Our sun to soon reverse its magnetic field

[Naty1]

A four minute video from NASA

http://www.space.com/22264-sun-s-magnetic-field-will-soon-flip-stormy-space-weather-ahead-video.html

Let's hope the climate scientists start talking with the solar scientists.

In an event that occurs once every 11 years, the magnetic field of the sun will change its polarity in a matter of months, according new observations by NASA-supported observatories.

The flipping of the sun's magnetic field marks the peak of the star's 11-year solar cycle and the halfway point in the sun's "solar maximum" — the peak of its solar weather cycle. NASA released a new video describing the sun's magnetic flip on Monday (Aug. 5).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Let's hope the climate scientists start talking with the solar scientists.

Why? What are the consequences of the switch?

 

[HallsofIvy]

Well, if it happens every 11 years, the consequences can't be too dramatic!

 

[Naty1]

Here is a link to some NASA 'news'...

It is rather easy to pick some titles possibly related to changes in the magnetic field of the sun and our solar system heliosphere. See the left hand panel of subjects here:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08mar_solarwind/

Regarding the solar wind,

“solar wind does something that steam in your kitchen never does... As solar wind leaves the sun, it accelerates, tripling in speed as it passes through the corona. Furthermore, something inside the solar wind continues to add heat even as it blows into the cold of space." Finding that "something" has been a goal of researchers for decades...

The article outlines one theory.

Other possible effects of magnetic field changes in the sun are changes in the solar wind impacting our upper astmosphere. Maybe our own magnetic field? And coronal mass ejections, like the one that recently just missed earth, would also seem to be affected by major magnetic field changes. Such effects would seem to have possible long term consequences here on earth.

 

[Dotini]

Why? What are the consequences of the switch?

Cosmic rays are also affected. These are high-energy particles accelerated to nearly light speed by supernova explosions and other violent events in the galaxy. Cosmic rays are a danger to astronauts and space probes, and some researchers say they might affect the cloudiness and climate of Earth. The current sheet acts as a barrier to cosmic rays, deflecting them as they attempt to penetrate the inner solar system.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/05aug_fieldflip/

"some researchers" I think refers to CERN and Henrik Svensmark's cloud chamber experiments of a few years ago.

 

[D H]

What are the consequences of the switch?

More satellites fall out of the sky.

The switch occurs just around solar max, when solar activity is at its highest. While the effects of the solar cycle on climate and weather are perhaps dubious, the effects on the upper atmosphere is well known. All that solar activity makes the upper atmosphere puff up like a balloon, dramatically increasing drag on satellites on low Earth orbit.

 

[Naty1]

I just checked and it looks like climate change discussions are still prohibited in these forums.

 

[davenn]

Tis a good thing that this solar max is one of the lowest in the last 100 years
It will give the satellites a lesser impact than in the last couple of solar max's
Its also been suggested that the next solar max could be even lower wonder if we will see another
Maunder Minimum. The last one produced a mini ice age throughout much of the nthrn hemisphere.
from wiki...

Little Ice Age[edit source]

The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle—and coldest part—of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. A causal connection between low sunspot activity and cold winters has recently been made using data from the NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment which shows that solar UV output is more variable over the course of the solar cycle than scientists had previously thought, and a UK scientific team published in the Nature Geoscience journal a link that ties this variability to terrestrial climate impacts in the form of warmer winters in some places and colder winters in others.[4] The winter of 1708–9 was extremely cold.[5]

Dave

 

[jackmell]

Why is it changing? Can we entertain that or no? Is it changing for basically, dynamically speaking at least, for the same reasons the Earth's magnetic field changes? For example, the equations which describe the fluctuations of the Earth's magnetic field, are they similar to equations which model the sun's changing polarity? Can we do a side-by-side comparison of the two sets of equations and find similarities?

 

[davenn]

why is what ( specifically) changing ?

Dave

 

[Naty1]

Can we do a side-by-side comparison of the two sets of equations and find similarities?

There must be 'similarities' as both magnetic fields are plasma induced effects; there are likely differences as well since the plasma of the sun dwarfs our puny inner core of molten rock.

