New ideas on the mechanism of solar CME's

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around new research and understandings of the mechanisms behind solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Participants explore the implications of recent studies and press releases, as well as the historical context of these findings within solar astronomy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express enthusiasm for new research on solar activity, noting that it has been a long-standing interest.
  • One participant critiques the portrayal of recent findings as groundbreaking, suggesting that the underlying theories about erupting filaments and CMEs have existed for decades.
  • Another participant agrees with the critique, emphasizing that while the new data is important, it often gets misrepresented as a significant breakthrough by science writers.
  • Some participants reflect on their personal experiences with solar astronomy, sharing how long they have been engaged with the subject and their methods of observation.
  • There is a shared appreciation for solar images and upcoming astronomical events, such as the August eclipse, with some expressing a desire to travel to observe it.
  • One participant suggests that the computer models being developed should be viewed as incremental improvements to historical work in solar atmospheric physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the importance of the new data but express differing views on the characterization of these findings as breakthroughs. There is no consensus on the portrayal of scientific advancements in media or the implications of the new research.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the ongoing nature of scientific inquiry in solar astronomy and the challenges of accurately communicating scientific progress. Participants note the historical context of theories related to CMEs and the potential for misrepresentation in media coverage.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in solar astronomy, astrophysics, and the communication of scientific research may find this discussion relevant.

davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
9,725
Reaction score
11,820
hi guys

solar activity has been a love of mine since the early 1970's and am always looking out
for new research info :smile:

some recent studies and lots of computer animations have come up with new understandings
of the mechanisms that instigate CME's and other mass ejections from the sun

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...nism-to-describe-solar-eruptions-of-all-sizes

follow some of the other in text links for lots of related infoDave
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1oldman2, OmCheeto and Ken G
Astronomy news on Phys.org
WOW, I must be the only solar astronomer here ?? :-p
 
Actually I find all this very interesting as well, but I must admit this latest press release strikes me as the usual incremental advance being touted as some fundamental breakthrough. The basic story of erupting filaments as CMEs has been around for 30 years at least, and the idea that big events might be the tip of the iceberg of many much smaller events has been one of the theories on the table for almost as long. So they have some new data that supports this longstanding hypothesis, which is very important and newsworthy and I'm glad you brought our attention to it. I just wish science writers could report this stuff without always painting it like a shocking new theory that just appeared yesterday. What happens over and over is, the reporter asks the new researcher to put their result in a context, so the researcher describes some decades-old theory that they set out to test in the first place, and the reporter writes it up like it is some kind of breakthrough in the thinking on the topic. Incremental results seem too boring, so instead they distort the actual process by which science gets done. I would find it pretty frustrating if I were one of the people who originally advanced the idea, but most of them are retired by now!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn and Ryan_m_b
Ken G said:
I just wish science writers could report this stuff without always painting it like a shocking new theory that just appeared yesterday.

yes agreed

Much of it is relatively old news to any of us into solar astronomy ... but at least it rehilites the info for newcomers to the subject
I have been into it for almost 50 years now. I was about 10 yrs old when I got my first decent telescope (8" Newtonian) that I was able to put a filter on and then spend many years drawing sunspots onto paper using the eyepiece projection method.
I really only stopped doing that in the early-mid 1990's when the internet started taking off and I found sources of solar images for downloading.
and have been doing that ever since from the SOHO and other new spacecraft data, eg SDO and ground based observatories

https://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/newsite/images.htmlDave
 
Yes those images are amazing, and I can drive to the August eclipse, so I'm looking forward to seeing it in real time.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn
Ken G said:
Yes those images are amazing, and I can drive to the August eclipse, so I'm looking forward to seeing it in real time.

cool :) am envious
I was considering traveling to the US for the eclipse but the lack of funds and annual leave credits has killed that idea :frown:
will have to await another one closer to home

Dave
 
Ken G said:
Actually I find all this very interesting as well, but I must admit this latest press release strikes me as the usual incremental advance being touted as some fundamental breakthrough. The basic story of erupting filaments as CMEs has been around for 30 years at least, and the idea that big events might be the tip of the iceberg of many much smaller events has been one of the theories on the table for almost as long. So they have some new data that supports this longstanding hypothesis, which is very important and newsworthy and I'm glad you brought our attention to it. I just wish science writers could report this stuff without always painting it like a shocking new theory that just appeared yesterday. What happens over and over is, the reporter asks the new researcher to put their result in a context, so the researcher describes some decades-old theory that they set out to test in the first place, and the reporter writes it up like it is some kind of breakthrough in the thinking on the topic. Incremental results seem too boring, so instead they distort the actual process by which science gets done. I would find it pretty frustrating if I were one of the people who originally advanced the idea, but most of them are retired by now!

I tend to agree. I think it's useful however to look a the computer models as incremental improvements to work that has already been done in the past on the topic of solar atmospheric physics, in some cases more than a century ago:

 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn
Ken G said:
Yes those images are amazing, and I can drive to the August eclipse, so I'm looking forward to seeing it in real time.

ME TOO!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
12K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 108 ·
4
Replies
108
Views
13K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K