The ever changing Sun's magnetic field.

[Robittybob1]

Well the Sun's magnetic field is not an easy topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_magnetic_field

 

The Sun's major component of magnetic field reverses direction every 11 years (so the period is about 22 years), resulting in a diminished magnitude of magnetic field near reversal time. During this dormancy, the sunspots activity is at maximum (because of the lack of magnetic braking on plasma) and, as a result, massive ejection of high energy plasma into the solar corona and interplanetary space takes place. Collisions of neighboring sunspots with oppositely directed magnetic fields result in the generation of strong electric fields near rapidly disappearing magnetic field regions. This electric field accelerates electrons and protons to high energies (kiloelectronvolts) which results in jets of extremely hot plasma leaving the Sun's surface and heating coronal plasma to high temperatures (millions of kelvin).

 

I wrote up a series of questions today:

1. Would this event happen if the Sun was on its own? (like not part of a solar system (SS).)

 

2. If this event is due to the presence of the planets, what are the planets doing?

 

3. What methods of interaction could the planets have on the Sun? (The only answers to that so far are gravity,light, magnetic fields, and transfer of angular momentum.)

 

4. If there were periods where the Sun is accelerated and decelerated, could this be causing the Solar Magnetic pole reversal (SMPR)?

 

5. Does this periodicity match the position of the planets (the position of Jupiter in particular)?

 

6. What is the periodicity of the SMPR?

 

7. What other physical system has a similar periodicity?

 

 

[Mordred]

This article will help

 

"The solar magnetic field."

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1008.0771&rct=j&q=the%20suns%20magnetic%20field%20dynamics%20pdf&ei=PS_aVJu6NYLpoASV3oKQDg&usg=AFQjCNFwGT1NwP4VpuhVFL7akBJ6ySIl6w&sig2=uqJmr75TsgalAv-DgyTJiQ

[Robittybob1]

This article will help

 

"The solar magnetic field."

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1008.0771&rct=j&q=the%20suns%20magnetic%20field%20dynamics%20pdf&ei=PS_aVJu6NYLpoASV3oKQDg&usg=AFQjCNFwGT1NwP4VpuhVFL7akBJ6ySIl6w&sig2=uqJmr75TsgalAv-DgyTJiQ

Yes that is an extensive study, but there was one sentence in there that still said they didn't know the cause of all this strength, and that is what I wanted to offer a proposal. But I need to see if there is an explanation why the periodicity doesn't initially seem to be related to the periodicity of the planets around the Sun, so it definitely is study and more study at this stage.

[Janus]

 

4. If there were periods where the Sun is accelerated and decelerated, could this be causing the Solar Magnetic pole reversal (SMPR)?

 

No. Any acceleration/deceleration by the Sun is due to the gravitational effects of the other bodies in the solar system. It is in free fall in response to those fields and thus will not "feel" them. The acceleration/deceleration can have no effect on the interior of the Sun. What can have an effect are tidal forces caused by those bodies.

 

5. Does this periodicity match the position of the planets (the position of Jupiter in particular)?

 

 

Tidal effects, the one gravitational effect from planets that the Sun can "feel" are proportional to the mass of the planet and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance.

If you work this out for the planets, only four planets have any significant tidal effect on the Sun. In order, they are Jupiter, Venus, Earth, Mercury. If we set Jupiter's influence at 1, Venus is close behind at 0.95( Venus has almost the same tidal influence as Jupiter), Earth is 0.44 and Mercury is 0.42. The major players of these 4 are Venus and Jupiter. and the their effect combine when they and the Sun are in a straight line (either on the same or opposite sides of the Sun. This happens every 130 days. So if the planets had a gravitational effect that effected the Sun's magnetic field, you should see a variation over this period.

 

 

[Robittybob1]

 

 

4. If there were periods where the Sun is accelerated and decelerated, could this be causing the Solar Magnetic pole reversal (SMPR)?

 

No. Any acceleration/deceleration by the Sun is due to the gravitational effects of the other bodies in the solar system. It is in free fall in response to those fields and thus will not "feel" them. The acceleration/deceleration can have no effect on the interior of the Sun. What can have an effect are tidal forces caused by those bodies.

 

5. Does this periodicity match the position of the planets (the position of Jupiter in particular)?

 

 

Tidal effects, the one gravitational effect from planets that the Sun can "feel" are proportional to the mass of the planet and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance.

If you work this out for the planets, only four planets have any significant tidal effect on the Sun. In order, they are Jupiter, Venus, Earth, Mercury. If we set Jupiter's influence at 1, Venus is close behind at 0.95( Venus has almost the same tidal influence as Jupiter), Earth is 0.44 and Mercury is 0.42. The major players of these 4 are Venus and Jupiter. and the their effect combine when they and the Sun are in a straight line (either on the same or opposite sides of the Sun. This happens every 130 days. So if the planets had a gravitational effect that effected the Sun's magnetic field, you should see a variation over this period.

 

 

 

[The quoting function is hard to understand sometimes!]