There is a lot of detail about the 'solar dynamo', the origin of the magnetic field of the sun, which is not understood. [check Wiki if interested.] The solar wind of our entire entire solar system varies with the magnetic field of the sun. That affects our outer atmosphere as in the aurora borealis for example which is a visual effect, and a number of solar scientists believe has climate effects as well.

Some solar scientists attribute current warming of numerous planets in our solar system to variations in the sun's activity...a lack of sunpots, as Davenn noted in a different context. The current very low level of sunspots suggests a cooler period should sunspot activity again increase as is expected. Last I read the activity level of the sun was NOT part of the UN IPCC [climate] reports. That is weird.

The Earth's magnetic field seems to reverse every few hundred thousand years due to changes in the liquid inner core of the earth; the magnetic field of the sun seems to reverse at about 11 year intervals, but I don't know how really periodic [regular] either is. I'd guess those periods are related to the size, the mass, of the plasma origins.

[For some interesting contrasts between Earth and sun cores, see here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core
and here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core]

 

[Dotini]

We have a recent, interesting thread "On the Origin of Solar and Stellar Magnetic Fields" in our Astrophysics forum:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4100804&highlight=helioseismology#post4100804

 

[jackmell]

Alright, that wasn't bad but still no tamalie. Still, the dynamo theory remains intack from the thread I read above. That's where I wanted to start. Here are some quotes from Wikipedia:

In geophysics, dynamo theory proposes a mechanism by which a celestial body such as the Earth or a star generates a magnetic field. The theory describes the process through which a rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid can maintain a magnetic field over astronomical time scales.

Dynamo theory describes the process through which a rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid acts to maintain a magnetic field. This theory is used to explain the presence of anomalously long-lived magnetic fields in astrophysical bodies. The conductive fluid in the geodynamo is liquid iron in the outer core, and in the solar dynamo is ionized gas at the tachocline. Dynamo theory of astrophysical bodies uses magnetohydrodynamic equations to investigate how the fluid can continuously regenerate the magnetic field.

Alright, "magnetohydrodynamic equations":

What in the system of magnetohydrodynamic equations uses to simulate the evolution of the Earth or sun's magnetic field, what in those equations is responsible for field reversal?

 

[Naty1]

what in those equations is responsible for field reversal?

I'm guessing some aspect of chaos...randomness...instabilities...etc...

no tamalie here either...will be tough to get a precise answer until someone who works in the field replies...
meantime, some things to get you started...

Thought I'd skim 'MHD' in Wiki...lots of pieces...INTERESTING...seems like the answer is complicated:

Based on the MHD equations, Glatzmaier and Paul Roberts have made a supercomputer model of the Earth's interior. After running the simulations for thousands of years in virtual time, the changes in Earth's magnetic field can be studied. The simulation results are in good agreement with the observations as the simulations have correctly predicted that the Earth's magnetic field flips every few hundred thousands of years. During the flips, the magnetic field doesn't vanish altogether - it just gets more complicated. [10]

Breakdown of ideal MHD (in the form of magnetic reconnection) is known to be the cause of solar flares, the largest explosions in the solar system. The magnetic field in a solar active region over a sunspot can become quite stressed over time, storing energy that is released suddenly as a burst of motion, X-rays, and radiation when the main current sheet collapses, reconnecting the field.

ok, this seems to be along the lines I was guessing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stability

 

[jackmell]

How about we look at the induction equation of MHD:

$$\frac{\partial B}{\partial t}=\eta \nabla^2 B+\nabla+(u \times B)$$

which I'll write as:

$$\frac{\partial B}{\partial t}=f(B,u)+\nabla+\eta \nabla^2 B$$

which is in some ways similar to a reaction-diffusion equation:

$$\frac{\partial B}{\partial t}=f(B,u)+\eta \nabla^2 B$$

We know reaction-diffusion equations exhibit pattern formation and oscillations such as the Turing stripes and dots of the Brusselator model.

And so I ask are the oscillating field reversals observed for Earth and the sun caused by reaction-diffusion oscillations?

