Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Solar Hurricane Rips Off Comet's Tail

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the cited-for-comet-abuse dept.

coondoggie writes to mention that NASA recently captured images of a solar hurricane ripping the tail off Encke's comet. "In a release, NASA said preliminary analysis suggests that the tail was ripped away when magnetic fields bumped together in an explosive process called "magnetic reconnection." Oppositely directed magnetic fields around the comet "bumped into each" by the magnetic fields in the hurricane. Suddenly, these fields linked together--they "reconnected"--releasing a burst of energy that tore off the comet's tail. A similar process takes place in Earth's magnetosphere during geomagnetic storms fueling, among other things, the Northern Lights, NASA said."

26 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Wonder what the RF signature of that was like by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't you get a rather large electrical field when a magnetic field like that collapses? Should be an amazing radio source.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    1. Re:Wonder what the RF signature of that was like by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Precisely. Magnetic reconnection releases a tremendous amount of energy, most of it in the form of EM radiation. It is the phenomenon responsible for, IIRC, many (most?) solar weather events, perhaps most notably solar flares.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    2. Re:Wonder what the RF signature of that was like by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Informative

      The source of the solar wind anomaly -- the recent "bare" magnetic storm -- is a much higher source of RF and other energy than any distant magnetic effects. It might have made a blip but would probably be drowned out by the main phenomenon.

  2. Tsk tsk tsk by Bluesman · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's very immature of the Sun. Fortunately, we know that the comet's tail will grow back, and it will be none the worse for wear.

    --
    If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    1. Re:Tsk tsk tsk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      In further news: The solar hurricane was named Lorena.

    2. Re:Tsk tsk tsk by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fortunately, we know that the comet's tail will grow back

      Well, hey, hold on there... we first need to decide whether this comet tail should be rebuilt at all. If another solar hurricane is just going to come and wash the tail away, then it's a waste of valuable ice and dust to rebuild it and we should disincentivize comet tails from forming by saying, hey, comet tails, we're not bailing you out anymore! Stop mooching off the rest of the solar system and take some responsibility for yourselves!

      Curiously, by accident or design it seems that most of the damage and disruption was confined to the ion tail, instead of the wealthier dust tail area... that's typical electromagnetic justice for you.

  3. Magnetic Reconnection? by IMarvinTPA · · Score: 3, Informative

    What is this Magnetic Reconnection thing you speak of?
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060711magnetic.htm

    IMarv

    --
    Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trus
    1. Re:Magnetic Reconnection? by kmac06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh...between well-agreed upon scientific data and interpretation vs one guy's ranting website (who's not a physicist), I'm gonna go with the peer-reviewed literature. This claims to single-handedly see a gaping hole in solar neutrino oscillation experiments, that no physicist sees. That is just screaming CRACKPOT!

      As far as the magnetic reconnection issue...well there's no reason to trust (or even read) anything a crackpot like this says.

    2. Re:Magnetic Reconnection? by pln2bz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Science is not a democracy, by the way. We do not vote on ideas based upon who is saying them, contrary to the increasing belief that this is how it works. Instead, we should attempt to understand the arguments that are being made and discuss the logic behind both sides in the argument.

      There have been plenty of intelligent people who believed that space plasmas are electrical. You just have not read about them. Hannes Alfven, Ralph Juergens, Kristian Birkeland, Anthony Peratt, to name a few. Hannes Alfven received the Noble Physics Prize for his creation of magnetohydrodynamics, which is the mathematics used to model space plasmas. You may be surprised to learn that in his acceptance speech, he disagreed with the idea of modeling space plasmas with frozen-in-place magnetic fields -- a technique which he originated and that persists to this day. He was completely ignored.

      If you have not read the story of Halton Arp, then you are limiting your exposure to observations to those which you agree with. In truth, there is no good reason for why Arp's observations are not correct. Arp has been obstructed from sharing his findings at every step of the way, oftentimes by the very people whose research is threatened by his observations.

      There is a person on wikipedia called ScienceApologist, who has been censoring EU Theory from wikipedia on the basis that there are no published papers which support EU Theory. Well, Anthony Peratt, Wallace Thornhill and a handful of other EU theorists did in fact get published in September in an IEEE publication. ScienceApologist decided to actually send a letter to the IEEE editor, objecting that the papers were pseudo-scientific (and yet in the absence of any evidence supporting his statements). Apparently, his requirement that EU Theorists be published is in fact not sufficient at all. There appears to be no burden that can be met by the EU Theorists that would satisfy him, and the ethical problems associated with his being both a wikipedia referee and a player involved in influencing the publication of the theory appears to escape him.

