DL's to exist. Yet, here are these 1000 mile across granules which remain coherent in all this turbulence. How? What are these granules separated by? Why does jonesdumb continue to ignore the questions?


Because it is a non-starter. Why do we need DLs? What are they doing? What is their relevance to anything we know about the Sun?
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2018
Because it is a non-starter. Why do we need DLs? What are they doing? What is their relevance to anything we know about the Sun?

Dodge, duck, dive, and dodge....with a twist of willful ignorance.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2018
Because it is a non-starter. Why do we need DLs? What are they doing? What is their relevance to anything we know about the Sun?

Dodge, duck, dive, and dodge....with a twist of willful ignorance.


Sorry, woo boy? Where are these DLs proposed? You know, in the scientific literature, by someone who understands science? Tell me that, and I'll go read up on it. If you can't do that, you are just making crap up, and there is nothing to address.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2018
Where are these DLs proposed?

You should start with Langmuir's papers from the '20's regarding naturally occurring surface layers that arise in plasmas. Then you should open your eyes to see the granules are coherent, with darker filaments separating them. With this knowledge established by Langmuir almost one hundred years ago and the obvious visual clues one can deduce that your claims are bupkis as usual.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2018
Where are these DLs proposed?

You should start with Langmuir's papers from the '20's regarding naturally occurring surface layers that arise in plasmas. Then you should open your eyes to see the granules are coherent, with darker filaments separating them. With this knowledge established by Langmuir almost one hundred years ago and the obvious visual clues one can deduce that your claims are bupkis as usual.


Langmuir never proposed DLs on the surface of the Sun. Please point me to someone who has, otherwise there is nothing to discuss, is there?
barakn
3 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2018
Still no answer from jonesdumb.

And how do the cells of the photospheric granules remain coherent as long as they do? -cantdrive85


Because they're 1000 miles across.

And barkn interjects with a non-answer. The comment was that the Sun was too turbulent to allow for DL's to exist. Yet, here are these 1000 mile across granules which remain coherent in all this turbulence. How? What are these granules separated by? Why does jonesdumb continue to ignore the questions?
They have 8 to 20 minute lifespans. Considering that some 1000 mile wide asteroids have been around for over 4 billion years, that's pretty short. You keep throwing the word 'coherent' around like it's some sort of magic. A bubble rising in a boiling pot of water is briefly coherent, but it's merely evidence that the water is boiling, not that there's magic DLs in it or that boiling water isn't extremely turbulent.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2018
I always wondered how Asperger Syndrome would exhibit itself in print.
@solon
1- you still haven't seen it - having a daughter with Asperger and knowing how it manifests in person and in writing, you're making assumptions based upon ignorance

2- you still haven't answered my question
are you avoiding it or just incapable of answering?

I'm trying to have a legit conversation and you're doing everything you can present distractions while arguing with everyone else

.

PS - so far you've demonstrated one problem seen in a lot of pseudoscience advocates: You're presenting your interpretations of the physics while linking data that you think supports your claims

Solon
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2018
"I'm trying to have a legit conversation and you're doing everything you can present distractions while arguing with everyone else

PS - so far you've demonstrated one problem seen in a lot of pseudoscience advocates: You're presenting your interpretations of the physics while linking data that you think supports your claims"

We can not have a legit conversation if you are not willing to even consider models of the Sun that are outside of that which is presently considered to be fact, but which in reality is only speculation.
I have linked to a couple of articles that COULD be used to support an alternative model, can you provide links to papers that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Sun could NOT be anything other than what the standard model proposes?
Hopefully the Parker probe will be able to answer some basic questions, though it seems that often many missions only create more questions than they answer.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2018
Langmuir never proposed DLs on the surface of the Sun. Please point me to someone who has, otherwise there is nothing to discuss, is there?

Langmuir found that DL's naturally occur between two plasmas with different properties, even if the difference is slight. They are ubiquitous in laboratory plasmas, the assumption should be the opposite of yours and assume they are there unless it can be shown they don't exist. Problem is that MHD models are religiously used and those models cannot resolve these phenomena so it is assumed they are not there. This is one of the many problems with allowing maths to lead science discoveries, maths is very often misleading and has little to nothing to do with reality.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2018
@Solon
We can not have a legit conversation if you are not willing to even consider models of the Sun that are outside of that which is presently considered to be fact, but which in reality is only speculation
the problem isn't that I am not willing to consider models of the sun outside of present models
the problem is that you're assuming [x] model presented is superior to the current models while offering zero supporting evidence

the current model, much like models in other areas, is supported by evidence and taken to the next logical step which is testing and validation (or falsification)

you've not presented any model in any form that can be tested, let alone validated or checked
You've only offered speculation combined with interpretation of other data

how does one check your argument if there is no baseline or model reference and only your word that it's applicable?