 

[davenn]

there seems to be no regularity in the Earth's field reversals. Looking at the data shows it to be quite random with no preference for one polarity or the other. The shortest period seen was 2 flips within 50,000 yrs, the longest is ~ 35 million years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

Solar magnetic field reversals on the otherhand are very regular. And in a couple of the papers that DH linked to described the process quite well. Here are the links DH posted in the other thread...

Babcock, H. D. (1959). The Sun's Polar Magnetic Field. The Astrophysical Journal, 130, 364.
full article at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1959ApJ...130..364B

Babcock, H. W. (1961). The Topology of the Sun's Magnetic Field and the 22-YEAR Cycle. The Astrophysical Journal, 133, 572.
full article at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1961ApJ...133..572B

Leighton, R. B. (1964). Transport of Magnetic Fields on the Sun. The Astrophysical Journal, 140, 1547.
full article at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964ApJ...140.1547L

Leighton, R. B. (1969). A magneto-kinematic model of the solar cycle. The Astrophysical Journal, 156, 1.
full article at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...156...1L

David H. Hathaway (2010). The Solar Cycle. Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 7 (2010), 1
full article at http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-1/

Dave

 

[the_wolfman]

What in the system of magnetohydrodynamic equations uses to simulate the evolution of the Earth or sun's magnetic field, what in those equations is responsible for field reversal?

The two important MHD equations are

momentum conservation:
$\rho \left(\frac {d\vec v}{dt} + \vec v \cdot \nabla \vec v\right) = -\nabla p + \vec J \times \vec B$

Faradays Law using an MHD Ohm's Law;

$\frac {d\vec B}{d t} = \nabla \times ( \vec v \times \vec B - \eta \vec J )$

To accurately understand the reversal process you need to consider both the evolution of the magnetic field and the evolution of the velocity field. However the MHD model does not accurately predict the time scale of the solar dynamo reversal. With a Spitzer resistivity it is simply to slow. We know that you need to include more physics ( electron inertia, electron pressure, the hall electric field, kinetic effects, etc) in the Ohm's law.

And so I ask are the oscillating field reversals observed for Earth and the sun caused by reaction-diffusion oscillations?

I'm not an expert on reaction-diffusion oscillations, but I suspect that the answer is no. In order to correctly model the field reversal, you need to account for the fact that changes in the magnetic field influence the flow via the Lorentz force.

 

[jackmell]

Very nice start guys. I did look at the four references cited by Dave. Kinda' tough but an interesting concept.

I was mostly interested if the system of equations exhibit some sort of critical point, whereby if the state of the system were to pass through the point, a phase-transition would occur. An analogy would be pushing a glass of water across a table. While the glass is on the table, it's state varies continuously. However, at some point, when the glass is very close to the edge of the table, just a very small push, and the state of the glass of the water changes qualitatively as it tumbles off the table and crashes to the floor.

I was just curious if the equations modeling the field reversal of the sun exhibit a similar type of behavior, that is, during the evolution of the field, if it ever reaches some point, some critical distribution over the surface of the sun, then by virtue of the dynamics of the equations, the field (orientation) will qualitatively change state to the new orientation.

That is how reaction-diffusion works: if during the evolution of the system, it reaches a particular distribution (the details of which is not known), it will evolve into the distinctive patterns and oscillations.

 

[BobG]

More satellites fall out of the sky.

The switch occurs just around solar max, when solar activity is at its highest. While the effects of the solar cycle on climate and weather are perhaps dubious, the effects on the upper atmosphere is well known. All that solar activity makes the upper atmosphere puff up like a balloon, dramatically increasing drag on satellites on low Earth orbit.

Tis a good thing that this solar max is one of the lowest in the last 100 years
It will give the satellites a lesser impact than in the last couple of solar max's
Its also been suggested that the next solar max could be even lower wonder if we will see another
Maunder Minimum. The last one produced a mini ice age throughout much of the nthrn hemisphere.
from wiki...



Dave

It's not that good. It's mainly dead satellites (and other debris) that fall out of the sky. We put stuff up faster than it falls down, but a little cleaning every 11 years is a good thing. A little less stuff for the active satellites to run into.

