Ask Me Anything AMA with the NSF's Dr. Dave Boboltz

Status
Not open for further replies.

DrDaveBoboltz

Verified Expert
Aug 22, 2021
17
34
40

Hello, everyone! My name is Dr. David Boboltz and I'll be taking your questions until Friday, August 27th, 2021!


A Little About Me

I am currently working as a Program Director for the National Science Foundation’s Division of Astronomical Sciences where I have been since 2013. My primary area of responsibility is the management of the division’s research facilities related to the study of our Sun, including the National Solar Observatory and the NSF’s Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope (DKIST) currently under construction on Maui, HI. When finished in late 2021, DKIST will be the world’s most powerful solar observatory poised to unlock the mysteries of our nearest star.

Before coming to NSF, I worked as a radio astronomer for the United States Naval Observatory (USNO) for 15 years. My primary area of research is the study of circumstellar masers in the atmospheres of stars near the end-stages of stellar evolution (e.g. Red Giants and Supergiants). Late-type stars provide a glimpse of what our own Sun will like be in about 4.5 billion years. Prior to USNO, I was a post-doctoral fellow at MIT’s Haystack Observatory. I received my Ph.D. in Astrophysics from Virginia Tech in 1997. My dissertation research was conducted as a pre-doctoral fellow at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Socorro, NM. I also have an M.S. in Applied Physics from the Johns Hopkins University and a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Virginia Tech.

I will answer as many questions as I can, but please keep in mind that there are questions that I won't be able to answer. I'll try my very best and I'm delighted to be here, so ask away!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 23, 2021
3
1
15
Wow Dr., I just came into this forum and you sir are taking on a tidal wave.

Question : I look at the sphere of the universe we see on the map and it makes me wonder if quasar are evidence that the rush to escape/expand from the big bang is not showing conclusive proof that matter is there to gobble. It is, in my humble opinion that space and time are yet to be experienced and if and when we get there we may see a island of lights on the horizon. What do you think? Momentum and the chance that we can survive in our ships to ride out the darkness of a frozen universe. Expansion theory with a whimper or the dawn of a new collision, like a berm in front of a ice sheet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorbanicker
Jun 1, 2020
1,613
1,360
3,560
It's a treat to have you aboard, Dr. Boboltz!

1) Is there a limit to the no. of questions per post? (;) just joking)

2) What key advantages do you see for the DKIST vs. the McMath-Pierce obs. at Kitt Peak?

3) Are there currently tours to the Maui observatories? If not, any idea when they may begin?

4) There's a rumor that the "yellow dwarf G2V star" that comes out every day isn't actually yellow. [ ;) ] I have guessed that a vast majority of solar physicists favored a white result for a true color (above our atm.) vs. yellow given that all mid-day projections (unfiltered) are white (btw, my avatar image was taken from the McMath-Pierce proj. table, via Dr. Potter and Roy Lorenz). Is this something you suspect, or know, to be true? Was the Sun's true color ever a topic around the solar physicist's water cooler? [Heliochromology is a personal study, though requiring only one amateur per planet, I suppose. ;)]

5) The Sun's magnetic activity has been lower in recent years than expected. There were some that suspected an extended minimum might occur if the mag. field became even more weak. Will the new scope help resolve some of this science? Magnetographs?

6) Will tracking alignments be conducted by dime-sized daytime projections of Venus? [I was amazed to see this take place at Kitt Peak. The tech said that one can do a lot with an f/50 scope. :)]
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2020
4
1
510
This one might be a bit too far out of your remit. There is currently work underway in fusion power. One of the development sites claims the potential to maintain plasma at more than 10x solar levels. Heat generates significant "escape pressure" but every star which passes a pressure threshold (partly attributed to gravitational pull) poses a risk of collapse.

My question is simply:

What pressures and conditions are typically associated with collapse risk and how do these measure up against commercial fusion plans, so people get an idea of the huge scale of stars and how modern industry even working towards fusion all this time barely reaches that scale :)

On a related note I wonder if they ever used quantum entanglement in such a setup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorbanicker
Nov 18, 2019
13
2
515
Dear Dr. David Boboltz,

It seems a great opportunity for people in astrophysics to get a direct channel of communication with top decision makers. As an expert with Ph. D. in Astrophysics and a government decision maker in funding astrophysics programs, you will definitely be interested in knowing a critical problem.