      Not being popular is not an excuse to avoid reading about something, especially when there are such over-zealous censors who believe it is their duty to prevent the public from understanding the debate about electricity in space. If a theory appears to be logically coherent and supported by observational evidence, then it stands a chance of being true regardless of how many adherents it possesses (nature does not care what people prefer to believe), and it deserves investigation and even attempts to quantify it. Evaluating theories purely on the basis of who looks or sounds the smartest is a downward spiral. I recommend that you think twice before suggesting that others follow your lead. You very well could be redirecting people away from fruitful lines of research and investigation. Despite your good intentions, you may in fact be causing harm. You can't possibly know until you *read* what the theory says and talk to people about it, right?

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    3. Re:Magnetic Reconnection? by CorSci81 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, it goes like this.

      That you just posted is a piece of pseudo-scientific dreck from all I can tell. I had a course on MHD in grad school, the theory of magnetic reconnection most certainly can account for the speed of energy release in solar events. It's also an important problem in plasma instability in tokamaks. Searching on google scholar didn't find any peer-reviewed papers by plasma physicists refuting magnetic reconnection.

      Perhaps they were confused by Biskamp's 1986 paper on the Sweet-Parker model failing to achieve fast reconnection that was cleared up in a 1992 paper by Priest and they missed that Biskamp himself seems to accept fast reconnection as possible in his 1994 paper?

    4. Re:Magnetic Reconnection? by pln2bz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does it matter that Wallace Thornhill was able to predict nearly all of the results of the Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1?

      Are you aware of what helioseismology is and what the implications of the oxygen ratio crisis are? Helioseismology was created to model activity on the Sun based upon observations and theories regarding the Sun's composition. Everybody claimed that it "proved" that we understood the Sun's inner workings. Then, one day, it was discovered that the theories regarding the Sun's composition were in fact somehow wrong.

      Are you aware that jets are being discovered on a nearly weekly basis now that are tens and even hundreds of thousands of light years? These jets emit x-rays, which means that the energy for them must be actively replenished in order for the full length of the jet to remain illuminated all at once.

      Are you aware that the solar wind continues to accelerate as it leaves the Sun, and even as it passes the planets? Are you aware that mainstream stellar theories lack a convincing theory for how this is possible?

      Are you aware that lightning has been observed to be traveling to the edge of Earth's atmosphere, 40 miles above its surface to the edge of space? Why would it be doing that?

      Are you aware that stars have been observed to bounce all over the HR diagram?

      Are you aware that Halton Arp's statistics have been validated by a third party recently?

      What is it about space plasmas that would make them different from laboratory plasmas? In the laboratory, plasmas exhibit three distinct operating modes (dark, glow and arc) and electrical resistance based upon charge density, and a gas becomes a plasma with less than 1% ionization.

      Are you aware that we see rilles on all sorts of planets within our solar system that move both up and down with the terrain, in apparent defiance of gravity?

      Did you know that all sorts of strange human-created objects and even human bones have been found over the years inside of coal mines, hundreds of feet below the ground's surface, and even inside of rocks?

      Did you know that we sent four probes to investigate Venus' anomalous temperature, and all four probes determined that Venus was emitting around 15% more heat than it was absorbing?

      Are you aware that there is an inordinate amount of fossil evidence that supports the notion that the Earth used to have a uniform temperature over its entire surface?

      Are you aware that the field of comparative mythology (which covers ancient astronomical recordings and historical documents too) has been in a crisis for at least 20 years now, and that there have been recent breakthroughs that reveal that there is information within ancient documents that indicate that the universe operates according to a plasma-based cosmology? Have you read "God Star" by Dwardu Cardona?

      Are you aware that solar neutrinos appear to negatively correlate with sunspot frequency? Do understand what this means?

      My guess is that you have been restricting your reading materials in a pseudo-skeptical manner. I recommend that you read what is being said before discounting it. That would certainly reduce the amount of garbage that people have to wade through on these forums to get to actual discussion.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    5. Re:Magnetic Reconnection? by kmac06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have no opinion on the magnetics going on here. I was pointing our the crackpottery of the first paragraph of your link, and saying that the rest of what he has to say should be ignored based on that (that doesn't mean everything he says is false--if he says 1+1=2 that's still true).