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2018
@solon cont'd
I have linked to a couple of articles that COULD be used to support an alternative model
which one?
which specific alternative model?

how can I (or anyone else) check your facts if you just state "an" alternative model?
and don't link something from any random page: You want a scientific argument so produce a scientific peer-reviewed model for your baseline reference, not a random internet page
thanks
can you provide links to papers that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Sun could NOT be anything other than what the standard model proposes?
can you provide links to papers that prove that unicorn farts aren't the cause of hurricanes?
[humour intended]

hypothesis plus prediction plus testing/observation with validation in various physics = the probability it's more legitimate than a speculative argument from [x]
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2018
Langmuir never proposed DLs on the surface of the Sun. Please point me to someone who has, otherwise there is nothing to discuss, is there?

Langmuir found that DL's naturally occur between two plasmas with different properties, even if the difference is slight. They are ubiquitous in laboratory plasmas, the assumption should be the opposite of yours and assume they are there unless it can be shown they don't exist. Problem is that MHD models are religiously used and those models cannot resolve these phenomena so it is assumed they are not there. This is one of the many problems with allowing maths to lead science discoveries, maths is very often misleading and has little to nothing to do with reality.


Tell Alfven - he said it was fine to use MHD in the photosphere. Want the links? I very much doubt anybody involved with EU understands enough plasma physics to describe whatever it is you are proposing - so it is a moot point. Show me the literature.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2018
I have linked to a couple of articles that COULD be used to support an alternative model, can you provide links to papers that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Sun could NOT be anything other than what the standard model proposes?


No, you haven't. I think you forget how much evidence there is to back up the standard solar model. There is no room for alternate hypotheses. Those days are long gone. Short of working with different laws of physics than the rest of us, the basic tenets of the standard model are indisputable. Which is why they aren't disputed. Except by the odd crank.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2018
So, let's see what we know, and why we know it;
Well, we know the Sun is composed primarily of H and He with some other stuff knocking about. We know the size and mass of the Sun. Ergo, we can predict the conditions at the core, in terms of temperature and pressure. Those conditions inevitably lead to nuclear fusion. Not a guess, not a wild hypothesis - if the laws of physics hold, then it is inevitable. So, some clever chappies knew that such fusion would happen in a certain way (p-p chain), and could calculate precisely the amount of neutrinos required to supply the measured energy from the Sun. And these neutrinos will have a certain energy spectrum. What is measured, after a slight panic prior to ~ the year 2000, is precisely the amount and energy spectrum we would expect. Helioseismology also allows us to investigate deeper within the Sun, and even allow us to make predictions of sunspots on the far side of the Sun, which we can then see some time later.....
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2018
......in other words, there is not a snowballs chance in the photosphere of overturning the standard model. And nobody is trying to. It is extremely successful. The only people apparently in disagreement are a bunch of mythologists, who believe in all sorts of nonsense, and can therefore be safely ignored.
If you believe otherwise, then not only are you going to need to come up with a model that matches observation, but also has valid alternative explanations for what we already see in favour of the standard model. The chances of that? None.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2018
jonesdumb continues to dodge, duck, dive, and dodge. Still no compelling reason why DL's are impossible on the Sun. He insists that plasma physics is different everywhere else in the Universe than on Earth. Earth must be special to accommodate all these special plasma physics.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2018
There is no room for alternate hypotheses. Those days are long gone. Short of working with different laws of physics than the rest of us, the basic tenets of the standard model are indisputable.

LOL, that's religion for you. Please point to any successful predictions of Eddington's solar model. It is an utter failure from the start, the presence of the corona is just one example of this completely useless model.
Whart1984
Aug 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whart1984
Aug 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2018
In dense aether model
this is called pseudoscience, not science
there is absolutely zero evidence
worse still, aether theory is proven false with evidence to a very high degree of accuracy: https://www.natur...omms9174

clinging to falsified beliefs and then building upon them to call it "a new theory" is what people call delusional
Whart1984
Aug 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2018
@zeph
This is an example of double cheating
no, it's not
it is an example of evidence-based argument and rational thinking

if you had a viable theoretical model based upon evidence that was competitive with modern theory there would be a science-and-evidence based theoretical model you could point to with testable results leading to testing, observation and more

what you've ever offered is links to your reddit page and arguments on your pseudoscience site with your personal interpretations of the evidence that supports modern theory

you claim stuff like
the dense aether model behaves in the opposite way
but yet you can't actually provide any viable peer-reviewed model or actual science