In Lorentz Transformation, the theoretical time of the moving inertial reference frame becomes shorter than the theoretical time of the stationary inertial reference frame. Based on this math, the current mainstream physicists immediately conclude that the moving clock ticks more slowly than the stationary clock. The fact is that every physical clock does not directly record the elapsed physical time, but uses its recorded number of cycles to indirectly calculate the elapsed physical time. The number of cycles is the product of theoretical time and frequency. As the theoretical time of the moving frame becomes shorter, the frequency of the moving clock becomes faster, which cancels the relativistic effects of each other in the product to make the number of cycles of the moving clock always the same as that of the stationary clock i.e. the displayed time of the moving clock is always the same as that of the stationary clock. Thus, clock time in special relativity is still absolute and independent of the reference frame.

Similarly, the biological age of the traveling twin is the product of the shorter theoretical time and the increased aging rate, which is always the same as that of the stationary twin. That is, relativistic effect won't make traveling twin younger than the stationary twin.

In special relativity, every mark of physical time elapsing shown on a physical process depends not only on the elapse of the theoretical time but also on the changing rate of the process. The relativistic effect of the theoretical time is always accompanied by the relativistic effect of the changing rate, which cancels each other in the product so that relativistic effect can never be shown on any real physical process.

Therefore, the theoretical time of relativity is not clock time, but a mathematical variable without physical meaning. Based on such a meaningless "time", special relativity as a theory of physics is wrong, so are all relativity based theories.

This is an obvious fatal mistake of the modern physics, but the mainstream physicists refuse to admit it, totally ignore it and continue working on the wrong theories to waste billions of taxpayers money.

Now my question is, how can we make the mainstream physicists pay attention to this serious problem?

Many thanks for your support!

Best regards,

Xinhang Shen
 

DrDaveBoboltz

Verified Expert
Aug 22, 2021
17
34
40
Wow Dr., I just came into this forum and you sir are taking on a tidal wave.

Question : I look at the sphere of the universe we see on the map and it makes me wonder if quasar are evidence that the rush to escape/expand from the big bang is not showing conclusive proof that matter is there to gobble. It is, in my humble opinion that space and time are yet to be experienced and if and when we get there we may see a island of lights on the horizon. What do you think? Momentum and the chance that we can survive in our ships to ride out the darkness of a frozen universe. Expansion theory with a whimper or the dawn of a new collision, like a berm in front of a ice sheet.

Hi @Mark Bogar, I think there are a couple of questions wrapped into one. I'll try to interpret what I think you are asking, but forgive me if I get it wrong. As we look at more distant objects like quasars, because light has a finite speed, we are actually looking backward in time. The further away we are able to see the further back we are looking toward the Big Bang. In the standard Big Bang cosmology, there are two sort of "edges" to what we can see, similar to the lights on the horizon you describe in your question. One is the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This radiation is leftover from what is called the Epoch of Recombination, where the hot ionized plasma from the early Universe (about 370,000 years after the Big Bang) cooled enough to allow the formation of neutral hydrogen. Photons from the hot plasma were able to propagate freely through the neutral hydrogen and the radiation appears to come from a spherical surface at a distance of its last scattering off the neutral hydrogen at a cosmological redshift of about 1100. This is often called the last scattering surface. Because the Universe continued to expand as the light traveled to us as the observer, the radiation is redshifted to longer wavelengths. By the time it gets to us, it is observable at radio wavelengths. The CMB radiation was first discovered by Penzias and Wilson in the 1960s for which they won the Nobel prize in physics in 1978.

At the end of the Epoch of Recombination, when all of the plasma combined into neutral hydrogen, any subsequent short wavelength radiation that may have been emitted would have been quickly absorbed by the neutral hydrogen and the Universe became opaque. This epoch is sometimes referred to as the Dark Ages. Over time, the denser regions (observable as fluctuations in the CMB) collapsed under their own gravity and formed the first stars, galaxies and quasars. The hot radiation from these first stars began to ionize the neutral hydrogen surrounding them making the Universe once again transparent to short wavelength radiation. This is often referred to as the Epoch of Reionization, and could be the second "edge" you are referring to. This epoch occurred about 1 billion years after the Big Bang at a cosmological redshift of about 6.5. The best chance of observing this Epoch of Reionization is by again looking at radio wavelengths at the 21cm line of hydrogen which is redshifted to wavelengths longer than about 1.5 m.
 

DrDaveBoboltz

Verified Expert
Aug 22, 2021
17
34
40
It's a treat to have you aboard, Dr. Boboltz!