It's too bad climate change can't be discussed. The absorbtion of heat by CO2 and the increase in CO2 means a little less "puffing up" of the atmosphere. The CO2 creates a barrier, keeping more heat inside and less heat escaping to the altitudes that low Earth satellites orbit in, meaning long term atmospheric drag models should account for less atmospheric drag as time goes by.

In other words, in the future, the space debris we create will hang around longer before it finally falls out of the sky.

 

[Coladar]

Reading the renewed "Voyager 1 has left the building" headlines that seem to be popping up from mainsteam science 'journalists' writing for popular, decidedly non-academic audiences on a seemingly monthly basis now got me to wondering...

While it seems a near certainty that the Voyager 1 spacecraft is still in our solar system, if at the extreme edge of it's magnetic/particle boundaries (if not it's gravitational edge, given the vast expanse of the Oort Cloud.) These premature announcements appear to be the result of impatient humans more than anything else, so ignoring whatever we call the place Voyager is presently speeding through... I was curious what, if any, impact this magnetic flip might have temporarily on the craft's observations and what effects the process of switching polarity might have in that region, at the edge of the heliosphere.

When this event happens, is there any possibility some consequential effects will be detectable by Voyager 1 instrumentation - the ratio of solar versus galactic particles, a temporary increase in high energy cosmic rays or in some other way? Or will it be a case of being so far out, with our solar system's magnetic field so expansive, that any brief hiccup during the flip gets ironed out by the immense size, distance and weakness of the field at Voyager 1's location?

I'm sure such a question only shows my lack of knowledge on the subject, but nonetheless it popped in my head and seems unlikely to be addressed in the media/elsewhere sans specific inquiry.

My reason for asking is simply in the hopes that we might be insanely lucky with the timing here - that Voyager is at the very edge of the magnetic field precisely at the once a decade flip, and so might be in a perfect position to capture some fascinating results at a stellar magnetic field's boundary during one of its polarity flips. Likewise, I expect this won't be the case, and for Voyager it'll be business as usual, but can only hope some exciting and unexpected results may come out of this fortuitous combination of events.

Thanks in advance for any insight/answers/chastisement offered!

 

[Dotini]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fll6rscmdE4&feature=player_embedded
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_current_sheet#cite_note-nasaSolarmag-14 <--heliospheric current sheet discussion

The polarity of the entire field will flip. NASA says the effects of a solar magnetic reversal will be felt across the solar system, even by the Voyager probes. But at the very edge of the heliosphere, the magnetic field becomes complex and confused, so solar physicists still debate about the readings from Voyager and exactly what happens when it exits the magnetic domain of the sun.

 

[Naty1]

wiki says voyage 1 is

At a distance of about 125.14 AU (1.872×10¹⁰ km) as of 16 August 2013... moving with a velocity of 17.039 km/second.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1

so with lightspeed 3 x 10⁸ m/s, or 3 x 10⁵ km/sec

when the poles flip, should take about

1.87 x 10¹⁰/ 3 x 10⁵ or about 6 x 10⁵
seconds for the effects to propagate...at 60 sec/min,3,600 per hour,
should reverse about 200 hours later just beyond the previous voyager spot.

When this event happens, is there any possibility some consequential effects... will

Some I guess, but the heliosphere is really, really weak that far out...After almost 36 years en route it should have alread experienced several such reversals...I wonder what they showed??

 

[Coladar]

Some I guess, but the heliosphere is really, really weak that far out...After almost 36 years en route it should have alread experienced several such reversals...I wonder what they showed??

That's a good point, and I'd be curious to know as well given this will be the Voyager twins fourth solar magnetic field reversal witnessed since launching so very many years ago.

Then again, 11 years ago (the last polarity flip occurring in 2002) Voyager was a good deal closer to the Sun than it is at present. In other words, given far more sophisticated instruments/dedicated solar craft that have been launched since, one would expect that prior Voyager experiences of the magnetic reversal paled in comparison to observations made by more recent probes and, although quite far away even in 2002, wouldn't have been apt to register any notable effects that couldn't be detected by a craft only 1 or 2 AU away from the sun.

