Jupiter's Aurora

[iamjman]

I was reading one of the recent articles when I came across this at the very end:<br /><br />"The main aurora oval on Jupiter we think should dim when the solar wind blows harder, but what we see is that actually gets brighter, which is totally counter intuitive and we still don’t know why," Nichols said."<br /><br />Wha-wha-<i>what</i>!? I think Space.com needs to get some new "experts." I would think "Of course the stronger the solar wind blows the brighter the lights," right?

 

[CalliArcale]

Not neccesarily. Aurorae are a complex phenomenon. The basic cause (charge particles interacting with particles in the upper atmosphere) is simple, but the overall phenomenon is quite complex. That's part of why it's so beautiful.<br /><br />The auroral oval we can observe is the one pointing towards the Earth -- and the Sun. When solar wind increases, the oval should be blown back towards Jupiter's far side, making the part facing us appear dimmer. The Earths' auroral ovals do this; if you could see the aurora in the day, you'd see that the dayside of it is much smaller. This is due to the influence of the solar wind. Since you can't see the aurora, you have to depend on remote sensing satellites like POES, which can image the auroral oval even in daylight.<br /><br />So why doesn't Jupiter's aurora behave the same way? Perhaps Jupiter's astonishingly powerful magnetic field is to blame; perhaps it deflects more of the force of the solar wind, leaving only the raw quantity of incoming particles to determine the aurora's intensity, not the force of the solar wind. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I would think "Of course the stronger the solar wind blows the brighter the lights," right?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I would think that way too frankly. Now it seems that scientists have gathered pretty clear evidence to suggest that there is a cause and effect relationship between solar wind and aurora. <br /><br />My guess after reading that article is that his comments relate to the "old way" they had tried to explain Jupiter's aurora. Now it seems from his statements that there is evidence to suggest that Jupiter's aurora are in fact driven by the same Birkeland currents that drive the Earth's aurora. These currents are carried by the charged particles in the solar wind. In theory, more dense, more energetic plasma waves should have a direct relationship to more energetic aurora on any planet with a magnetic field. There is a cause and effect relationship on earth, and probably to every planet in the solar system.<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19070 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Reposted from thread "Space.com article. WTH?"<br />Original poster: iamjman<br /><br />I read this in one of the articles on Space.com:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"The main aurora oval on Jupiter we think should dim when the solar wind blows harder, but what we see is that actually gets brighter, which is totally counter intuitive and we still don’t know why," Nichols said.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />What is this guy thinking? Solar wind blows harder, and they think the light show should dim??? Space.com <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Reposted from thread "Space.com article. WTH?"<br />Original poster: iamjman<br /><br />To finish my sentence, Space.com needs to get some new experts. What's counter intuitive about that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Reposted from thread "Space.com article. WTH?"<br />Original poster: TFWThom<br /><br />You can't blame SDC, all they are doing is quoting a source, Jonathan Nichols at the University of Leicester. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Reposted from thread "Space.com article. WTH?"<br />Original poster: iamjman <br /><br />A terrible source by the looks of it. What are they doing quoting this guy if he's saying stuff that doesn't make any sense? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>