Talk:Solar wind

Why and discovery

yow people whay? is there a solar wind..... who has discovered it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.132.42 (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2004 (UTC)

This is a difficult question. Observations of cometary tails pointing away from the Sun date back to the first millenium BC. Some sources cite Chinese astronomers to have postulated the existence of a solar life to explain this. Kepler talked about sunlight pressure in the 17th century to explain this. Ludwig Biermann came up in 1951 with the idea of a supersonic wind blowing from the Sun with a speed of the order of 1,000 km s^-1, but did not come up with any mechanism for this acceleration. After the realization that Chapman theory of the solar corona in hydrostatic did not work (because it predicts an interstellar pressure orders of magnitude too large), Parker came up with his classical solution in 1958. USferdinand 07:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Earth temp and solar winds

is there any relation between the temperature of the earth and solar winds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.132.42 (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2004 (UTC)

No, for two reasons. Firstly, most of the sun's outputted energy is in the form of photons, not particles. Secondly, the solar wind is almost completely deflected by the Earth's magnetic field. If it wasn't, we'd be bombarded by ultra-high-energy particles, develop cancer, and die. This is why space ships have to be well shielded; even so, there is some risk of excess radiation exposure to astronauts. Ckerr 08:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There are relationships between the temperature of the atmosphere and the aurora, but only in specific areas, not in the atmosphere as a whole. The subsolar point of the Earth - the region beneath the sun, receiving the greatest amount of heating - can never cover both poles sufficiently to provide as much energy there as the aurora do. In addition, on the nightside, there's no solar heating, asides from conduction. The aurora occur close enough to the highly conducting thermosphere to allow an effect to be seen there. To really see an aurora creating havoc with a planetary atmosphere, though, you need to go out to Jupiter, where an aurora providing 100x as much energy as that of the earth mixes with a far reduced solar photon flux (about a quarter of that at Earth) and so has a more pronounced effect. At Saturn, an aurora of comparable power input to that of the Earth exists in an even lower solar photon flux. This gives an indication of the relative power inputs of the sun and the aurora. Modeled auroral oval. However, the origin of the various aurora are not necessarily all connected to the solar wind. The solar wind acts as a dynamo, creating currents that drive other sources of high energy particles into the atmosphere. At Jupiter, this is a very weak effect due to a massive magnetospher deflecting particles, whereas at Earth it is the dominant effect. Other planets differ. MilleauRekiir 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wind carrying magnetic field

The idea of the solar wind carrrying the sun's magnetic field with it is wrong. Electric currents create magnetic fields. The solar wind is creating its own magnetic fields and interacting with the existing solar magnetic field.They are locked in a feedback loop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.72.189 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The current is set at the solar surface, when the wind is emitted. The magnetic and electric environment is confined by the fact that the emitted particles are in a plasma, therefore the wind carries out the signature of the solar magnetic field as it is just another part of the outer plasma of the Sun, just an unconfined, radially flowing one. MilleauRekiir 17:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Maxwell's equations do not state that electric fields/currents create magnetic fields/flows (or vice versa), merely that the two ways of describing a plasma are equivalent e.g., The alternative paradigm for magnetospheric physics, Parker, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 101, NO. A5, PAGES 10,587-10,625, MAY 1, 1996. Thus it is completely valid to talk in terms of the solar wind "dragging" the coronal magnetic field out to form the heliospheric magnetic field, HMF (which is the more accurate term given to the interplanetary magnetic field, IMF). While coronal dynamics are dominated by the magnetic field, leading to the formation of coronal loops which channel the coronal plasma, at increasing altitude in the solar atmosphere the acceleration of the solar wind means that the flow momentum becomes comparable to the restraining magnetic tension force and the coronal loops are dragged out by the solar wind to to form the HMF e.g., The heliospheric magnetic field, Owens and Forsyth, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 5, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2013-5, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliophysics (talk • contribs) 18:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Cosmic Magnetic Fields are not bounded such that they are "dragged out" where they were not present before, just dragged to a stronger flux intensity. Its better then to say that the wind and magnetic flux are "superposed", as they are, rather than one "embedded" in the other. Both are embedded in spacetime, together. 2602:304:CFA5:42A0:80C6:BFF1:F5B:A88F (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Plasma is not a gas