.

that isn't the same thing at all, and it's not rational to think that it is

.

your adherence to the belief despite evidence proving it false is evidence of psychological delusion and/or mental issues
Whart1984
Aug 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whart1984
Aug 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2018
@zeph
In addition, the emergent geometry of AWT model
this is a great example of what I was just talking about
you sent an imgur link - not a link to a journal, abstract, or anything else
(and I won't open any more of your shortened links)

So, where is the science?
are we just supposed to take your word that it's legit?
where is the testable anything?
it's all just your word or the argument that everyone else should be able to see what you see

which is no different than what any crazy man would also claim, mind you!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2018
@zeph
The scientific approach has more things in common with religion than one would want to admit.
yet another claim without evidence?
are we supposed to "see" this just like you see it?

the difference between science and religion is this:
Science is testable and you can redo any experiment and publish the result
better yet, you can compete with any scientist to make your study more clever to show what they missed and either overturn their experiment or validate it

religion, however, requires one suspend reality and just believe the "Authority"
you know, like saying "I'm just foreseeing this trend in physics of the last decade"
no evidence
no experimental validation of your claim
just your personal belief that what they've found (like gravity waves) is wrong

just saying it isn't how science works
you have the power to refute the science with evidence of your own
if you're correct, like with overunity, you'll get rich!
have at it
Whart1984
Aug 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2018
@zeph
and/or water surface analogies of quantum mechanics
an analogy isnt the same thing as science or experiment

just because an analogy is used by more than one area, person etc, doesn't mean said analogy is evidence that your aether bullsh*t is correct

that would be like saying: because Thermodynamics used the same analogy that I used, he is short, a military brat, a retired soldier and a former investigator too
Anyway, this thread isn't about aether,
that has never once stopped you from dragging it into any science discussion
Whart1984
Aug 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whart1984
Aug 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2018
@zeph
This insight I've from research of cold fusion instead
1- no reputable link, nor science reference material provided
comparing two youtube video's with your personal belief isn't the same thing as science

2- nonsensical comparison

that would be like comparing a hot water tap to a cold water tap and saying: because I can easily put my hand under the cold water tap then I should be able to repeat this with the hot tap

3- and again: just because you say it to be true and can find a video on the internet doesn't mean you're correct, let alone rational

Whart1984
Aug 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whart1984
Aug 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2018
@zeph
may be related to strange overunity properties of solar hydrogen plasma
sigh
a dot-com pseudoscience site publishing a Nicholas Moller paper on Langmuir isn't evidence of overunity, which should be far more compelling than the evidence showing overunity/perpetual motion to be impossible
Similar overunity effects were also observed
linking to your personal reddit pseudoscience page isn't supporting evidence or validation
and their interaction with electrons.
just because you delusionally think pshy.org supports your beliefs because you're not banned (yet again) doesn't mean it's supporting evidence of your claims either

so far you're just repeating the same thing, which boils down to: we should believe you rather than the science
yet you're not providing any science in return
nothing that can be checked or validated

it all requires faith in you or the claims

sound familiar?
yep. it's called *religion*
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2018
@zeph
Actually I nearly forgot the hydrino theory of Randell Mills
except that it is *not* a theory
at best it can be considered a hypothesis
except that there is evidence demonstrating his hydrino argument to be invalid
https://arxiv.org...e=header

to date, there have been zero validations of hydrino except by claim of Mills or related people, therefore it cannot be considered tested and validated, therefore it's not a theory

need I reiterate that your personal reddit page isn't validation, let alone science?
it doesn't matter how many links you provide for a belief that is proven false by evidence
Whart1984
Aug 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2018
@zeph
If you would bother at least to visit the abstracts, you would see, that most of links there actually favors hydrino theory.
if you were semi-conversant in the scientific method or had at least a modicum of intelligence (or memory) you would remember that both science and I follow the evidence

and no, most do not favour the hydrino. they investigate the potential. big difference

the speculation that has occurred has stated "we are inclined to conclude that this additional solution in the Dirac equation must be ignored and restrict ourselves only by normal (standard) solutions" in one, and no other has produced a means to find evidence

to date, there is zero valid or validated evidence of hydrino's

other than speculation, what is there?
Mills model is fully fledged theory in scientific sense
no, it is not
https://en.wikipe...c_theory

it lacks validation
nor has it "withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge"
Whart1984
Aug 01, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2018
@zeph
How many scientific theories not only lack validations, but even failed validations
!- how many times do I have to remind you that I am not going to click your pseudoscience reddit page?