1) Is there a limit to the no. of questions per post? (;) just joking)

2) What key advantages do you see for the DKIST vs. the McMath-Pierce obs. at Kitt Peak?

3) Are there currently tours to the Maui observatories? If not, any idea when they may begin?

4) There's a rumor that the "yellow dwarf G2V star" that comes out every day isn't actually yellow. [ ;) ] I have guessed that a vast majority of solar physicists favored a white result for a true color (above our atm.) vs. yellow given that all mid-day projections (unfiltered) are white (btw, my avatar image was taken from the McMath-Pierce proj. table, via Dr. Potter and Roy Lorenz). Is this something you suspect, or know, to be true? Was the Sun's true color ever a topic around the solar physicist's water cooler? [Heliochromology is a personal study, though requiring only one amateur per planet, I suppose. ;)]

5) The Sun's magnetic activity has been lower in recent years than expected. There were some that suspected an extended minimum might occur if the mag. field became even more weak. Will the new scope help resolve some of this science? Magnetographs?

6) Will tracking alignments be conducted by dime-sized daytime projections of Venus? [I was amazed to see this take place at Kitt Peak. The tech said that one can do a lot with an f/50 scope. :)]


Hi @Helio, glad to take your questions. Responses are below keeping your numbering scheme.

1) I'll do my best to answer all of them. ;)

2) DKIST is designed to work at wavelengths from the optical to the infrared. Therefore it is designed to replace, not only the infrared capabilities of the McMath-Pierce solar telescope on Kitt Peak, but also the Richard B. Dunn Solar Telescope on Sacramento Peak in Sunspot, NM. The key advantage of DKIST over both of those telescopes is its massive (at least for a solar telescope) 4m diameter mirror. This buys you two advantages, first is resolution allowing DKIST to resolve structures down to about 20-30km at the distance to the solar surface. The second is sensitivity, which you wouldn't think would be a big deal for a solar telescope. One of the objectives of DKIST is to observe the Sun's magnetic fields in the nearby corona. In order to do this you have to be able to block the light from the solar disk (make an artificial eclipse called a coronagraph) and measure the polarization of the light in the corona. This requires a contrast ratio of about 10^9 - 10^10, which is about the same contrast ratio that astronomers need to search for exo-planets. This sensitivity requirement is why you need the large collecting area of DKIST.

3) Since DKIST is still under construction, no tours are yet available. Since it is a daytime telescope, when most people would want to visit, we are still thinking about the logistics of running tours once it goes into operations. Until then, you can get a great view of all the telescopes on the summit from the Red Hill Overlook in Haleakala National Park.

4) The "yellow" part of the yellow G2V dwarf classification really refers to the Sun's temperature. The top of the photosphere of the Sun, or what we perceive as its surface, is about 5800K and the radiation from a blackbody at this temperature peaks in the visible spectrum in the yellow-green range. Because the blackbody curve at this temperature is fairly flat at visible wavelengths, the Sun appears to our eyes as a mix of all colors in the visible spectrum and thus appears to be white.

5) You are correct that the last couple of solar cycles, 23 and 24, have been gradually weakening in magnetic activity as measured by sunspot number. The Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel, a panel of international experts, declared that Cycle 24 ended with a solar minimum in December 2019 and we are now in Cycle 25. The panel also predicts that Cycle 25 will be about the same strength as Cycle 24. As for DKIST, we are excited that the solar activity will be ramping up to a maximum as DKIST comes online. DKIST is designed to study the small-scale physics of the Sun. For a more global picture of the Sun, NSF's National Solar Observatory relies on a six-station network of small observatories called the Global Oscillations Network Group (GONG). GONG makes full-disk measurements of the Sun's global magnetic field 24/7. GONG also provides critical data products for operational space weather forecasts by NOAA. By the way, a weak solar cycle is probably a good thing from a space weather perspective. Fewer flares and less impacts here on Earth.

6) DKIST will locate and track regions on the Sun based on the latest full disk maps uploaded from GONG and space-based assets. The telescope itself has a small finder telescope. Once it gets on target, the telescope tracks the motion of the Sun as it travels across the sky. Interestingly, the DKIST instruments are all located in a rotating Coude lab one level below the telescope level. The rotating lab keeps the image of the Sun in the same orientation for the instruments as the telescope moves across the sky.
 