    6. Re:Magnetic Reconnection? by pln2bz · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was pointing our the crackpottery of the first paragraph of your link, and saying that the rest of what he has to say should be ignored based on that

      But magnetic reconnection is *extremely* important as it attempts to explain why the Sun's atmosphere is 100x hotter than its surface. We see a similar inverse temperature situation with the Earth's atmosphere, but it is generally agreed that this is a result of an external energy source. If Don Scott is right about magnetic reconnection, then the most popular theory for how the Sun's core can heat up its atmosphere without heating up its surface is bunk. It is an important issue that people should attempt to understand. If you just set it aside, then you are actually refusing to consider the meat of his argument. That's not very helpful for evaluating whether or not he's right. We might as well judge his theory on what his hair looks like or the fact that he's not in a wheelchair or hasn't been on TV.
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    7. Re:Magnetic Reconnection? by kmac06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're not getting (or intentionally ignoring) my point about the solar neutrino oscillations. This guy clearly either doesn't know what he's talking about, or for some reason isn't trying to convince any actual physicists. Either way, it means he shouldn't be taken seriously, regardless of what he's saying.

    8. Re:Magnetic Reconnection? by pln2bz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My understanding actually is that number of neutrinos emitted by the Sun are inversely correlated with sunspot frequency. If that is true, then that would tend to pose a serious problem for the standard solar model as that would suggest a correlation between neutrino generation and activity on the Sun's surface, which are supposed to be separated by a significant duration of time. Is this not true?

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    9. Re:Magnetic Reconnection? by lindseyp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well bloody hell.. you could have provided some references.

      Now all I have to go on are three newly-ordered-from-amazon books. by Arp, Scott, and Lerner. I don't think all the points you mention in your post are covered there.

      --
      j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
  4. Tail wasn't connected anyway by noidentity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The tail of a comet isn't connected to the comet anyway; it's material that's already fallen off the comet. A better headline would be "solar hurricane redirects comet's tail". But in this age of violent analogies, "rips off" gets preference.

  5. Solar Hurricane??? by flajann · · Score: 5, Informative

    What is a "Solar Hurricane"? This is a astronomical term to which I am unfamiliar.
    I wonder if they are talking about coronal mass ejections? If so, I don't get the analogy. Hurricanes are basically large vortices's. Coronal Mass Ejections are not.

    --
    Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
    1. Re:Solar Hurricane??? by meowsqueak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Silly terms from fluid mechanics. There's no such thing as a solar 'wind'. It's the movement of charged particles in an electric field - an electric current.

      Or maybe they are just using the term 'hurricane' as an emotional allusion to a violent storm.

  6. Cometary Tails as Electron Sources by pln2bz · · Score: 2, Interesting
    What's actually really interesting is the *other* comet-related article that came out today regarding findings related to the Ulysses probe traveling through the tail of Comet McNaught. Particularly (from http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071001_comet_surprises.html) ...

    The study, detailed in the Oct. 1 issue of Astrophysical Journal, also found the comet tail acted as a source of electrons for the solar wind.

    The solar wind consists of charged atoms that are missing most of their electrons, but Ulysses found that solar wind particles passing through the comet's atmosphere could regain some of those electrons. The particles exhibit a different charge when they do this, which SWICS can detect.

    Both findings are a surprise to scientists. Thomas Zurbuchen, a study team member at the University of Michigan (U-M), likened Ulysses' pass through the comet tail to putting your hand in the waters of Lake Michigan and pulling out a fish.

    The Electric Comet theory is covered in good detail here:

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

    I'm sure that Wallace Thornhill will have something to say about this eventually, but this appears to confirm the Electric Universe hypothesis that comets are not sublimating dirty snowballs, but rather electrical phenomenon. The OH that's being observed in cometary tails appears to be the result of electric machining of oxygen from silicates in the comet, which then combine with hydrogen protons from the solar wind to create OH. In other words, the OH is not necessarily an indication of sublimation.

    I realize that many people here on Slashdot do not *like* EU Theory and its general lack of quantification, but when our observations appear to be supporting a particular theory, it makes sense that people should temporarily suspend their disbelief and read up on what the theory says. Keep in mind that there is a difference between saying that a theory is not properly quantified and a theory *cannot* be quantified. People have been arguing for sometime now that simple calculations can "prove" that there are not enough charged particles within interstellar space to power the Sun, but these calculations are based upon some rather dramatic assumptions that are not supported by the evolving big picture of the Sun. For instance, of particular importance is the recent paper demonstrating that the solar wind possesses "flux tubes" ...