Plasma is not a gas. Plasma follows its own rules just as a gas behaves differently than a solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.72.189 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I was under the impression that it is debated whether it should be classified as it's own form of matter. 143.195.150.63 —Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass loss

The total amount of mass lost by the Sun due to solar wind is about 600,000 tonnes per second. The figure of 800 kg/s cited above is clearly wrong. The density of the solar wind at 1 A.U. (7 protons per cubic cm, (or 7*10^6 protons/cm^3), the surface of an sphere with such a diameter (2.5 10^22 m^2) and the average solar wind speed of 400 km/s (4*10^5 m/s)lead to an estimate of about 7*10^35 protons per second leaving the Sun, or 1 million tonnes per second. I have a figure of 600,000 tonnes per second coming from a paper which I cannot find right now. J. R. Crespo Lopez-Urrutia 149.217.1.6 10:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You were right, the correct mass loss rate is about 1E9 kg/s according to Wood, B. E.; Müller, H.-R.; Zank, G. P.; and Linsky, J. L.; 2002, Measured Mass-Loss Rates of Solar-like Stars as a Function of Age and Activity, Astrophys. J., 574, 412-425

Urhixidur 21:00, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

You're off by one magnitude. Using the pressure equation given

• for 1nP gives (1e-9/400000)*2.5e22=62.5e6 kg/s
• for 6nP gives 375000000 kg/s Mightyname (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The sun loses mass primarily in two ways. Some of it is the solar wind; the remainder is the mass-energy of emitted light. The present article as it now stands says, "...Thus, the total mass loss each year is about (2–3) × 10^-14 solar masses,[15] or 6.7 billion tons per hour." (I am guessing that the author intended "tonne" rather than "ton".) 6.7 billion tonne per hour is 1.85 x 10^9 kg/s. One might infer that this figure refers only to the mass loss due to the solar wind, but that is not made clear.

The wiki article on "sun", in the section on "core", says, "About 9.2 × 10^37 protons (hydrogen nuclei) are converted into helium nuclei every second (out of ~8.9 × 10^56 total amount of free protons in the Sun), or about 4.4 × 10^9 kg per second,[46] releasing energy at the matter–energy conversion rate of 4.26 million metric tons per second, 383 yottawatts (3.83×10^26 W),[46] or 9.15 × 10^10 megatons of TNT per second." 4.26 million metric tons per second = 4.26 x 10^9 kg/s. Clearly, this does not include mass loss due to the solar wind's rest mass, though it presumably does include the mass equivalent of the solar wind's kinetic energy.

I would like to see some clarification of the relative contributions of sunlight and the solar wind to the total mass loss of the sun.

I would also like to see a stricter adherence to SI units. "Metric ton" should be replaced by "Tonne"; better yet use only kg as the unit of mass. Non-SI units, such as hour, day, year, ton, tonne, megatons of TNT, etc. should be included only in parenthetical comments after the correct SI units have been given. --Onerock (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask what the average density of the solar wind is at the radius of Earth's orbit (1 AU), and then saw that this is answered above (7*10^6 protons/m^3). I think it's important enough to appear in the article if a reference can be cited (I would do this myself if I could verify it).Pharmagiles (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The given number of mass loss in the article is certainly wrong in relation to the solar wind. That number is the mass converted into pure energy. M = E/c^2 gives that number 4.289e9 kg/s = 4.289e6 tonnes/s = 1.35257904e+17 kg/yr. However, the actual fusion process involves some 700 million tons/s of that 0.7 percent is actually loss due to energy conversion. There's no means to calculate what part of the process ends up being the wind. Therefore, the measured particles are the only means to determine the solar wind mass. Protons are certainly the main part that matter for most every other use but they are not everything contained in the wind. We need more precise numbers and composition tables to arrive at a more correct mass for the wind. Mightyname (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"formation of distant stars"

Article's intro says that solar wind can explain "formation of distant stars" but I see nothing in article body on the subject. If it's a true statement, should add text about it or at least a link; otherwise delete.FRS 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

My only guess is that it refers to the stellar winds of very massive stars and star clusters, which can significantly influence the nearby ISM. There are now many, fairly clear cases of past generations of stars that have created bubbles in the ISM, compressing the surrounding material enough to trigger star formation. However, in most cases that I can think of, it would be difficult to separate the effect of the stellar winds from that of supernovae in such regions. Both will have a similar influence.