Jul 23, 2021
11
0
10
The entire universe is a vacuum. Our planet is surrounded by our atmosphere, which is stronger than the vacuum. A universal vacuum keeps the pressure points the same in all directions. Gravity keeps the entire universe in order. The Universe is a bubble turning in on itself the far out we send our satellites the faster the universe will appear to be expanding. Black holes in the center of galaxies that eat up debris, planets ,. stars,etc. are gobble up the mass to be ejected into the empty regions of space to form new galaxies. Those keeping the universe in constant motion., And one more thing Dark matter is a thick gel that holds the universe together. The entire universe Is spinning . Which makes the galaxies spin which gives the spiral effects that we see.
 
Last edited:
Aug 23, 2021
60
35
60
Dr Boboltz,
Sir,
My question relates to the STEREO B spacecraft.
Is it true that the Hubble space telescope was able to image STEREO B a few years ago with regards to determining its spin and orientation? Is it also true that STEREO B will have travelled sufficiently close to the Earth in the next few years to enable an attempt to re-establish communications.
I have heard differing views on this.
Thank you for your time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jchamot

DrDaveBoboltz

Verified Expert
Aug 22, 2021
17
34
40
This one might be a bit too far out of your remit. There is currently work underway in fusion power. One of the development sites claims the potential to maintain plasma at more than 10x solar levels. Heat generates significant "escape pressure" but every star which passes a pressure threshold (partly attributed to gravitational pull) poses a risk of collapse.

My question is simply:

What pressures and conditions are typically associated with collapse risk and how do these measure up against commercial fusion plans, so people get an idea of the huge scale of stars and how modern industry even working towards fusion all this time barely reaches that scale :)

On a related note I wonder if they ever used quantum entanglement in such a setup.

Hi @Ephasius you are right this is a little beyond my area of expertise, but let me take a crack at it. You can respond if you think I'm off track.

I think you are referring to one or both of the two big fusion experiments currently in the works. One is the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the U.S., the other is the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in France. As you state, both are trying achieve the enormous pressures and temperatures deep within the Sun that are necessary to fuse hydrogen into helium, thus creating a source of clean energy without the radioactive byproducts of current fission reactors. The two facilities use very different techniques to achieve this goal. NIF uses the world's largest laser to create a shockwave on the surface of a pea-sized target of tritium and deuterium causing it to implode, thus generating fusion albeit for a very brief period of time. ITER, on the other hand, confines a hydrogen plasma using the world's most powerful magnets arranged in a toroidal shape called a tokamak. In order to actually generate power, in both cases, the energy released in the nuclear fusion process must be greater than that required to achieve the pressure/temperature necessary to ignite the hydrogen. NIF recently made news in achieving an energy output of about 70% of the energy input, which according to the article I read, was somewhat of a surprise to the scientists involved.

The enormous temperatures and pressures needed to ignite fusion inside the Sun are purely the result of gravity. This self gravity causes the plasma in the core of the Sun to be extremely dense such that fusion occurs at a temperature around 15 million K. It is impossible to achieve these types of plasma densities in the NIF or ITER facilities, therefore fusion must occur at much higher temperatures, closer to 100 million K.

All stars spend their lives trying to fend off their inevitable gravitational collapse. The initial mass of the collapsing hydrogen cloud determines how the star will turn out at the end of this collapse. Stars like our Sun, will likely end up as white dwarfs when they exhaust their nuclear fuel, while more massive stars can collapse into more exotic objects like neutron stars or even black holes.

I'm not sure about the quantum entanglement question. I'm guessing you are talking here about an application for the plasma confinement, but this is definitely out of my wheelhouse. :cool:

Dave
 

DrDaveBoboltz

Verified Expert
Aug 22, 2021
17
34
40
Dear Dr. David Boboltz,

It seems a great opportunity for people in astrophysics to get a direct channel of communication with top decision makers. As an expert with Ph. D. in Astrophysics and a government decision maker in funding astrophysics programs, you will definitely be interested in knowing a critical problem.

In Lorentz Transformation, the theoretical time of the moving inertial reference frame becomes shorter than the theoretical time of the stationary inertial reference frame. Based on this math, the current mainstream physicists immediately conclude that the moving clock ticks more slowly than the stationary clock. The fact is that every physical clock does not directly record the elapsed physical time, but uses its recorded number of cycles to indirectly calculate the elapsed physical time. The number of cycles is the product of theoretical time and frequency. As the theoretical time of the moving frame becomes shorter, the frequency of the moving clock becomes faster, which cancels the relativistic effects of each other in the product to make the number of cycles of the moving clock always the same as that of the stationary clock i.e. the displayed time of the moving clock is always the same as that of the stationary clock. Thus, clock time in special relativity is still absolute and independent of the reference frame.

