Has Electrodynamics Solved the Mystery of Saturn's Dual Hotspots?

by mgmirkin | June 16, 2008 at 05:52 pm | 10477 views | 7 comments

Saturn's North Polar Hot Spot and Hexagon

It is generally believed that falsifiability and predictive ability are two cornerstones of science. As a corollary, the critical experiment (experimentum crucis) is a widely accepted method of determining which of two mutually exclusive theoretical viewpoints hits closest to the mark. Recent data from Saturn may provide just such a critical experiment, but the answer doesn't appear to be what many scientists expected.

Opposing viewpoints were registered back in 2003 with respect to a peculiar feature at Saturn's south pole. The issue stems from a 2003 Keck Observatory press release that noted a strange hot spot at Saturn's southern pole. The issue was not the hot spot itself, according to the Keck team, but that fact that its structure did not conform to that predicted by a solar heating model.

The puzzle isn't that Saturn's south pole is warm; after all, it has been exposed to 15 years of continuous sunlight, having just reached its summer Solstice in late 2002. But both the distinct boundary of a warm polar vortex some 30 degrees latitude from the southern pole and a very hot "tip" right at the pole were completely unexpected.

“If the increased southern temperatures are solely the result of seasonality, then the temperature should increase gradually with increasing latitude, but it doesn't,” added Dr. Orton. “We see that the temperature increases abruptly by several degrees near 70 degrees south and again at 87 degrees south.”

Despite the southern pole's nonconformity with the solar heating model, the Keck team nonetheless continued to apply the solar heating model in speculating about what might appear at the northern pole of Saturn when measurements became available.

"One of the obvious questions is whether Saturn's north pole is anomalously cold and whether a cold polar vortex has been established there,” added Dr. Orton. “This is a question that can only be answered by the Cassini's CIRS experiment in the near term, as this region can not be seen from Earth using ground-based instruments."

The Keck team's prediction, thus registered, was an expectation of a hot southern polar vortex due to solar heating and a cold northern polar vortex due to lack of solar heating.

However, for a good experimentum crucis there must be mutually exclusive opposing opinions. Enter Australian researcher Wal Thornhill whose predictions were briefly reported by Wired on prior to the Deep Impact mission. He proposes a controversial and radically different interpretation of the same structure based upon electrodynamics and plasma physics.

In Thornhill's view, the south polar vortex is energized by electrical processes which also account for the otherwise unexpected structure of the pole.

Just as was found in the very hot "tip" at the pole on Saturn, the polar vortex on Venus is the hottest spot in the planet's upper atmosphere!

Professor Fred Taylor of the of the University of Oxford Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department wrote about the Venusian polar vortex: "the absence of viable theories which can be tested, or in this case any theory at all, leaves us uncomfortably in doubt as to our basic ability to understand even gross features of planetary atmospheric circulations."

This situation will not be changed until the electrical nature of the universe is acknowledged and scientists studying the solar system and deep space are appropriately trained. The Venusian polar dipole is immediately recognizable to a plasma cosmologist. But plasma cosmology is a paradigm only recently recognized by the electrical engineering fraternity of the IEEE. No university on Earth presents a course in the subject. Metaphysics is preferred in cosmology over sound engineering principles.

In contrast to Keck's surprise and uncertainty at the structure of Saturn's south polar vortex, Thornhill confidently speaks of electric currents flowing through the sparse plasma between ponderable bodies in space, continuing on to address Saturn explicitly.

Returning to Saturn's polar very hot "tip", it should be found on closer inspection to exhibit a similar structure to the Venusian polar dipole. Its compactness is due to the electromagnetic pinch effect where it enters Saturn's atmosphere. The hot spot's behavior should be variable like that on Venus and correlated with the appearance of Saturn's ring spokes, which are a visible manifestation of a heightened equatorial discharge in that part of Saturn's Faraday motor circuit. The Electric Universe also predicts, experimentum crucis, that BOTH poles should be hot, not one hot and the other cold.

The stage was thus set in 2003 for a showdown between competing models. The "Standard Model", which asserts that gravity is the only force of consequence in the cosmos, registered the prediction that Saturn's poles would consist of a hot southern, sunward polar vortex (already in evidence) and a cold northern polar vortex (yet to be observed). Thornhill's "Electric Universe model", which asserts that the role of electricity in the cosmos has been erroneously disregarded, registered the prediction that Saturn should exhibit two warm polar vortices, due to the electrical forces he asserts are sculpting them and in contrast to the Standard Model's solar heating model.

2008 appears to be the Year of the Electric Universe. In January of 2008, new data from Cassini appears to have decided who hit closest to the mark. As it turns out, the Standard Model interpretation got it wrong. Thornhill's Electric Universe model got it right. Cassini found that the northern pole of Saturn displays a warm polar vortex with a similar structure to the southern pole's vortex (though the north pole threw in a somewhat hexagonal-shaped vortex to spice things up).