OK but did you ever look at that thread on the Physics Forum where that paper showed a displacement of the core of the Earth? It was shown the moon displaces the Earth's inner core differently than the rest of the outer core. If the planets were pulling on the Sun maybe the "Sun's core" is displaced and this displacement is affected by the arrangement of those 4 planets?

If the core was displaced (and tides) is that equivalent to your concept of "feeling" the gravitational pull?

[swansont]

Yes that is an extensive study, but there was one sentence in there that still said they didn't know the cause of all this strength, and that is what I wanted to offer a proposal. But I need to see if there is an explanation why the periodicity doesn't initially seem to be related to the periodicity of the planets around the Sun, so it definitely is study and more study at this stage.

 

Why would it depend on the planets? For something that's not expected to happen, there's no explanation needed when it doesn't happen.

[Robittybob1]

 

Why would it depend on the planets? For something that's not expected to happen, there's no explanation needed when it doesn't happen.

What do you mean By "it is not expected to happen"? What is not expected to happen? The reversal occurs every 11 years.

[Mordred]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0984

 

I posted this also in your other thread.

[swansont]

What do you mean By "it is not expected to happen"? What is not expected to happen? The reversal occurs every 11 years.

 

You were attributing the cause to the planets, and looking for a reason they might not be causing the reversal.

 

"I need to see if there is an explanation why the periodicity doesn't initially seem to be related to the periodicity of the planets around the Sun"

 

That's backwards. A lack of an established correlation requires no explanation. You need to find a correlation and a mechanism, not look for an explanation why there is none when there's no reason to expect it.

[Robittybob1]

 

You were attributing the cause to the planets, and looking for a reason they might not be causing the reversal.

 

"I need to see if there is an explanation why the periodicity doesn't initially seem to be related to the periodicity of the planets around the Sun"

 

That's backwards. A lack of an established correlation requires no explanation. You need to find a correlation and a mechanism, not look for an explanation why there is none when there's no reason to expect it.

If the period between the reversals was 11.86 years one would quickly look if Jupiter might have some bearing on that, but instead of it being 11.86 it is 11 years, which is still tantalizing close. That is what I was saying, but I haven't got evidence for it, for at this stage I'm still trying to understand how the combined mass of the planets or even the Solar System barycenter (SSB) affects the Sun. There are 4 other inner planets and even though they are much smaller, they are closer and orbit faster. Does this advance the time period by a percentage (an amount)?

[swansont]

If the period between the reversals was 11.86 years one would quickly look if Jupiter might have some bearing on that, but instead of it being 11.86 it is 11 years, which is still tantalizing close.

 

In many areas of physics an ~8% discrepancy would not be described as tantalizingly close. In just 12 cycles, you're ~180º out of phase for whatever effect you're looking for.

 

Plus, Saturn's also going to be a perturbation you'd have to account for (~95 earth masses, orbit at 10AU). Neptune as well, according to http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html

 

The inner planets have a smaller effect.

[Robittybob1]

 

In many areas of physics an ~8% discrepancy would not be described as tantalizingly close. In just 12 cycles, you're ~180º out of phase for whatever effect you're looking for.

 

Plus, Saturn's also going to be a perturbation you'd have to account for (~95 earth masses, orbit at 10AU). Neptune as well, according to http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html

 

The inner planets have a smaller effect.

Yet someone else on this forum said the inner planets were significant, did I misunderstand them? Look the whole idea could be wrong, but in the meantime we will learn some of the key aspects of the Sun's magnetic field.

[swansont]

Yet someone else on this forum said the inner planets were significant, did I misunderstand them? Look the whole idea could be wrong, but in the meantime we will learn some of the key aspects of the Sun's magnetic field.

 

It's a science forum. Perhaps you could learn how this is calculated, rather than rely on what others say. I mean, if you can't do this, what hope do you have of coming up with a model of your own?

[imatfaal]

Yet someone else on this forum said the inner planets were significant, did I misunderstand them? Look the whole idea could be wrong, but in the meantime we will learn some of the key aspects of the Sun's magnetic field.

Janus was talking about tidal effects - SwansonT was talking about displacement of the suns centre from the solar system's centre of mass

[Robittybob1]

 

It's a science forum. Perhaps you could learn how this is calculated, rather than rely on what others say. I mean, if you can't do this, what hope do you have of coming up with a model of your own?

That is what someone needs to do. Was that other poster correct? It all takes time to follow up but I get the feeling you are only correcting me, but miss the errors in what the others are saying. Now is this true?

 

So I should quote what was said by the other poster and see if you agree/disagree with him, for from memory you and him were at odds over the importance of the inner planets?

Janus was talking about tidal effects - SwansonT was talking about displacement of the suns centre from the solar system's centre of mass

So you really think they are separate issues? They both rely on mass and gravity so how can they be that different?

[imatfaal]

So you really think they are separate issues? They both rely on mass and gravity so how can they be that different?

try reading the posts that are answering you - one of them gave a pretty good reason as far as I can tell why they would vary. You are not only trying run before you can walk - you are expecting others to do all the work.

[swansont]

That is what someone needs to do.

