Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Solar "Tadpoles" Finally Explained

Posted by Hemos on from the interesting-theories dept.

Abhishek writes " Solar "tadpoles" - dark shadows that seem to wiggle down toward the surface of the sun during flares - may have been explained by University of Warwick astrophysicists. Dr Valery Nakariakov and Dr Erwin Verwichte analysed observations obtained with NASA's "Transition Region And Coronal Explorer" (TRACE) space mission. They theorize that the wiggles of the tadpoles' tails are earth-sized waves similar to the waves in a flag blown by the wind. They think that the waves are produced by a phenomenon known as "negative energy waves"; waves pull energy from the medium they propagate through. The "tadpoles" are optical illusions, rather than real physical structures; the apparently descending tadpole head marks the falling start point of the matter's upward acceleration."

26 comments

  1. Does this mean by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Funny



    That we don't have to worry about being eaten alive by the Giant Solar Frogs anymore?

    SIgh... I hate that feeling when I read an article that solves a mystery I never even heard of. There's the sense of loss: All the wild speculations that never were. The info is still interresting, but I feel like I just walked in when someone was telling the punch line of a joke.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Does this mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we don't have to worry about being eaten alive by the Giant Solar Frogs anymore?

      Yes, but the giant mutant space goat is still out there!

    2. Re:Does this mean by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Funny, I feel like I just walked in when somebody said. "These are not the droids you are looking for"

    3. Re:Does this mean by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 1

      Bah, next they'll be trying to persuade us we're under threat from a giant Mutant Star Goat!

  2. Neither one, you idiot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... instead!

  3. so... by bird603568 · · Score: 1

    let me get this straight. From what I understand this is cause by total destructive interference? like in the double slit experinent when there are dark bands.

  4. So many overlords, so little time by FirienFirien · · Score: 3, Funny

    I for one welcome our illusionary earthsized tadpole overlords.

    --
    Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    1. Re:So many overlords, so little time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may have been funny once, but its not funny now.

    2. Re:So many overlords, so little time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pointing out that fact may have been relevant once, but it's not relevant now.

  5. sun sperm by rev_sanchez · · Score: 1

    If they really wanted some research money that is what they should call them.

    --
    If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
    1. Re:sun sperm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Sun Sperm. If they really wanted some research money that is what they should call them.
      Just the opposite. They start doing that and they'll lose their funding because it's out of line with the administration's regime of abstinence-only education.
    2. Re:sun sperm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think all americans should practice abstinence.

  6. What an awful description! by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Of course these things aren't optical illusions! Optical illusions are artifacts of the human vision system and when you attempt to explain an optical illusion you give a description in terms of sensory organs (eg. this bit appears to wiggle because because the visual systems's motion sensors are still active from previous stimulation yada, yada, yada...). This phenomenon has (tentatively) been explained in terms of physical phenomena taking place at the Sun. So clearly it isn't an optical illusion.

    (I guess a case could be made that one aspect of these phenomena is illusory. For example we often imagine that the horizontal motion of the crest of a wave represents a horizontal motion of fluid even if the only motion is vertical. But I'd like to see someone tell the family of a victim of the recent tsunami that the wave was an optical illusion! A wave is a real physical phenomenon even if our vision perceives one aspect of that wave incorrectly.)

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:What an awful description! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not all optical illusions are "artifacts of the human vision system". Heat wave mirages seem to be water, but are just a refraction of the sky. Looks like water, but it's not. The explanation of this does not rely solely on descriptions of sensory organs.

    2. Re:What an awful description! by Bloater · · Score: 1

      The sea moved several miles inland. How is that only vertical movement?

    3. Re:What an awful description! by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Only a tiny proportion of the water involved actually moved a significant distance horizontally. After the tsunami passed through, most sea water returned more or less where it was before the wave passed through. It's only at the very end, as the wave hit the coastline, that a sizeable amount of water was irreversibly displaced horizontally.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    4. Re:What an awful description! by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Good example. In this case the human perceptual system is tricked because the path of the light is itself is modified. (Though in this case it could be said that the reason why we are mistaken is that our vision systems are based on the assumption of straight line paths for light so it is a perceptual issue.) Nonetheless, this is definitely not what is happening in the 'tadpole' example.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    5. Re:What an awful description! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Though in this case it could be said that the reason why we are mistaken is that our vision systems are based on the assumption of straight line paths for light so it is a perceptual issue.
      Yeah, well anyone who did say that would be defending themselves via semantics instead of a reasoned counterpoint.

      "Sure, well, anything that looks funky must involve a perceptual issue, since it was seen by our eyes. So under my definition it can be an optical illusion, so that way, we're both right!"

    6. Re:What an awful description! by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I totally agree with you that it isn't an optical illusion, though I understand your reasoning.

      I look at it this way; our vision system is built to identify objects based on parallax for items close enough for stereo to work, and based on silhouettes for items farther away. We perceive an object moving towards the sun because the object is a persistant motive silhouette, while what is actually occuring is a fountain of material moving in the OTHER direction with a negative energy wave traversing it.

      From that point of view, I would say that this is an artifact of the design of our visual system, in other words, an optical illusion.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
  7. Foolish Lex Luthor by Yeechang+Lee · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bah! Everyone knows that the so-called "tadpoles" are actually living sun creatures. Fortunately, they're unlikely to attack Earth again because the Superfriends defeated them after Lex Luthor foolishly tried to strike a deal with the creatures.

  8. negative waves by LazyBoy · · Score: 1

    Always with the negative waves, Moriarity. Always with the negative waves.

    --

    If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.

  9. Bummer by __aaasvk1266 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hoped the article would explain why Solaris capable Tadpole computers are so exspensive:

    http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/html/products/mob il e/bullfrog/

  10. Irreversibly? by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    It all drained back to the sea pretty smartly - taking a lot of flora and buildings with it. To me, that looks like reversible flow.

    Given the enormous seafloor displacements at the epicenter, a significant amount of water must have been orizontally displaced to somewhere other then the Indonesian coastlines on a reasonably irreversible basis.

    WRT the handle and tagline: What's so special about 262537412640768000? And... There are no barbers.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Irreversibly? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      262537412640768000? Do you really think exp(pi*sqrt(163)) can be an integer? That's a transcendental function there. And sure there are barbers! But are there any barbers who shave everyone in town except those who shave themselves?

      Anyway...back to waves. Yes, it eventually drained back. But the draining wasn't wave motion. Typically in wave motion water travels back and forth, not with the wave. But that clearly breaks down when a wave breaks at the coast.

      You're right that there was probably some displacement of water. But even if the motion at the seabed was such that there was no change in overall volume we could expect a significant wave at the surface. Waves can travel significant distances through water without significantly displacing water.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  11. Solar Babies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they are essentially sperm cells to the Sun's Ovum. Maybe Dave Bowman's return will be on schedule.