LONDON (Reuters) - Saturn's chilly north pole boasts a hot spot of compressed air, a surprising discovery that could shed light on other planets within our own solar system and beyond, researchers said on Thursday.

Scientists already knew about a hot spot at Saturn's sunny south pole but data from the Cassini spacecraft now shows that the winter pole drenched in darkness also has a hot spot, said Nick Teanby, a planetary scientist, who worked on the study.

"With this Cassini mission we can also see the winter pole, which we are not able to see from Earth because of the tilt of the planet," said Teanby of the University of Oxford. "We didn't expect it to have a hot spot at the north."

The unexpected finding from Cassini has falsified the Standard Model's prediction (one hot sunward facing pole and one cold antisunward facing pole) and affirmed the Electric Universe model's prediction (two hot poles, despite one facing antisunward), thus resolving the experimentum crucis in Thornhill's favor.

But why is a critical experiment necessary in the sciences?

In the sciences, an experimentum crucis, or critical experiment, is an experiment capable of decisively determining whether or not a particular hypothesis or theory is correct. In particular, such an experiment must typically be able to produce a predictable result that no established hypothesis or theory is capable of producing.

The production of such an experiment is considered necessary for a particular hypothesis or theory to be considered an established part of the body of scientific knowledge. ... In some cases, a proposed theory can account for existing anomalous experimental results for which no other existing theory can furnish an explanation.

Critical experiments are necessary in order to figure out who is closest to the truth, scientifically, when opposing viewpoints clash. In essence, the theory with the best predictive ability is the theory that science prefers. Theories that have been falsified should be either reworked or discarded.

This critical experiment, at the least, suggests strongly that the scientific community should sit up and take notice (if they're interested in predictive ability), then take a closer look at Thornhill's Electric Universe model to see what other insights or predictive successes it can provide with respect to the solar system and the cosmos at large. This promises to be an interesting year, and these results may mean opening a new vista for research in the fields of space physics, astronomy and cosmology from an electrical engineering or plasma physics perspective.

Flag this story

Upload

Make your good story a great story. Click here to add your photos & video to this story.

Crowd Power

Scan the web to add photos and videos to this story or add them from the NowPublic Archive.

colesakick

at 14:28 on June 19th, 2008

Thank you for a much needed article. The general public is woefully unaware that Wallace Thornhill has worked for decades on his plasma-electrical model of cosmology without an ounce of recognition within the mainstream communities within which his work has direct baring and relevance, namely cosmology, astronomy and astrophysics.

Thornhill carries on a torch lit initially (or most notably) by Hannes Alfven, winner of a Nobel Peace Prize who first recognized that the cosmos is teaming with electrified plasma, the awesome power of which has the capability of forming the bodies we see in the night sky from stars to galaxies to everything else small and great.

Thornhill and other forward thinking men like Don Scott, Eric Lerner, Halton Arp and many more have faced rabid academic and mainstream media bias wherein their work is either ignored (because it is anathema to the gravity only based cosmological model that reigns like a world religion today) or ridiculed. Beyond ridicule; which makes this newsworthy to say for the public good; men like Halton Arp have been ostracized, punished and forbidden access to research tools and funding for having the audacity to report the truth!

Simply because the reported observations and data cast doubt on gravity as the monster power driving the cosmological engine of the universe good men have lost their careers or have had to leave their countries or had to appeal to fringe publications in order to move forward with their work. One can only imagine that they stay the course in hopes that some future generation will find their work and realize that whoever is getting all the credit for plasma-electrical discoveries is not the first to record and write about the correct mechanics driving the cosmos.

Colleen Thomas

mgmirkin

at 15:41 on June 19th, 2008

The kind words are, of course, appreciated.

On the one hand, I'd prefer not to be labeled as promoting what some call a "fringe viewpoint." But on the other hand, one must balance that potential pitfall versus the potential gains of highlighting predictive success (since predictive ability is what science strives for) where it appears to be applicable.

I've tried to stick to the basics, including the original Keck & Thornhill pieces, plus the more recent Cassini measurements. The viewpoints and documents more-or-less speak for themselves. I'll leave it up to the scientific community and history to determine who was "right" and what it all means (with perhaps a pointer or two in that direction).

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

colesakick

at 23:27 on June 19th, 2008

Don’t misunderstand good man. I did not say you were promoting fringe science, what I said was in reference to Mr. Thornhill finding a friendly place to publish in an electrical engineering magazine rather than in publications devoted to cosmology, astronomy or astrophysics (meaning that the target he hit was on the outer fringe of where his work is truly relevant). Having said that, in the course of time I rest assured that electrical engineering will one day come to marry with itself those fields as things rightly unify.