Similarly, the biological age of the traveling twin is the product of the shorter theoretical time and the increased aging rate, which is always the same as that of the stationary twin. That is, relativistic effect won't make traveling twin younger than the stationary twin.

In special relativity, every mark of physical time elapsing shown on a physical process depends not only on the elapse of the theoretical time but also on the changing rate of the process. The relativistic effect of the theoretical time is always accompanied by the relativistic effect of the changing rate, which cancels each other in the product so that relativistic effect can never be shown on any real physical process.

Therefore, the theoretical time of relativity is not clock time, but a mathematical variable without physical meaning. Based on such a meaningless "time", special relativity as a theory of physics is wrong, so are all relativity based theories.

This is an obvious fatal mistake of the modern physics, but the mainstream physicists refuse to admit it, totally ignore it and continue working on the wrong theories to waste billions of taxpayers money.

Now my question is, how can we make the mainstream physicists pay attention to this serious problem?

Many thanks for your support!

Best regards,

Xinhang Shen

Hi @Xinhang Shen, thanks for your question. I have to admit this is a little out of my area of expertise.

What I will say is that the radio astronomy work that I did at the U.S. Naval Observatory supported the Global Positioning System (GPS) in maintaining the orbital parameters of the GPS satellites. In order to be used for for accurate positioning and navigation the effects of both special relativity and general relativity must be taken into account. Each GPS satellite has an atomic clock onboard, and the length of the ticks of these clocks are known to nanosecond accuracies. The effects of relativity when comparing the moving satellite clock to a stationary clock on the ground are on the order of 10s of microseconds. Without corrections for relativity, the accuracy of GPS would quickly degrade at a rate of 10km per day.

Special relativity has undergone numerous tests like the GPS example above. I think if you have an alternate theory, then that theory would have to be able withstand scrutiny and make testable predictions. As Carl Sagan would say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Dave
 
Dec 2, 2019
28
15
535

Hello, everyone! My name is Dr. David Boboltz and I'll be taking your questions until Friday, August 27th, 2021!


A Little About Me

I am currently working as a Program Director for the National Science Foundation’s Division of Astronomical Sciences where I have been since 2013. My primary area of responsibility is the management of the division’s research facilities related to the study of our Sun, including the National Solar Observatory and the NSF’s Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope (DKIST) currently under construction on Maui, HI. When finished in late 2021, DKIST will be the world’s most powerful solar observatory poised to unlock the mysteries of our nearest star.

Before coming to NSF, I worked as a radio astronomer for the United States Naval Observatory (USNO) for 15 years. My primary area of research is the study of circumstellar masers in the atmospheres of stars near the end-stages of stellar evolution (e.g. Red Giants and Supergiants). Late-type stars provide a glimpse of what our own Sun will like be in about 4.5 billion years. Prior to USNO, I was a post-doctoral fellow at MIT’s Haystack Observatory. I received my Ph.D. in Astrophysics from Virginia Tech in 1997. My dissertation research was conducted as a pre-doctoral fellow at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Socorro, NM. I also have an M.S. in Applied Physics from the Johns Hopkins University and a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Virginia Tech.

I will answer as many questions as I can, but please keep in mind that there are questions that I won't be able to answer. I'll try my very best and I'm delighted to be here, so ask away!
While many in the scientific community seem to be in agreement concerning climate change/global warming, there are some who disagree with the assertions that global warming is man made. I have some concerns with the way some of the data is presented, and the conclusions those who assert man made climate change draw from the data. One instance of this is the data gathered from ice cores in the polar regions. The assertion that CO2 within the ice is an indication of increased carbon in the atmosphere since the onset of the industrial age. I believe that the increased carbon is an indication of the Earth's ability to clean the atmosphere and remove CO2 from the atmosphere since the CO2 is present in the ice.
Missing from the debate is data concerning how much radiant heat the Earth is exposed to from the sun. While mankind currently has increased capability to collect some data concerning radiant heat, our collective observations of our star is minuscule compared its collective history. My question is in two parts.
What are we currently doing to measure accurately the energy output of the Sun, and how can we accurately assess the energy output of the past since scientific instrumentation was primitive at best compared to current technological capabilities?
I'm not trying to have a political debate. I am just trying to honestly assess what has been declared to be irrefutable. I believe that mankind's past is replete with too many examples of ignoring scientific evidence for the purpose of political or religious manipulation by individuals in power for the purpose of political or religious stability. Any time scientific debate is suspended it usually results in scientific stagnation.
I hope this post and my questions are permitted on this forum, and I hope that I am not attacked for asking these questions. However, regardless of the outcome, I have asked them.
 