    From http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000932000001000026000001

    The abstract wrote:
    Recent studies suggest that flux-tube-like structures may exist in the solar wind. In this scenario, the solar wind plasma are confined in many individual flux tubes and plasma in these flux tubes move independently from each other. Within each flux tubes, the (MHD) turbulence is due to the local non-linear dynamics. Across the boundaries between adjacent flux tubes, however, the (MHD) turbulence receives another contribution from the sudden change of magnetic field directions between different flux tubes. Thus the solar wind turbulence will naturally be of multiscale and intermittent. In this paper, using the procedure we developed in [1], we analyze magnetic field data obtained from Ulysses spacecraft in both fast and slow solar wind, at various radii and latitudes. Our results show flux tubes exist in both the fast and the slow solar wind. ©2007 American Institute of Physics

    In other words, the solar wind appears to bear some resemblance to a novelty plasma ball. My impression is that there is likely very little difference between a "flux tube" and a Birkeland Current.
    --
    "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    1. Re:Cometary Tails as Electron Sources by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "this appears to confirm the Electric Universe hypothesis that comets are not sublimating dirty snowballs, but rather electrical phenomenon."

      Why mod you down when I can point you here?

      "Keep in mind that there is a difference between saying that a theory is not properly quantified and a theory *cannot* be quantified."

      A theory can be unquantifiable due to its subject matter (intelligent design) or, as is the case with the "electric universe theory," due to its authors' refusal to let it be quantified when it would be to their egos' detriment. Only observations that have a (usually fleetingly small) connection to this pet theory are allowed in, permitting people such as yourself to churn out several paragraphs of "We're right!" all while cheerfully ignoring something as trivial as we've fucking been there! In that respect, you have more in common with the Flat Earth types than the ID folks you allude to, whose statements are truly unassailable (placing it outside the realm of science) rather than willfully ignorant.

      At least you're "interesting" rather than "informative." Thank His Noodliness for such small blessings.

    2. Re:Cometary Tails as Electron Sources by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "For instance, there is still no aether theory that everybody can agree on."

      Only because you insist on including yourselves in "everybody." Any hand-waving explanations for the lack of an aether wind belong in the same category as epicycles.

      "There is legitimate disagreement amongst the theorists on how to replace quantum mechanics"

      Replace quantum mechanics? Why? Have all of our semiconductors suddenly stopped working?

      "gravitational lensing, for instance, appears to be quite bunk,"

      Um...

      "as does the 1919 eclipse"

      And what of the 70 other total eclipses during the Twentieth Century?

      "These are all legitimate questions that can only be resolved through additional observation."

      How can these questions be resolved through "additional observation" when the only reason you still have such questions is that you are ignoring all the observations that indicate just how wrong-headed your questions are?

      "but is there really any substance to your allegation that delicate egos are the cause of a lack of quantification? No, it appears that you just made this up."

      Don't you mean that I need to make more observations?

    3. Re:Cometary Tails as Electron Sources by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "The article neither proves nor disproves either theory."

      Only if you ignore the reported figures for what was ejected from the impact: 250,000 metric tons of water.

      "What isn't mentioned in that wikipedia article is the arc between the probe and the comet just before impact.
      If you think about it, the comet is passing through a charged region of space (solar wind), hence it will be equalise potential to the surrounding plasma. Hence as a probe with a different potential approaches (similar to that of the Earth), an arc discharges between the two."

      Only if the difference in electrical potential is great enough to cause a current to flow through a vacuum (or is the vacuum something else you don't believe in?). Here's an idea: maybe the arc wasn't discussed because there wasn't one.

      "other texts I have read about that space mission indicated virtually no ice at all."

      And if it's written, it must be true and require no verification! Especially the more outlandish writings!

      "I have yet to the scientists who know what they are talking about refuses quantisisation of the EU or the relate theories."
      1. Because you decide who "does" and "does not" know what they're talking about. If you don't like what they say, they just "don't know."
      2. Because rational people have better things to do with their time than try to explain to those who refuse to listen
  7. Spaceweather.com has... by Assassin+bug · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... an animated GIF that is kind of nifty. I bet if that CME hit earth containing a comet tail the light show would be impressive!

  8. Slashdot party game by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just in time for Slashdot's birthday party: Rip the tail off the comet!

    --
    No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  9. Periodic comets by rcw-home · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article:

    The comet is only the second repeating, or periodic, comet ever identified
    If not wrong, then this is certainly misleading. Encke's Comet was the second periodic comet identified, but sheesh - would you say "Sputnik 2 was only the second satellite ever launched"? There are hundreds of known periodic comets.