After being redirected here from stellar wind and reading this page, I wonder if stellar wind shouldn't be a separate entity that talks more about winds from massive stars and from other stages of stellar evolution. In particular for massive star winds, the mechanism is not due to a corona but to radiation pressure from the incredibly larger luminosities at the surfaces of these stars. mh 04:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: Formation of heavy isotopes of hydrogen in solar wind?

I just thought about this: Could solar wind be a significant source of the formation of heavy isotopes of hydrogen by the fusion of high velocity protons and neutrons? The small proportion of neutrons in solar wind should follow a newtonian trajectory, while the protons follow one that is also influenced by magnetic fields. There is thus the possibility of collisions between these two particles. This might be more likely when the protons are within the influence of the magnetic fields of planets, as this would cause the protons and neutrons to follow quite different paths and thus accelerate relative to each other. If this mode of fusion is exothermic it might account for some of the 'unknown' energy that accelerates the solar wind that the article refers to. Any opinions?--ChrisJMoor 03:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

They would intially both follow radial paths from the Solar surface. When interacting in a shock boundary, the neutrons would interact at a shock developing in response to the atmosphere, whereas protons are trapped outside the magnetosphere, some distance behind. Although it would be more likely to happen as the neutrons pass through the proton shock, the high energies and low densities involved would both work against the initial combination. The high temperature of the plasma would also threaten to distabilise the produced atom. For heavier isotopes, the entire process would have to happen more than once. If we're considering this to be happening in a proton shock, it would be more likely for more protons rather than more neutrons to join and create helium 3 rather than say deuterium. Its difficult enough for this to happen at the densities represented by the upper atmosphere, never mind the outer magnetosphere, but the massive numbers mean there'll probably be a little... MilleauRekiir 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium says "Stellar fusion destroys deuterium, and there are no known natural processes (for example, see the rare cluster decay), other than the Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which might have produced deuterium at anything close to the observed natural abundance of deuterium." Helium-3 mentions "helium-3 is thought to exist on the Moon (embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years)". (SEWilco 04:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

proton-proton fusion takes a lot of energy. Solar wind is not really that energetic. The energy spectrum of the electrons and ions in the solar wind is on the order of 100 - 10,000 eV. DonPMitchell (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion highlights the fact that there's currently no mention of the mean-free path of solar wind particles and that is it essentially collision-free. That probably needs addressing. Heliophysics (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Farts in the martian atmosphere?

Mars's atmospheric pressure makes one's farts more condensed, therefore causing a stronger and more pungent aroma, especially when solar winds blow it around.

Should this section really appear in this article? It sounds like a joke. Init 19:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, I will remove it if its still in there! GB 04:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

needs quantitative estimate

How many newtons per square meter could solar wind exert on an object at 1 AU from the sun, outside earth's magnetic field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwr42 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I just did some calculations, if I made no major errors: starting from 10^6 t/s mass loss, the earth r=6300 km with area pi*r*r in 149.6*10^6 km distance "catches" about 450 g/s of it. Now most of this is in the kinetic energy of the particles (although it is probably not completely absorbed into acceleration due to reflection and heat, but remember we are doing rough estimates here).. sqrt(400g*c*c*2/m_Earth) seems to yield an effect in the magnitude of 10^-4 .. 10^-5 m/s². This is of course basically nothing, but if I remember correctly, planetary orbits are "stable" (ie. once taken they run forever, they lose micro amounts of energy by coupling effects), thus this small "push" can add up since it is not self-correcting? (For a "real" calculation you would have to compare the potential energies between different orbits of the earth, you cannot simply multiply 10^-5 m/s² with seconds, orbits do not work this way) Yes, I did this calculation to find out whether solar wind could be a candidate for the mystery "growing" [[1]] of the AE. Has no one thought of that ever before? If this is potential explanation, the effect should be non-linear, since other planets have different densities and are farther away from the sun. Should be worst with the inner planets. You can comment to areau.gans at arcor de. --145.253.2.238 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Question About Mercury's Magnetosphere and the Solar Wind