Nov 18, 2019
13
2
515
Hi @Xinhang Shen, thanks for your question. I have to admit this is a little out of my area of expertise.

What I will say is that the radio astronomy work that I did at the U.S. Naval Observatory supported the Global Positioning System (GPS) in maintaining the orbital parameters of the GPS satellites. In order to be used for for accurate positioning and navigation the effects of both special relativity and general relativity must be taken into account. Each GPS satellite has an atomic clock onboard, and the length of the ticks of these clocks are known to nanosecond accuracies. The effects of relativity when comparing the moving satellite clock to a stationary clock on the ground are on the order of 10s of microseconds. Without corrections for relativity, the accuracy of GPS would quickly degrade at a rate of 10km per day.

Special relativity has undergone numerous tests like the GPS example above. I think if you have an alternate theory, then that theory would have to be able withstand scrutiny and make testable predictions. As Carl Sagan would say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Dave
Many thanks, Dr. Dave Bobolts for your quick response! Regarding atomic clocks on the GPS satellites, I think your interpretation is the current official interpretation but is a misinterpretation. As I proved theoretically in my question, the effect of special relativity can never be shown on real physical phenomena. Therefore, the corrections of the atomic clocks are not for relativistic effects but for other effects. The fact that these clocks, after corrections, are synchronized not only relative to the ground clocks but also relative to each other to show the same absolute time (see Wikipedia "GPS"), directly denies the claim of special relativity that clocks synchronized relative to one inertial reference frame will never be synchronized relative to another inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them because simultaneity is relative in special relativity. That is, the universal synchronization of the clocks on the GPS satellites is the most reliable experiment to disprove special relativity.

I think, special relativity has already been disproved both theoretically and experimentally. If you have found any error in my reasoning, please present it here and I will be happily discuss it with you and all other readers. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jchamot

DrDaveBoboltz

Verified Expert
Aug 22, 2021
17
34
40
Dr Boboltz,
Sir,
My question relates to the STEREO B spacecraft.
Is it true that the Hubble space telescope was able to image STEREO B a few years ago with regards to determining its spin and orientation? Is it also true that STEREO B will have travelled sufficiently close to the Earth in the next few years to enable an attempt to re-establish communications.
I have heard differing views on this.
Thank you for your time.

Hi @Terra Australis, I saw your post in the forum just before I started the AMA segment, and wondered if you might ask the question here.

The available information on the web indicates that NASA directed that any periodic recovery operations for STEREO-B cease on October 17, 2018. I'm not as plugged into the space-based solar community, but I did ask a colleague if he had any additional information. He didn't have any information regarding Hubble observing STEREO-B a couple of years ago. During the 2016 search with the Deep Space Network (DSN), NASA was able to determine the spin period and axis of orientation, however, I would suspect that any orientation/orbital parameters would quickly degrade over time and would be almost useless now. He did indicate that you are correct that in 2022 the satellite will be in its closest proximity to the Earth and if there were a time for NASA to try to reestablish contact, it would be then. If an attempt were made, it would likely be with the DSN to try to pick up the carrier signal provided it is still broadcasting.
 
Aug 3, 2020
8
1
515
My focus, the solar emissions related to magnetosphere strength or none & effects to geostatics of any astral body, especially the Moon & Mars, noting the Moon is a capacitor from bombardment, ambient charge -100vdc/m.

References to freq, particle & radiation effects, strength/power ... charts & graphs appreciated.
Thx, tom
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,613
1,360
3,560
Hi @Helio, glad to take your questions. Responses are below keeping your numbering scheme.