 

Yes. You need to do this.

 

So you really think they are separate issues? They both rely on mass and gravity so how can they be that different?

 

Center of mass shifts get bigger with increasing distance. Tidal effects get smaller.

[Robittybob1]

 

Yes. You need to do this.

 

Center of mass shifts get bigger with increasing distance. Tidal effects get smaller.

OK. As two masses separate the CoM (barycenter) shifts away from the heaviest body, but their gravitational effects will diminish at a rate proportion to the inverse square of the total distance between the centers of the masses (considered separately). So the position of the CoM (barycenter) has little to do with the strength of the tidal force, but it will define the direction at least.

But when we are talking about the combined SSB this point does not need to be on a line between any particular planet* and the Sun, so the period the SSB orbits the Sun could be different than the periodicity of any particular planet and the combined tidal forces on the Sun would vary too, period by period, depending on the position of the planets.

* No particular planet but the one with the strongest gravitational acceleration on the Sun will have the largest influence on its position.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Robittybob1]

try reading the posts that are answering you - one of them gave a pretty good reason as far as I can tell why they would vary. You are not only trying run before you can walk - you are expecting others to do all the work.

I am working off a hunch, and completely out of my depth but I am trying my best to understand some of it.

OK so so we have to combine the tidal effects with the SS barycenter and see if that can produce a 11 year resonance? That was the idea to begin with but the barycenter seems just to give a 11.86 year rhythm but what happens if the effects of tidal acceleration have on the Sun?

Thanks Janus and Imatfaal. I've got to work on my math skills first. I'm done here for a while.

[Robittybob1]

I didn't think I'd be back so soon but I have fond a 11 year resonance!

SkyMarvels™ SOLAR SYSTEM BARYCENTER (celestia celestia4all)

3:15 into the video if reads:

"Because Jupiter takes 11 years to move opposite Saturn and another 11 years to move back in line with it some scientists suggest this may contribute to the 11 year sunspot cycle."

 

Now if the magnetic field in the Sun is in any way similar to the Earth's magnetic field I can see it would just keep a constant polarity.

I found that with the Earth situation too, I could figure out a mechanism to generate a magnetic field but it is not so easy to get a mechanism to reverse and to say why it would reverse.

[swansont]

"Because Jupiter takes 11 years to move opposite Saturn and another 11 years to move back in line with it some scientists suggest this may contribute to the 11 year sunspot cycle."

 

And other scientists think the idea is nonsense.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.3547

[Robittybob1]

"Because Jupiter takes 11 years to move opposite Saturn and another 11 years to move back in line with it some scientists suggest this may contribute to the 11 year sunspot cycle."

 

And other scientists think the idea is nonsense.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.3547

The final sentence of the abstract was about the only one I understood

 

Thus we conclude that the considered hypothesis of planetary tidal influence on solar activity is not based on a solid ground.

I liked the use of the words "not on ... solid ground". That was quite poetical really when we are talking about shifting barycenters and the like.

[Robittybob1]

Some fairly recent work by Russian scientist found a strong correlation between the conjunction of the 3 planets Jupiter Earth and Venus to the Solar Sunspot Cycle. http://link.springer.com/article/10.3103%2FS0027134912040108

Cycles of solar activity and the configurations of planets
V. P. Okhlopkov

 

 

Abstract
In this paper, using the parameter—the average difference between the heliocentric longitudes of the planets Venus, Earth and Jupiter—the strong link found 22-year and 11-year cycles of solar activity with the lowest values of the parameter. The envelope curve of the minimum values of this parameter is well described as the conjunctions of the three planets, when they are almost in a straight line from the sun, which causes the maximum of solar activity, and the conjunctions in the larger longitudinal sector (25–30 degrees), which occur much more frequently and are accompanied by different combinations of planets on the opposite side of the Sun, which also cause the maximum of solar activity. Location of these planets on opposite sides of the Sun in various combinations is very well compatible with the parameter used.

So if the alignment of the planets acts as the switch what is happening back on the Sun?

Still seems to have a large variability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum (Maybe they are not completely linked?).

 

 

Predictions[edit]
Predictions of a future maximum's timing and strength are very difficult; predictions vary widely. There was a solar maximum in 2000. In 2006 NASA initially expected a solar maximum in 2010 or 2011, and thought that it could be the strongest since 1958.[3] However, the solar maximum was not declared to have occurred until 2014, and even then was ranked among the weakest on record.[4]

Edited February 14, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Robittybob1]

Is the switch for this related to gravity? Alignment of the planets only makes sense if you are thinking in terms of gravity. Is the pull getting stronger or weaker? Is that equivalent through some mechanism to change of current? Pulled from another direction is what operates a switch in everyday life, so is direction of motion part of the solution. How does any physical thing know in what direction it is going? But it does. The right hand rule to electromagnetism is solid it doesn't flip this way that way.

For to change a magnetic field to my simple way of thinking means the current through the conductor was reversed.

[Acme]

...

Now if the magnetic field in the Sun is in any way similar to the Earth's magnetic field ...

It is not.