Voyager 2 Detects Peculiar Solar System Edge

ClickOnThis writes "CNN reports that Voyager 2 has detected evidence of the magnetic edge of the solar system (aka the heliopause) at 76 AU (1 AU = 93 million miles), much closer to the Sun than the location of 85 AU found by Voyager 1. From the article: 'This implies that the heliosphere, a spherical bubble of charged low-energy particles created by our Sun's solar wind, is irregularly shaped, bulging in the northern hemisphere and pressed inward in the south. [...] The researchers think that the heliosphere's asymmetry might be due to a weak interstellar magnetic field pressing inward on the southern hemisphere.'"

Comments

I knew it

[sidfaiwu]

I have been living in a bubble all my life.

Variable size?

[topher1kenobe]

Could it not simply mean that it changes in size? I'd be surprised if it *didn't* change in size, based on all the variable energy in the solar system. The sun changes, the planets change place, etc.

Re:Variable size?

[Nos.]

I wouldn't think the positioning of the planets would have much to do with it. Thing of a spec of dust in front of a spotlight... pretty tough to notice the effects a significant distance away. However, given sun spots, solar flares, etc. I wouldn't think that the distance would be constant. Though a variation of around 11% is pretty significant. Of course, two data points at different times in different areas is hardly enough to make any kind of conclusions.

Re:Variable size?

[MindStalker]

I believe from the Voyager I expedition that Voyager I detected and eventually cross the heliosphere where it was detected a year later. So the idea that the size stayed steady during the time then quickly switched sizes as Voyager II approached is unlikly... Unless the excape of Voyager I has upset the Gods... Then we are all doomed!

Re:Variable size?

[sidfaiwu]

Could it not be both changing sizes and be irregularly shaped and off center?

Re:Variable size?

[Bob3141592]

Could it not simply mean that it changes in size? I'd be surprised if it *didn't* change in size, based on all the variable energy in the solar system. The sun changes, the planets change place, etc.

What variability? The sun is pretty constant on short time scales. The sun is being observed in detail by other spacecraft specifically designed for that task, like Helios. These spacecraft directly measure the solar wind and track the effects of solar. I'm sure the people at NASA have included that data into their analysis. They are rocket scientists, after all. The planets exert essentially zero influence over the heliosphere. So it's not like they have no idea about what's going without the Voyager data.

Re:Variable size?

[VWJedi]

"...based on all the variable energy in the solar system."

What about the energy outside the solar system? Although the distance is much greater between the sun and neighboring stars, those stars do have a gravitational effect on the movement of the sun, the planets, and all other objects in the solar system. They probably have an electro-magnetic effect as well.

Er. Wait.

[Roody Blashes]

That's two data points, and "bulging" implies a highly irregular shape, or at least an even shape that couldn't be accurately modeled by two data points.

Wouldn't it be equally as logical to say that it's just expanding/contracting? How can they know with only two points?

Re:Er. Wait.

[rockhome]

The 2 data points aren't informing the size or shape, but are observations related to a theory.

The theoretical belief is that it should be relatively uniform, but it does not appear to be. Are 2 observations sufficient? No, but a difference in 9 AU in the 2 observations is significant in that it is far off the scall were it less than 1, or maybe only slightly different, that would better confirm the theory. If the physics say that it ought to be uniform, and observations shows that it isn't, th theory needs to be adjusted.

Correct me if i'm wrong...

[Tibor the Hun]

...but all that mumbo-jumbo about weak this and that seems really complicated.

Couldn't the inward bulge on the south be because the turtle shell is pushing in on it?

Other possibilities

[Glacial Wanderer]

Or it means that the heliopause is collapsing at an alarming rate. In other words, the sky is falling! End of the solar system! Run for your lives!

Re:garbage!

[rubycodez]

no, we've been taking data over many years along two different parabolic trajectories, that's a HUGE difference from sampling at two little data points. And we'll keep taking data along these curves; expansion or contraction and other variations could possibly be detected

here's a question you shouldn't be able to answer

[Anonymous Coward]

"computer, what is the nature of the universe?"

The universe is a spheroid region - 705 meters in diameter...