2) DKIST is designed to work at wavelengths from the optical to the infrared. Therefore it is designed to replace, not only the infrared capabilities of the McMath-Pierce solar telescope on Kitt Peak, but also the Richard B. Dunn Solar Telescope on Sacramento Peak in Sunspot, NM. The key advantage of DKIST over both of those telescopes is its massive (at least for a solar telescope) 4m diameter mirror. This buys you two advantages, first is resolution allowing DKIST to resolve structures down to about 20-30km at the distance to the solar surface. The second is sensitivity, which you wouldn't think would be a big deal for a solar telescope. One of the objectives of DKIST is to observe the Sun's magnetic fields in the nearby corona. In order to do this you have to be able to block the light from the solar disk (make an artificial eclipse called a coronagraph) and measure the polarization of the light in the corona. This requires a contrast ratio of about 10^9 - 10^10, which is about the same contrast ratio that astronomers need to search for exo-planets. This sensitivity requirement is why you need the large collecting area of DKIST.
Thanks for such a great summary! The magnetic field work should prove very fruitful as it has many implications, including how stars and disks form and generate bipolar flows, etc.

6) DKIST will locate and track regions on the Sun based on the latest full disk maps uploaded from GONG and space-based assets. The telescope itself has a small finder telescope. Once it gets on target, the telescope tracks the motion of the Sun as it travels across the sky. Interestingly, the DKIST instruments are all located in a rotating Coude lab one level below the telescope level. The rotating lab keeps the image of the Sun in the same orientation for the instruments as the telescope moves across the sky.
How interesting! Thanks again!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jchamot

DrDaveBoboltz

Verified Expert
Aug 22, 2021
17
34
40
Thanks for such a great summary! The magnetic field work should prove very fruitful as it has many implications, including how stars and disks form and generate bipolar flows, etc.
The bipolar outflow was actually part of the work I used to do as a radio astronomer. The idea was to study late-type stars to look for asymmetries that might eventually develop into the asymmetric outflows that are sometimes observed in planetary nebulae.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio and jchamot

DrDaveBoboltz

Verified Expert
Aug 22, 2021
17
34
40
While many in the scientific community seem to be in agreement concerning climate change/global warming, there are some who disagree with the assertions that global warming is man made. I have some concerns with the way some of the data is presented, and the conclusions those who assert man made climate change draw from the data. One instance of this is the data gathered from ice cores in the polar regions. The assertion that CO2 within the ice is an indication of increased carbon in the atmosphere since the onset of the industrial age. I believe that the increased carbon is an indication of the Earth's ability to clean the atmosphere and remove CO2 from the atmosphere since the CO2 is present in the ice.
Missing from the debate is data concerning how much radiant heat the Earth is exposed to from the sun. While mankind currently has increased capability to collect some data concerning radiant heat, our collective observations of our star is minuscule compared its collective history. My question is in two parts.
What are we currently doing to measure accurately the energy output of the Sun, and how can we accurately assess the energy output of the past since scientific instrumentation was primitive at best compared to current technological capabilities?
I'm not trying to have a political debate. I am just trying to honestly assess what has been declared to be irrefutable. I believe that mankind's past is replete with too many examples of ignoring scientific evidence for the purpose of political or religious manipulation by individuals in power for the purpose of political or religious stability. Any time scientific debate is suspended it usually results in scientific stagnation.
I hope this post and my questions are permitted on this forum, and I hope that I am not attacked for asking these questions. However, regardless of the outcome, I have asked them.
Hi @Joel, I think scientific debate is always a healthy thing. I got a very similar question in another thread. Here is the response I posted there. See if it sufficiently answers your question.

The way I look at it, the Earth, or for that matter any planet orbiting a nearby star, can be viewed as a system. There is an energy input to the system, in this case the solar irradiance, and an energy outflow, thermal radiation that escapes into space. You are correct that there are a number of NASA and NOAA satellites that measure the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), and NOAA has compiled a database of all the TSI measurements.

https://ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/solarirrad.html#composite

The energy input from the Sun does vary on multiple timescales. The most familiar period is the 11-year solar cycle over which the Sun varies between minimum and maximum output. The Sun most recently came out of a solar minimum and are entering into Solar Cycle 25 with an expected maximum in the 2025 timeframe. Temperature variations due to the 11-year solar cycle are thought to be relatively small, on the order of 0.1-0.2 C. Occasionally, the Sun will exhibit extended periods of minimum or maximum output, and these periods have been dubbed grand solar maxima or minima. The last grand solar minimum, known as the Maunder Minimum, spanned a period from the mid 1600s to the early 1700s and caused what is known as the Little Ice Age.