2- your reddit page is a personal opinion, not science

3- you stated "this thread isn't about aether", so continuing to hope for attention by linking your site constitutes spam and delusional idiocy - it doesn't make you legit to link on PO. it makes you a fanatical cult member
Mills claims lotta validations
mills can claim he is a freakin' faerie, but so long as you state
but they were mostly done by teams less or more closely related to Mills
then you just demonstrated that it is *not* validation
or didn't you catch that part of the link re: scientific theory?
Actually just the lack of validation is what defines the theory concept
actually, you're either illiterate or stupid per the link I already left for you to read
see also: references in said link
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2018
except that there is evidence demonstrating his hydrino argument to be invalid (links from arXiv full text search blindly linked)
If you would bother at least to visit the abstracts, you would see, that most of links there actually favors hydrino theory. Randall Mills model is fully fledged theory in scientific sense, providing dozens of quantitative testable predictions (which is something, which for example so-called string "theory" is still sadly lacking). Of course this still doesn't mean, that this theory is correct (the case of epicycle model, which also brought valid quantitative predictions comes on mind here).


Mate, Randell Mills is a con-artist. End of story.
http://www.intern...t=327782
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2018
There is no room for alternate hypotheses. Those days are long gone. Short of working with different laws of physics than the rest of us, the basic tenets of the standard model are indisputable.

LOL, that's religion for you. Please point to any successful predictions of Eddington's solar model. It is an utter failure from the start, the presence of the corona is just one example of this completely useless model.


Hey, thicko? Guess what, you wa**er? We use a different f**&^ng model now, s^&t for brains. Yes? Remember the 19th century, do you, idiot? Well. it's gone now, dear.
Can we please see the models of the scientifically illiterate EU loons? Otherwise, chaps, why don't you STFU? Yes? Science really isn't your thing, is it dears? Lol.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2018
... the presence of the corona is just one example of this completely useless model.


Yet another example of how thick these idiots really are! Eh, cantthink? Leave the science alone, dear, it is well beyond you, isn't it love? Lol.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2018
NASA HELIOPHYSICS Magnetic reconnection in the Sun

Two magnetic fields of opposite polarity and two parallel conductors of opposite polarity attract
The two magnetic fields are a wave moving outwards towards each other just the same as dropping two pebbles a distance apart in the wave tank producing two circular waves moving outward toward each other
When they connect they break, reconnect creating two new wave moving perpendicular in the wave tank

Demonstrated in a magnetic reconnection event on the Sun in NASA HELIOPHYSICS solar video https://upload.wi...vent.ogv
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2018
It depends on magnetic fields being a wave
two magnetic fields are a wave moving outwards towards each other just the same as dropping two pebbles a distance apart in the wave tank producing two circular waves moving outward toward each other When they connect they break, reconnect creating two new wave moving perpendicular in the wave tank

If the magnetic fields were waves there would be interference of waves, not breaking and reconnecting implies solar magnetic fields are not waves
tallenglish
not rated yet Aug 03, 2018
Best part of this article was the comments.

Grown and likely quite intelligent males acting like children calling each other names in the playground.

While nobody seems to understand why the corona is, I think even fewer understand why it is asymetrical - the best explanation I can think of for that is comparing it to a hurricane, where tornados are mostly formed on the north eastern edge. This suggests the corona too is a result of turbulance and thats a result of the star spinning along its axis.

I would also like to see if the gravity well strength is actually uniform or more wavey if you will - trapping ions of various ionisation at different levels similar to what we have found on Earth. And we might need to think of the surface of the sun like the Earths crust, only ionised plasma rather than magma.

https://en.wikipe...PREM.svg
DannyBoy007
not rated yet Sep 09, 2018
Well... I'm late to the party... gladly so by reading the amount hypocritical ignorance and unscientific bias and scepticism surrounding the topic!
I was going to comment on the SCIENTIFIC, repeatable, validated, testable, and predicted works of Dr Randell Mills... … possibly the greatest scientific mind of our age... but I don't think I will. You just get a load of abuse off people who have never actually taken the time to read his work or study his model (correct in stating it's not a theory, it's a set of classical laws!)…

And when it comes to be being a scam... YOU AIN'T SCAMMING THE CIA AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT ANY TIME SOON!
(EU loons! Dude... you've got Trump as a President and just got raped by Sasha Baron Cohen! The whole world knows who the loonies are America!)

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.