Good Engineering

[Screwy1138]

It's a credit to the teams that these things are still running. I feel like there is an old and new NASA. Imagine a project today to explore the edges of the Solar System (I know Voyagers did more than that but we have to keep it simple today). "Okay boys, now, we don't care what direction you go in, but could you please just not hit anything?" All in all, I really feel for NASA.

Re:Good Engineering

[Scarblac]

In the meantime, both Spirit and Opportunity are still active, two years and four months after landing on Mars.

Re:oh great

[Trails]

North and south also refer to magnetic poles. North is generally assumed to be the positive pole, and south the negative, though when poles flip, as happens on earth (every one million years I think), and the sun (every 11 years or so, sometimes refered to as a period of solar maxima), common usage north and south probably won't switch. Wikipedia has a bit more info.

There's also galactic north and south, which are imaginary axes perpendicular to the the plane of the galaxy. Again, wikipedia has more info.

I'd hazard that what this article refers to as north is probably some assumed "solar north" roughly parallel to Earth's north.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

En1arge your heli0sphere

[mikeeg555]

En1arge your heli0sphere! With our proven program, you can make your heliosphere larger and thicker in just a few short weeks. Would you like to see results by the end of the first week?... You will... Follow our program, and within just a couple months you can be 9 or more AU larger than when you first started.

A better article...

[Anonymous Coward]

...from a far less clueless source.

Here is an illustration of the phenomenon.

-mcgrew

Re:I wonder.

[njchick]

Will Santa have to move when the poles flip?

No. Santa will die, and Anti-Santa will arise.

Re:garbage!

[misanthrope101]

I'm sorry, I'm not a scientist and perhaps that's why I can't graps how the hell they came to this genius conclusion.

Yes, your assessment of your own abilities is more accurate than your assessment of the science involved in what they are doing. What I don't see is how you started out so well, acknowledging the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about, and then stumbled on anyway to decide that they were making it all up and it was actually, as you called it, "garbage." It's as if you don't think that your own admitted, acknowledged ignorance diminishes the validity of your analysis. Are you really that arrogant? And if you are, might you not want to re-think something in your intellectual approach to science, and in fact to rational thought? Just an idea.

No, I'm not calling you stupid. I don't understand quantum mechanics, among other subjects. However, I realize that my ignorance means that I am extremely unqualified to dismiss any article on quantum mechanics as "garbage." That doesn't mean that I have to believe everything, or that I am suffering from the "argument from authority" fallacy, only that I recognize that science has been a very productive, very successful mental process, and the bare fact that I don't understand something scientists are saying doesn't mean that they're making it all up. Just saying "Zeuss did it" is just making it up, but flying a freaking spaceship out to the edge of the solar system to gather data to analyze proves that the thought process is based on something rational and dependable, even if I don't understand all the aspects of the science.

I know my response is disproportionate to your original post. The reason I wrote it is that too many people, knowing full well that they don't know what they're talking about, still feel eminently qualified to have a passionate opinion on scientific subjects. Usually their assessment is that the science is "garbage," that scientists are "just making it all up," and that it's just a "secular religion" used to explain away God, or some such crap. Meanwhile I'm sitting in an air-conditioned room, wearing glasses, looking at my car keys, and otherwise surrounded by things that were all created by science, none of which were created by prayer or chanting. Hearing people denigrate the scientific method, even while being surrounded by the fruits of that method, is starting to chafe my hide.

Some corrections and clarifications...

[jnik]

I should learn to not read slashdot during AGU.

I forgot whose talk I heard yesterday (they changed the speaking order; session was SH22A) but basically: V1 passed the termination shock (NOT the heliopause; summary is wrong) at the end of 2004; this was the big announcement at last spring AGU meeting. Before that, they were seeing foreshock signatures (plasma and magnetic). V2 is now seeing those signatures, but seeing them a fair bit closer in than V1 was observing them. So, V2 has not passed the heliopause, nor even the termination shock, but appears to be nearing the TS closer to the Sun than V1 did. This is a surprising/interesting result, but not huge overturning of theory or anything. Learning the structure of the outer regions of the Solar System is the whole point of these exercises (and the upcoming IBEX mission).

spheroid region?

[Analogy Man]

I am quite certain that the solar system is in FACT banana shaped.