The entry for Mercury states that it has a magnetosphere strong enough to deflect the solar wind, and that while its low gravitational pull prevents it building up a significant atmosphere, it does have detectable amounts of various gases from a variety of sources. This article implies strongly that the solar wind scours all gases from the planet. There appears to be a conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.235.134 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mercury has a weak magnetosphere that provides some protection for the surface.[2] But it apparently isn't strong enough to have saved most of the atmosphere.[3] The planet is much closer to the Sun than the Earth, so it gets a higher flux of particles. It also has a lower gravity and a higher temperature, which likely didn't help matters.—RJH (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Spacial Distribution

I was disappointed to find no remarks regarding the distribution of the solar wind. It seems likely that it is either highly irregular and unpredictable or focused about the ecliptlic plane. Francis of Hochbergm 8/2/08 --Francis of Hochberg (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes this article is in much need of further development.—RJH (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Heliospheric current sheet says "The solar wind is guided by the Sun's magnetic field and hence largely emanates from the polar regions of the Sun;" but cites no source. Is it true, and how do we know? - Rod57 (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge

I think that interplanetary medium is basically a fork article that doesn't mention anything not in this article. I think this article could safely swallow it. Serendi^podous 16:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If there's a merge, it should go the other way, as the solar wind is really a component of the interplanetary medium (which contains neutral gas and dust, in addition to the solar wind (ionized gas)). (I've had little if anything to do with either article, though.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Interplanetary dust cloud points out that small particles are a major part of the interplanetary medium which is different from the solar wind. I think those two articles should be merged since they are both rather short. The solar wind is actually somewhat complex, so I think it merits its own article. But if there were a merge, "interplanetary medium" should be the resulting title. -- Beland (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think I'd prefer to keep them separate. To me it seems that interplanetary medium is a sub-component of the interstellar medium, and it is already discussed on the latter page. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, what about merging

with Heliosphere? Serendi^podous 13:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

They are both fairly decent sized articles with room for growth. While the subjects are related, I'm not sure what the benefit would be of merging them. The pair don't quite satisfy Wikipedia:Merge#Merging.—RJH (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the solar wind?

Ions. So can someone provide a list of ions and their relative abundance/flux in the solar wind? What it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.113.189 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Energy. The 2nd sentence states that the electron energies are on the order of "10-100 eV". That sounds too low, since it goes on to say that that these particles needed "high kinetic energy to escape the sun's gravitation. So I think the energies should at least be into the kilo electron Volt range. maybe 10-200 keV? Jdagius (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Average solar wind speed is around 450km/s, between 400 and 800km/s depending on fast or slow solar wind. Ion temperature is about 20-200 kilokelvins. Cinetic energy is more or less 2keV (for 430km/s), thermal energy is some tens of eV. So the total energy is between 1.5 and 8 keV. I have no idea where 10-200 eV or keV comes from. I'm changing it. There are some evidence of high energy particles, coming from CMEs or something. But it is a minority, and should not be refereed to as "standard solar wind".

--Forcimonie (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree thermal energy--at 1 AU-- is on the order of a few 10's of eV. I found 2 simulations that take the Te to be 40 and 10 eV respectively. These correspond to thermal temperatures of 100,000 to 500,000 K. 72.160.11.165 (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Warren Platts

Comparison with radiative pressure

The article on solar sail says "The force due to light pressure is about 5,000 times as strong as that due to solar wind". In this case, how can solar wind be considered responsible for the tail of comets rather than light pressure ? I understand it may be the case for the gas part of the tail if the cross section of an atom (or generally what this gas is made of) is much smaller with respect to light than with respect to elements of the solar wind (electrons and protons); but for dust particles I guess the radiative pressure dominates. Also, a very approximate calculation from this figure together with a value of solar wind speed of 600 km/s, suggests that the total mass loss of the Sun each year due to sun-light through E=mc2 is about 10 times largerr than the one due to solar wind. This would be worth mentioning together with more exact figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoirier (talk • contribs) 14:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Correlation with climate change

I read a scientific paper, published way back in 1991, about the interaction between the solar wind and the geomagnetic field. The author seems to think that the length of the solar cycle is related to variations in earth's temperature. I wonder if anyone else has tried to correlate solar activity and things like cloud formation. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people have - with varying degrees of success and often contradictory results. One of the more interesting studies concerns the possible effect of cosmic rays (the flux of which is modulated by the solar cycle) on the formation of clouds and thus the ability of the atmosphere to reflect incoming heat. They're not (as far as I am aware) proposing that this can account for global warming but it's an interesting study none the less. [[4]] DanielWent (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

small edit to History

Although I don't have access to the Birkeland paper referenced in [2], I believe (based on comments in "Rethinking the History of Solar Wind Studies: Eddington's Analysis of Comet Morehouse") that the sentence should read:

In 1916, Birkeland was probably the first person to successfully predict that, "From a physical point of view it is most probable that solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds," suggesting that the solar wind consists of both negative and positive ions.

--Kmote (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Unclear term

"The Sun's corona, or extended outer layer, is a region of plasma that is heated to over a million degrees Celsius. As a result of thermal collisions, the particles within the inner corona have a range and distribution of speeds described by a Maxwellian distribution." What is supposed to be a thermal collision? I guess is that collisions are due to thermal heating, but imho stated like that is quite unclear.--79.20.34.174 (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Solar cycle and sunspots

We need to say more about the solar cycle and sunspots. The solar wind varies--in density, velocity, temperature, and magnetic field properties--with the solar cycle. [5] --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A section on the time scales of variation of the solar wind is required. These would range from seconds/minutes due to turbulent eddies, through days and structures such as corotating interaction regions (CIRs) resulting from solar rotation, to solar cycle variations and centennial/millennial variations. I'm happy to start putting this together if no-one objects? Heliophysics (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for more information in the "Planetary surfaces" section on the main page

Early in the article, it is mentioned that the solar wind is comprised of Protons and Electrons.

In the "Planetary surfaces" section it ends with "enriched in atomic nuclei deposited from the solar wind".

My question is - where did the neutrons come from? I am unclear as to whether there is the assumption that some electrons merge with protons to create neutrons. Or whether the solar wind strips electrons off of ordinary matter, leaving atomic nuclei behind.

Or are neutrons part of the solar wind to begin with? If not, why not - is there something about charge that causes the initial acceleration?

Or possibly there is something understood but not directly presented here.

pcG PcGnome (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, really, what is it made of?

"Ions" is an incomplete answer. Ions are charged particles. What kind of charged particles? Electrons? Protons? Alpha particles? He+? muons? what? 74.82.132.35 (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Stellar Wind"

The usage of Stellar Wind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Stellar Wind (code name) -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"Supersonic"

The usage of the word in the second paragraph seems silly at best, saying a few hundred miles an hour and then immediately after claiming a million. It also has little or even ambiguous relevance in space as "supersonic" on Venus is certainly different than on Earth.

129.130.41.55 (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Solar wind velocities at Earth distance from the Sun range from a few hundred km/sec up to, occasionally 2 or 3 thousand km/sec. This is extremely fast, and it is faster than the speed of "sound" in the solar wind, or the velocity at which waves in the solar wind propagate (sorry, but I don't know that value off the top of my head). Point being, that the solar wind flow velocity is, yes, supersonic, and this description applies to the medium itself, the solar wind, not for Venus or Earth atmosphere. Note, when the solar wind arrives at the Earth, a bow shock is generated. This is due to the fact that the solar wind is passing by the Earth at supersonic velocities. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The mention of "supersonic" in this context is still very misleading, as neither this article nor the article about supersonic speed explains the speed of sound in the interstellar medium. --Vektorweg (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I propose adding the following note to the word "supersonic": "The speed of an imaginary object placed at a fixed distance from the Sun is faster in the frame of reference moving with the solar wind than the local ion acoustic speed." Thoughts? --46.242.12.64 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"Supersonic" is the correct term used. The speed of sound depends on the density of the medium. The term is not a fixed value. It has nothing to do with down on Earth speed of sound's value. In fact for the same reason the speed of sound on Earth changes with altitude. The vacuum is not empty, hence, it does transmit sound. Mightyname (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Solar wind/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Overall I agree with the B-rating but not with the Mid-importance (I changed it to High). Extrasolar planet, for example, is a High-importance article and I think solar wind should have a similar importance. Concerning the rating, first stellar wind should not link here. Also, the general section of properties (the subsection are fine, I believe) need work. For example, the composition is confusing. I have no clue where the 200 to 889 km/s speed comes from. USferdinand 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Solar wind decrease

• http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/ - "The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s ..."

• ftp://space.mit.edu/pub/plasma/publications/jdr_soho/jdr_soho.pdf - "The solar source is at space-age lows both in terms of solar wind plasma flux and magnetic field strength [McComas et al., 2008]"

• https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries/ - "The current long-term decline in solar activity set in after the last grand solar maximum peaked in 1956, says Lockwood. The decline has accelerated recently, and the absence of sunspots this summer has set alarm bells ringing."

I'm not seeing this covered in the article, at all. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent advancements ? - should we cite the Poulos article ?

The Poulos article has major advancements in solar wind, solar activity and climate variability. Instead of deleting the references one could critisise if he has any critics. This theory is out since 2005 in earlier texts and has had no refutations yet. It only has strict mathematical proof. Kadefe (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Lots of articles are published every day. We don't need to cite all of them. While new ideas by reputable scientists can get mentioned here, we tend to emphasize general, mainstream ideas and their explanation. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, you might begin by focusing on that. With respect to citing the article that seems to be your fixation, note that mathematical "proofs" usually apply to simple idealized models. They are, occasionally, applicable (e.g. Cowling's antidynamo theorem), but when it comes to messy issues involving inference and "significance" based on data that only partly record the phenomena of interest, such as for the relationships between the Sun, solar wind, and climate, mathematical proofs tend to offer only provide general insight, not specific conclusions. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

* That's what I have been doing. It proves you have not read the above article. Solar wind, solar activity and their relationship with climate is no longer a messy issue since this article. I shall try to reference it once more.Kadefe (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You and I obviously have different ideas of what "prove" means. That article is not what I would call compelling. But it doesn't matter much. Motivation for including a citation to this particular article would revolve around issues like (1) is the author an established expert?, (2) has the article had an impact?, (3) do we need to cite it?, (4) are there other articles by established experts that might be better cited? Is this article the only thing that interests you as an editor at Wikipedia? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

From Google scholar, it looks like the author of the paper, Poulos Dimitris, hasn't been cited even once by other authors. He is not a notable expert. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought scientific works where valued by their quality, not by the authority their authors project. Kadefe (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The work in question is a newly published, uncited primary source, published in a low-quality pay-to-publish journal with dubious editorial oversight. This is strong presumptive evidence against it being widely used as a source in Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Right. Not notable. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Only this article is newly published. It is based in original work of the author dating in 2005. No refutations of this work since. Ten year work with no refutations over unprecedented original assertions is appropriate for reference in Wikipedia. Kadefe (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Kadefe, there are lots of newly published and uncited articles. That is not a reason for us to cite it! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What I have already told you is that it is not about a newly published article but about a ten year work, check the article references. Anyway I am the one who cited it. Since it is an unrefuted ten year old work making interesting unprecedented original assertions you don't have any reason to delete my citation. Kadefe (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is newly published. If you think there is a citable article from ten years ago, then please tell us what it is. But if its just a poster, or an conference presentation, we'll tell you that it isn't a peer-reviewed paper William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The original 2005 work is a reviewed MSc Thesis. It's been on the web since. This article adds to it. That's all. It is suitable for citation. Kadefe (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That won't do. Msc theses are pretty lightweight things, and aren't generally peer reviewed. Plus, you haven't even given us any way of identifying said thesis. If this stuff is any good... why has it taken 11 years to get into a rather non-notable journal? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That particular one has some interesting unprecedented original assertions. The article has a lot new material. It does the job... neither lightweight nor unreviewed. Kadefe (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is how the last few steps of the conversation have gone: Non-K: "this article is lacking in the following ways." K: "It's not about the article, it's about this other thing." Non-K: "The other thing is lacking in the following ways." K: "It's not about the other thing, it's about the article." Do you see the problem? --JBL (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No I don't see any problem. The article is OK for citation because it stands well on an old fine work. Kadefe (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Problems: (1) you have not refuted in any way any of the objections to using this paper as a reference. (2) Your only defense of it comes by reference to another work, about which you have produced no substantive information whatsoever.

To save a lot more nonsense, though: there is zero chance that this article is ever going to be used as a reference in Wikipedia. It's totally unsuitable, for the reasons that I and others have mentioned, and it probably will always be unsuitable. So I suggest you find some better way to contribute to Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify things more: 1)this article has no conjectures, it is mathematical proof, so you do not have to wait for time to pass and see what other researchers say about it anyway. 2) this article's body is an older work that has already "matured" wihin scientific community. So it is a mature work overall. Your negation has no basis. Kadefe (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

...you make me suspect you didn't bother to even read this article. The described phenomena are solved, they are facts, that's about. Mathematically proved. If you can't check the proof let others who can remove it from Wikipedia. It is not your job. Or add some note "the proof presented has not been thoroughly checked yet", if that would make you happy. That would be enough.Kadefe (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

There is zero chance that this article is ever going to be used as a reference in Wikipedia. I suggest you find some better way to contribute to the project. --JBL (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

How's that, I admire your arguments. Kadefe (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Kadefe, here's the thing. Regardless of the question of the publisher here, Wikipedia tends to avoid primary sources such as this. It wouldn't matter if it were the most reputable publisher we could find, we'd still prefer avoiding citing the source directly for the reasons details here. Your edit summary claims that it is breakthrough science, but Wikipedia, for better or worse, is reflective of other sources, not a place for breakthroughs on their own. You've mentioned a few times that the work cited is "unrefuted", but on its own that doesn't mean anything. That's not a criticism of your work, but of any work. Wikipedia does not publish works just because they are "unrefuted". It would be more compelling if you could show where it has been reviewed in some way; where it has been challenged, and either supported or refuted. "Unrefuted" could just as easily mean lack of interest or support of a work, which is the issue. If you could provide third-party sources, ones that have nothing to do with the work in question but are reporting on it, for example, that would go a long way towards showing that this recent advancement warrants mention on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Aoidh, the questioned article is indeed a primary source but its subject is purelly mathematically proven so there is no question for reliablity. This argument stands for the refutation arguments you have put forward too. For example the author has theoretically calculated all solar wind properties (temperature etc) and they are the same as observed. It is not a matter of whether someone will be interested to report about. Such arguments usually stand for other topics, eg. politics, not for mathematics.Kadefe (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If the only person saying it's worth checking out is the author, it's not really suitable for Wikipedia. Articles give weight to what sources show. If the only source is the actual paper, there's no reason to put it into the article. It has nothing to do with the type of article, Wikipedia does not exist to propagate ideas, but to reflect them proportionally as determined by reliable third-party sources. If the only source is the primary topic, it's probably not time to put it on Wikipedia.- Aoidh (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly going no-where, but like all good train-wrecks it is hard to resist. A is entirely correct to say that "If the only person saying it's worth checking out is the author, it's not really suitable for Wikipedia". Also, K's "its subject is purelly mathematically proven" is entirely wrong. The article is no ab-initio pure-maths thing; its just an (uninspired) two-term cosine fit to observations. However, and perhaps ironically, the correctness of the article (it isn't correct; its junk) isn't really the point: the point is whether it has any notability. And it has none William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Aoidh proven facts are not ideas, WMC you have no idea what you are talking aboutKadefe (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

There is zero chance that this article is ever going to be used as a reference in Wikipedia. I suggest you find some better way to contribute to the project. --JBL (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Composition of the solar wind

Surprised to find nothing about the composition of the solar wind (or can't find it if it is mentioned). It consists of protons largely - and 8% of alpha particles - so hydrogen and helium nuclei. But it also has trace amounts of other elements. See this summary from Stanford university [6]

"The composition of the solar wind is a mixture of materials found in the solar plasma, composed of ionized hydrogen (electrons and protons) with an 8% component of helium (alpha particles) and trace amounts of heavy ions and atomic nuclei: C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe ripped apart by heating of the Sun's outer atmosphere, that is, the corona (Feldman et al., 1998).

SOHO also identified traces of some elements for the first time such as P, Ti, Cr and Ni and an assortment of solar wind isotopes identified for the first time: Fe 54 and 56; Ni 58,60,62 (Galvin, 1996)!

Perhaps this could be mentioned in the article if it's not included, or highlighted? The helium 3 in the solar wind also seems worth mentioning, because of the ideas of helium 3 implanted in the lunar regolith, if anyone knows what they are. Robert Walker (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Robert, I think you should just go ahead and add a new section named "Composition" to the article with this information (rewritten to avoid copyright issues and with proper formatting for the isotopes). If this information is outdated, the experts reading the article will notice it and update the section with the latest data. Perhaps, also amend the second sentence in the article from "electrons, protons and alpha particles" to something like "electrons, protons, helium nuclei (alpha particles) and trace amounts of heavier ions"? --46.242.12.64 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Heavy ion composition needs to be added. But that comment is two and a half years old. I'm not sure if Robert Walker is still following this. I can put it on my list of things to do, but that tends to always get longer rather than shorter. If I do, or if anyone else wants to make the change, charge state and variability (fast versus slow stream composition) are also things worth mentioning. Fcrary (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

1) It would be great if you could put it on your to-do list. I'm a complete newbie in astrophysics and do not feel confident making this change as I don't know whether Robert's 1996 and 1998 references are good. You, on the other hand, are a real scientist and you know what you're doing. As a newbie, I assure you that newbies are very interested in what solar wind is composed of. It is the second question that comes to a newbie's mind after "what is it?". I can try searching arXiv for some papers on solar wind composition, but, again, I don't feel confident adding this as I don't even know if the solar wind composition is constant or changing with time / latitude of CME / type of CME. As a newbie, ideally, I would want to know the chemical composition and the range of energies. Hopefully, you will have time to do this. But if you absolutely don't have the time, please tell me, and I'll try to do it myself.

2) What do you think of linking the first instance of the word "supersonic" to Ion acoustic wave? Newbies seem confused about what it means in this context. Or is it more accurate to link it to Magnetosonic wave? --46.242.13.121 (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but it's going to be at least a week. And, yes, "supersonic" needs some work. Especially since someone might ask how you can have a speed of sound when everyone knows there's no sound in space. Technically it's the fast magnetosonic wave, although ion acoustic and magnetosonic modes are usually pretty much the same in the solar wind. Fcrary (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've replaced this:

At a distance of more than a few solar radii from the Sun, the solar wind is supersonic and reaches speeds of 250 to 750 kilometers per second.

with this:

At a distance of more than a few solar radii from the Sun, the solar wind reaches speeds of 250 to 750 kilometers per second and is supersonic, meaning it moves faster than the speed of the fast magnetosonic wave.

I wasn't able to find a proper citation, but it's better than what it was. --46.242.12.78 (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

References

That sounds great. I can think of some references, but they're mostly textbooks or review papers. That's probably too much detail and they aren't on line. I think about it. Fcrary (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

What distribution by latitude ?

Heliospheric current sheet says "The solar wind is guided by the Sun's magnetic field and hence largely emanates from the polar regions of the Sun;" but it does not seem to be mentioned in this article. What is known about the properties of the solar wind away from the ecliptic or the suns equator ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Solar wind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920221334/http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/science/index.html to http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/science/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304072916/http://archive.cosmosmagazine.com/news/solar-wind-ripping-chunks-mars/ to http://archive.cosmosmagazine.com/news/solar-wind-ripping-chunks-mars/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

density of sunwind on Sun surface...

Sun radius  : Earth orbit radius yields around 0.0043 or sth. Surface goes square so we have 50.000 times as much mass density of solar wind on Sun surface. exact values to our knowledge? Wikistallion (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You can't extrapolate that far. The 1/r^2 scaling only works if the radial velocity is constant, and it isn't once you get close to the Sun. We don't know the radial velocity profile all the way in, and I'm not even sure exactly what the "surface" of the Sun means. Fcrary (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)