So with that in mind, that's why I was curious about this particular magnetic field reversal as it relates to Voyager - precisely because Voyager is right on the edge of the solar magnetic field's border at the moment, as a flip is imminent. I was hoping that being on the extreme distant boundary of the field might put Voyager in a perfect position to observe fluctuations/oddities which don't exist closer in where the field is exponentially stronger. Possibly even having the field temporarily weaken and recede, exposing Voyager 1 to true interstellar space for a short time before the polarity reversal completed and therefore returns to full strength.

Likewise, I was afraid that it would instead be like your reply seems to indicate - due to being so distant from the Sun with the magnetic field dramatically weakened as a result, any fluctuation or turbulence is likewise lessened and makes Voyager 1 less apt to detect signatures of a magnetic reversal than if it were closer to the Sun.

I guess we can always hope, since this is unprecedented and a venture into the unknown, something unexpected might still occur. I was just really, really hopeful that the extreme weakness of the field at Voyager's faraway locale might mean the ramifications of the reversal would expose the craft to high energy cosmic rays and the like more than normal, but it sounds like that won't be the case. C'est la vie, I suppose.

 

[Dotini]

so with lightspeed 3 x 10⁸ m/s, or 3 x 10⁵ km/sec

when the poles flip, should take about

1.87 x 10¹⁰/ 3 x 10⁵ or about 6 x 10⁵
seconds for the effects to propagate...at 60 sec/min,3,600 per hour,
should reverse about 200 hours later just beyond the previous voyager spot.

I'm puzzled, as is often the case. Some sources seem to suggest the solar magnetic field is carried by the solar wind. So wouldn't the flip propagate at the speed of the solar wind, and not the speed of light?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_magnetic_field

Edit:
I find some literature contending magnetic fields are "frozen in" to the plasma, and others seemingly suggesting the opposite.
http://spacephysics.ucr.edu/index.php?content=solar_wind/sw/swq2.html

 

[Dotini]

Comes news of a controversy over NASA's reading of the data. Its resolution may hinge with phenomenon of "magnetic reconnection".

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/17/is-voyager-1-really-out-of-the-solar-system/
NASA scientists including Edward Stone, the father of the programme at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, say Voyager 1 has yet to pass beyond the reach of our sun’s radiation. But a study published last week in the Astrophysical Journal claims NASA scientists misinterpreted controversial magnetic field data and the satellite passed beyond the boundary known as the heliosheath a year ago. Put another way, Voyager 1 has left the solar system.

According to Marc Swisdak, an astrophysics researcher at the University of Maryland and lead author of the study, Voyager 1 made that giant leap on 27 July 2012, when it recorded a permanent drop in heliosphere-produced particles and an increase in galactic cosmic rays from outside the solar system.

“Our three lines of data are consistent with Voyager being outside the solar system,” Swisdak told the Observer last week. “There’s a class of particles generated within the solar system and we’re not seeing them any more. Then there’s the question of the magnetic field. You can get outside the solar system without seeing too much of a shift in the data.” As Voyager clears the distortion, he says, the magnetic data will begin to conform.
“This is the first opportunity to take actual direct measurements of the particles and the magnetic fields,” said Swisdak. “Instead of a indirect, complicated chains of arguments, we can say what’s actually out there – and that’s something rare in astronomy. Voyager is allowing us to see what’s really out there.”

NASA has yet to confirm the finding. Scientists at the California Institute of Technology, led by Stone, believe the craft is traveling through a mysterious region at the edge of the heliosphere. They have said they will know Voyager has left the solar system when magnetic fields emanate from the long arms of our galaxy, not the sun.

But after running 100,000 processor hours of computer simulations on a Berkeley supercomputer called Hopper, Swisdak’s team claim NASA is failing to account for “magnetic reconnection” – when opposing magnetic field lines come together, snap and form new connections. They hypothesise that the magnetic fields of the sun and of interstellar space join in “magnetic islands” that make the border uneven.