The architectural designs for navigating the cosmos must eek out maximum benefits and efficiency with regard to exploring the cosmos via manned space-flight by allowing for and optimizing electromagnetic considerations, wouldn't you agree?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Thank you for pointing out my all to loose use of an otherwise unwelcome term.

mgmirkin

at 17:22 on June 20th, 2008

Ohh, I should have been more clear. My comments about "fringe science" were more general in nature. Wasn't specifically responding defensively to anything you'd said. Simply uttering my view on the state of things as they exist today.

Those who offer challenge to the status quo are sometimes lightning rods. But I think that certain things need to be said and weigh the need to say them versus the fear of persecution for having said them.

I agree that Thornhill has done a pretty good job carrying the torch for science over the last few years and it's unfortunate that the peer review system often relegates challenges to the status quo into slightly less "popular" or "prestigious" journals. I'm not a fan of the "popular press" paradigm of peer-reviewed journals. IE, popularity is not necessarily an indicator of correctness.

Technical correctness, rather than jockeying for placement in the most prestigious journals, should be the aim of a true scientist.

Sorry for any misunderstanding there over which part was response (the first line) and which part was extraneous ad lib (the latter two paragrpahs)... ;o)

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

mgmirkin

at 17:45 on June 20th, 2008

With respect to which papers belong in what journals, I might reiterate a thought that I've espoused elsewhere:

In the end, science is striving for unity. Toward that end, we are working to unlock Mother Nature's secrets, one step at a time. The end result will hopefully be agreement between various fields. At that point a new question may arise. When publishing, which journal is most appropriate for the material?

This question was brought up partly in response to a question of journal "relevance" on Wikipedia. IE, a scientist (who shall remain unnamed, as it's not germane to the argument) has published a book running counter to established Standard Model science. Wikipedians questioned whether he was sufficiently qualified to offer opinion and whether any of his material was peer-reviewed. At least some peer-reviewed material was available from an IEEE magazine on plasma physics. However, the topic of the scientist's book related to astronomy. Wikipedians thus attempted to "weigh" whether the IEEE journal was "relevant" to astronomy, not being specifically dedicated to the topic (though it did count solar and astrophysical plasmas amongst the varied plasma-related topics permissible in the journal, being broad in scope as it is).

The question boiled down to whether an article published in a peer-reviewed journal not specifically dedicated to the topic on which it is written is somehow less "reliable" or "suitable" of science than a paper published in a journal more specifically dedicated to the topic.

The question becomes interesting when the paper deals with multiple topics. In this case, plasma physics and space. In such an instance, is the paper better suited to a journal on the topic of space, tailored to space scientists or is it better suited to a journal on plasma physics tailored to plasma physicists and electrical engineers?

The question also becomes interesting when considering who the audience is, who the paper impacts and who is arguing for or against the particular paper and why. IE, is the paper written as a technical piece on the functioning of plasma micro-physical processes intended to be read by plasma physicists and electrical engineers, or is it intended to be read more generally by space physicists who may not have spent years in a plasma physics lab? And does the intention of the author in terms of audiences at all lessen its impact on or applicability toward the other audience? If it was written for electrical engineers and plasma physicists but with respect to space plasmas, should it be ignored by the astronomical community solely on that basis?

One of my conclusions was that a peer reviewed paper is a paper is a paper, regardless of where it's published. Prestige and "audience" should not matter if it is technically correct science. Another conclusion was that as we get closer and closer to an actual understanding of how the universe works, there may be more overlap between fields as time goes on. All fields should inevitably converge on the same conclusion(s) if those conclusions are close to reality. It may well be that plasma physicists come to the same conclusions as as astronomers, but via an alternate route. Or that astronomers may come to the same conclusions as solar physicists, but based upon a wholly different set of data.

It is my opinion that papers should be judged on technical merit and not by the audience for which they were written nor the prestige of the specific journal to which they were submitted.

But, I think I've wandered far afield of the topic of the article, so I'll leave it there. I think I'm done anyway.

As you say, hopefully things will eventually unify and all will come into agreement from which ever path of research the various fields have taken.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Maireid Sullivan

at 02:10 on June 25th, 2008

good stuff:

mgmirkin, I like this story. It's good stuff.

Thanks for the education! -- informative commentry too.

it's interesting to see you have had over 10,000 visits and only one 'scientific' comment.

mgmirkin

at 02:33 on June 25th, 2008

Yes, I've been rather interested by the numbers too. I'm not sure why they're so high on this piece. My others haven't ranked nearly so many hits in such a short period.

Perhaps people just like a good controversy! The Electric Universe model is considered controversial or even "fringe" by many people out there (and is more or less ignored by many as well). I think that the core authors Wal Thornhill & Don Scott make some pretty good sense on technical issues and the issue in general needs to be evaluated further. Especially where they might lay claim to predictive success.

Thanks for the kind words,
~Michael Gmirkin