On the other end of the system is the thermal output from the Earth. Here much of the research is focused on the greenhouse effect in which atmospheric gasses inhibit the re-radiation of thermal energy back into space, thus causing higher global temperatures. It is a very complex system, with predictive climate models having to take into account many free parameters and forcing functions. If interested, I'd encourage you to dive into the recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report at:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

I will say that it is important for us to continue to study the physics of the Sun so we can better characterize, and someday perhaps even predict, the energy input side of the Earth's climate system.
 
Aug 23, 2021
60
35
60
Hi @Terra Australis, I saw your post in the forum just before I started the AMA segment, and wondered if you might ask the question here.

The available information on the web indicates that NASA directed that any periodic recovery operations for STEREO-B cease on October 17, 2018. I'm not as plugged into the space-based solar community, but I did ask a colleague if he had any additional information. He didn't have any information regarding Hubble observing STEREO-B a couple of years ago. During the 2016 search with the Deep Space Network (DSN), NASA was able to determine the spin period and axis of orientation, however, I would suspect that any orientation/orbital parameters would quickly degrade over time and would be almost useless now. He did indicate that you are correct that in 2022 the satellite will be in its closest proximity to the Earth and if there were a time for NASA to try to reestablish contact, it would be then. If an attempt were made, it would likely be with the DSN to try to pick up the carrier signal provided it is still broadcasting.
Thank you Sir for your answer. I do hope contact can be re-established with STEREO B especially as there has been significant Solar activity on the far side of the Sun already this Solar cycle.
I wish you all the best.
Aus 😊
 
  • Like
Reactions: jchamot

DrDaveBoboltz

Verified Expert
Aug 22, 2021
17
34
40
Thank you Sir for your answer. I do hope contact can be re-established with STEREO B especially as there has been significant Solar activity on the far side of the Sun already this Solar cycle.
I wish you all the best.
Aus 😊

Interestingly enough, NSF's GONG facility is able to make maps of the far side using a technique called helioseismology.


 
  • Like
Reactions: jchamot

DrDaveBoboltz

Verified Expert
Aug 22, 2021
17
34
40
My focus, the solar emissions related to magnetosphere strength or none & effects to geostatics of any astral body, especially the Moon & Mars, noting the Moon is a capacitor from bombardment, ambient charge -100vdc/m.

References to freq, particle & radiation effects, strength/power ... charts & graphs appreciated.
Thx, tom
Hi @timallard I'm not really sure what your asking for here. I'm going to take a guess that it is data related to what is collectively referred to as space weather. Check out the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center,


they have lots of information regarding the electromagnetic and particle emissions from the Sun and their impacts on the geospace environment.

Dave
 
  • Like
Reactions: jchamot
Aug 23, 2021
60
35
60
Interestingly enough, NSF's GONG facility is able to make maps of the far side using a technique called helioseismology.


Dr Boboltz,
Sir,
It is so interesting that you mention the technique called helioseismology. I was looking at that today in replying to another post about “sounds from the Sun “ - How sound waves bounce around from one side to the other in the Sun’s photosphere and can be turned into audible sounds.
I didn’t realise that was the basis for the GONG maps. Thank you.
There was a certain elegance in the way STEREO A and B operated. The hope was that they would provide that continuous, almost 360 deg. view of the sun. That hope ended in 2014.
The combination of NSO/GONG, SDO and SoHO imaging provides solid information on far side activity.
Thank you again for your reply.
Much appreciated 😊
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jchamot
Jun 1, 2020
1,613
1,360
3,560
The bipolar outflow was actually part of the work I used to do as a radio astronomer. The idea was to study late-type stars to look for asymmetries that might eventually develop into the asymmetric outflows that are sometimes observed in planetary nebulae.

That's interesting!

Somewhat similarly, for protostars, seemingly regardless of mass, the bipolar flows are very powerful and very likely attributed to magnetic interactions both within the protostar and with the inner accretion disk. [I'm still reading one of Bo Reipurth's books. :)]

1) For red giants, like newborns, is it the magnetic field activity that causes asymmetry, thus aligning with their magnetic poles.?

2) Are they even bipolar fields?

The last question presents a puzzle to me. The Sun seems to have two N-S magnetic fields -- one in the northern hemisphere and one is the south. This field flips with the "solar cycle" (~ 11 years), so a full "solar cycle" can be considered to be 22 years, to get the N-S field back to where it was.

3) Do you have some nice paint brushes that can paint what a quad-like mag. field looks like and how it came to be? [Assuming my assertions are even correct.]
 
  • Like
Reactions: jchamot
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY