Image and illustration courtesy NASA
Big thanks to contributor ‘Scute’ whose fascinating thread on the companionship of the meteor which burst over Chelyabinsk in Russia and the large asteroid which made a close flyby of Earth around the same data has run and run to 600 comments. Now he has come up with a paper on Arxiv which provides another leap forward for the solar-planetary theory we have been working on here for the last three years alongside the evolving body of literature being published with increasing frequency in the field. This theory posits the idea that solar variation is coincident with changes in the disposition of masses in the solar system, i.e. the motion of the planets, and that the reason for this is that there is cybernetic feedback occurring between the planets and the sun. In other words, the level of solar activity affects the planets, and in turn the positions of the planets affect the level of solar activity. For more, look for posts tagged ‘solar system dynamics’ using the ‘Select articles by category’ facility on the left.
The paper is by exoplanet researchers Poppenhaeger et al, and it is about a stellar system HD 189733 which due to it’s uncommon configuration in having both a companion dwarf star and a close-in large planet, a ‘Hot Hupiter’, is able to give us clues about the effects planets can have on their parent star. By comparing the stage of Stellar evolution of both the main star and the dwarf companion, Poppenhaeger concludes that:
This star is not acting its age, and having a big planet as a companion may be the explanation. It’s possible this hot Jupiter is keeping the star’s rotation and magnetic activity high because of tidal forces, making it behave in some ways like a much younger star.(1)
We consider it a more likely possibility that the stellar angular momentum of HD 189733A has been tidally influenced by the Hot Jupiter, which has inhibited the stellar spin-down enough to enable the star to maintain the relatively high magnetic activity we observe today.(2)
This is an extreme example, the ‘Hot Jupiter is 30 times closer to HD 189733 than Earth is to the Sun, orbiting in a mere 2.2 Earth days. The effect of our own Solar system gas giant planets would be much smaller. But then, the Sun’s output only varies around 0.1% over the ~11 year solar cycle, and we can tell from its activity that it is a highly energetic body whose surface is close to boundary conditions. That is to say, small perturbations may have larger than expected effects. Search for ‘Kelvin-Helmholtz’ and ‘Raylaigh-Taylor instability‘ on youtube to see what I mean.
Additionally, there are observations, flagged up in Nicola Scafetta’s latest paper currently under discussion showing that the Sun burns slightly brighter on the hemisphere facing Jupiter, or perhaps equally pertinently and possibly more accurately, the side facing the barycentre (centre of mass) of the system. That is consistent with the theoretical work of Wolff and Patrone in their 2010 paper ‘A new way planets can affect the Sun’, where they state:
the element may have potential energy that could be released by a suitable flow. We demonstrate the energy with a very simple model in which two fluid elements of equal mass exchange positions, calling to mind a turbulent field or natural convection. The exchange releases potential energy that, with a minor exception, is available only in the hemisphere facing the barycenter of the planetary system.
And that:
Occasional small mass exchanges near the solar center and in a recently proposed mixed shell centered at 0.16Rs would carry fresh fuel to deeper levels. This would cause stars like the Sun with appropriate planetary systems to burn somewhat more brightly and have shorter lifetimes than identical stars without planets.
So as well as the tidal possibility alluded to by Poppenhaeger, and worked on by several contributors and independent scientists here, we should also keep in play the possibility of angular momentum effects, covered in more depth by Geoff Sharp over at this Landscheidt.info website. Geoff has a forthcoming paper which we’ll review on publication. Nicola Scafetta also develops the idea of looking at the mass luminosity relation in stars for evidence of a mechanism in play between planets and their parent stars, discussed here last year.
Some further information about the HD 189733A system is given on this NASA page related to Poppenhaeger et al’s paper.
============================================================================================
References:
(1) NASA newsfeed
(2) TRANSIT OBSERVATIONS OF THE HOT JUPITER HD 189733b AT X-RAY WAVELENGTHS
K. Poppenhaeger1,2, J. H. M. M. Schmitt 2, S. J. Wolk1
1 Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
2 Hamburger Sternwarte, Gojenbergsweg 112, 21029 Hamburg, Germany
Accepted to ApJ: June 7, 2013
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
good paper.
In my paper you find other references showing similar results.
In is evident that for our sun the effect is small, but it is still visible if data are carefully analyzed.
A good summery of known facts of barycenter effects on solar output. Even the main stream is beginning to recognize the facts. Soon they will have to recognize that, solar output is the key to climate change. Science fact will trump over wishful thinking. The fertilizer effects of the CO2 will cause greater food production in the face of the solar cool down. Energy is the key to modern civilization wealth creation. The research of free men will always trump the work of government drones. ” The net that covers the world” is the key to the new era, not central control of efforts and thought by ruling elites. “We don’t need them” pg
tallbloke says:
July 30, 2013 at 12:23 pm
it is worth quoting the author:
“This star is not acting its age, and having a big planet as a companion may be the explanation. It’s possible this hot Jupiter is keeping the star’s rotation and magnetic activity high because of tidal forces, making it behave in some ways like a much younger star.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 30, 2013 at 12:15 pm
Strong tidal forces can brake rotation [Moon on Earth] or even lead to tidal locking [many examples of that] and since rotation is implicated in generating stellar activity there could be a link there in a general sense. Nobody disputes that. The issue is whether the stellar cycles are synchronized with the orbital period of the planet and that does not seem to be the case, at least no examples have been found. But it seems you think you have found a straw to grasp at.
The interplay of several big and several close planets in the solar system produces exactly the frequencies found in properly done spectrographic analyses of the sunspot record. There is some straw grasping (and mud flinging) going on, but it’s not me that’s doing it.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 30, 2013 at 12:19 pm
tallbloke says:
July 30, 2013 at 12:11 pm
That’s an earlier paper Leif. Some scientists have the integrity to admit they may have been wrong and change their minds.
The data from the paper stands. This is not about to changing her mind. Or admitting to be wrong.
You can’t have your cake and eat it Leif, if you want to claim data from the earlier paper on a different star system falsifies the later paper, then I can equally validly claim the conclusion from the later paper supercedes the earlier.
Charbonneau 2003 “The planetary theory is dead”
Charbonneau 2013 “This is not astrology, it is science”
Even Charbonneau has not changed his mind: “It may all turn out to be wrong in the end, but this is definitely not astrology”. He says that the theory is testable and therefore qualifies as science, is all.
“Is all”
Heh. After all the years of mud flinging, namecalling and denial of the possibility of planetary feedbacks to the Sun from you, that’s a good one.
Of course he has changed his mind. In 2003 he declared the theory dead. Now he’s excited.
For what its worth,
” This “hot Jupiter” is over 30 times closer to its star than Earth is to the Sun and goes around the star once every 2.2 days. [from the NASA page referenced above]”
So this planet would be about 1/160 as far from that star as Jupiter is. This would make the tides about 160^3 ~ 4,000,000 times stronger than Jupiter’s tides. That fact that these extreme tides would have a significant impact doesn’t particularity help argue that the much weak tides in our solar system would matter.
[Reply] Yes Tim. That’s why in the sentences following the snippet you quoted I said:
“The effect of our own Solar system gas giant planets would be much smaller. But then, the Sun’s output only varies around 0.1% over the ~11 year solar cycle”
There is also the possibility that the predominant effect is electromagnetic rather than gravitational, and E-M is about a million-billion-gazillion times stronger than gravity. You can prove this at home with a magnet and a pin. The massive Earth’s gravity pulls down with all it’s might, and… the pin jumps up to the tiny magnet.
So many different options to think about when comparing our solar system to others when considering planetary influence on a star.
To produce a star cycle does there need to be a deceleration/acceration phase, if so 2 large planets orbitting some distance from the star might be a minimum to ensure a tight inner/outer orbit of the star.
For cycles to be different in their modulation a third large planet also some distance from the star would be required to add or take away the forces created from the initial pair.
For a star to experience a grand minimum type fluctuation is a further large planet some distance again from the star required so that the deceleration/acceration phase is reversed for a period of time.
So far I dont think a star/exoplanet system descibed above has been identified, our solar system might be a fairly unique system in the region when considering any barycentre effects.
Length of star cycles influenced by tidal forces would be much easier to test in the more common hot jupiter type systems, but we should be able to determine if tidal forces or barycentre type forces dominate dynamo type mechanisms in distant exoplanet systems. Determining whether stars without exoplanets have star spots would put pressure on planetary theory, this should occur according to the Babcock/Leighton theorists, but they are not trotting out any examples out as far as I am aware.
EM interactions are indeed much stronger between a given proton and a given electron than the gravitational force. Yes, that magnet can overpower the earth’s gravity — but mostly because the magnet is about 10^9 times closer. The tendency for the number of protons and electrons to balance means that for large distances gravity always dominates over EM forces.
Similarly, the overwhelmingly largest forces between the sun and the planets is gravitational. If this were not the case, then people would have to include EM forces when calculating orbits, but (as far as I know) no one actually does that. The net charges of the sun and planets are relatively small, which predicts a small net effect.
I have no problem with the hypothesis that some sort of minor tidal or EM interaction influences the sun, and that some sort of resonance can enhance that effect. But so far I have seen neither evidence nor theory that supports the claims in a way that convinces me.
Not that simple tjf, the EM body is invisible but elephants tend to offer good shade on a sunny day.
What I am getting at is gravity is purely related to mass, at least so far as we know. Spitz and sparkzen is variable, definitely not good for golf on a bad hair day.
Some years ago I was walking along the St Malo town wall, brisk breeze off the sea on a hot day. What? Prickling sensation, my hair was standing on end. No cool ladies in view, at least not that attractive, look upwards to heaven, clear blue sky.
Map from PlanetWare.com
Here is a news article pointing to a research paper posted on july 29. Seems to be a good comparison to our sun and Jupiter.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/wobbly-sunlike-star-being-pulled-giant-alien-planet-215403009.html
From WUWT:
tallbloke says:
July 30, 2013 at 12:06 pm
though it is worth quoting the author:
This star is not acting its age, and having a big planet as a companion may be the explanation. It’s possible this hot Jupiter is keeping the star’s rotation and magnetic activity high because of tidal forces, making it behave in some ways like a much younger star.
See that use of the present tense there Leif?
———-
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 30, 2013 at 12:39 pm
tallbloke says:
July 30, 2013 at 12:06 pm
though it is worth quoting the author
What she actually said was:
“it a more likely possibility that the stellar angular momentum of HD 189733A has been tidally influenced by the Hot Jupiter, which has inhibited the stellar spin-down enough to enable the star to maintain the relatively high magnetic activity we observe today”
This is a has been scenario in the distant past [as the stellar spin-downs take place at the beginning of the life of the star]. One can trust you to misinterpret this.
———–
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 30, 2013 at 1:48 pm
tallbloke says:
July 30, 2013 at 12:06 pm
though it is worth quoting the author: “This star is not acting its age, and having a big planet as a companion may be the explanation. It’s possible this hot Jupiter is keeping the star’s rotation and magnetic activity high because of tidal forces, making it behave in some ways like a much younger star”.
See that use of the present tense there Leif?
I see a blatant lie as the word ‘keeping’ does not appear in her paper at all….
Nor ‘it’s possible’. The quote is a fabrication. This exposes you as dishonest. And utterly destroys your credibility [if any].
———–
tallbloke says:
July 30, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 30, 2013 at 1:48 pm
tallbloke says:
July 30, 2013 at 12:06 pm
though it is worth quoting the author: “This star is not acting its age, and having a big planet as a companion may be the explanation. It’s possible this hot Jupiter is keeping the star’s rotation and magnetic activity high because of tidal forces, making it behave in some ways like a much younger star”.
See that use of the present tense there Leif?
I see a blatant lie as the word ‘keeping’ does not appear in her paper at all….
Where did I claim the quote came from the paper Leif?. It’s a Poppenhaeger quote from NASA’s news feed regarding the paper.
———-
Where did I claim the quote came from the paper Leif?. It’s a Poppenhaeger quote from NASA’s news feed regarding the paper.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 30, 2013 at 12:39 pm
tallbloke says:
July 30, 2013 at 12:06 pm
though it is worth quoting the author
What she actually said was:
“it a more likely possibility that the stellar angular momentum of HD 189733A has been tidally influenced by the Hot Jupiter, which has inhibited the stellar spin-down enough to enable the star to maintain the relatively high magnetic activity we observe today”
This is a has been scenario in the distant past
Yes Leif, I provided that quote in my write up in addition to the other quote.
No Leif, it does not mean “in the distant past”. You are projecting.
“Has been means “from now going back”. If she had meant “in the distant past” she would have used the word “was” instead of “has been” and wouldn’t have used the word “has” between “which” and “inhibited”
i.e.
“HD 189733A was tidally influenced by the Hot Jupiter, which inhibited the stellar spin-down”
Here ends the grammar lesson. Your manners are beyond redemption
———–
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 30, 2013 at 4:48 pm
tallbloke says:
July 30, 2013 at 3:20 pm
though it is worth quoting the author…
Where did I claim the quote came from the paper Leif?
You mean you didn’t even read the paper? Shame on you.
No Leif, it does not mean “in the distant past”. You are projecting.
Standard stellar theory provides for a spin-down in the first few million years of a stars life. For a star now billions of years old that is the distant past.
Your manners are beyond redemption
Says the deceiver.
———–
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 30, 2013 at 9:00 pm
tallbloke says:
July 30, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Where did I claim the quote came from the paper Leif?. It’s a Poppenhaeger quote from NASA’s news feed regarding the paper.
Your lie continues. The NASA feed http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/exoplanet-hd-189733b.html#.UfiJTNIQYRi that you linked too also does not contain your ‘quote’. You simply made it up, and then tried to cover the lie by another lie. How low can you go? Or haven’t we seen the bottom yet? Despicable!
———-
Dr Svalgaard, I’m surprised. That’s quite an accusation.
Here’s the newsfeed from NASA I received by email. The quote you accuse me of making up and lying about is highlighted in bold at the bottom.
I ask you to withdraw and apologise for your baseless and defamatory accusation here, and on wattsupwiththat.com where you have now repeated these defamatory and baseless accusations several times.
=============================================================
From: NASA News Releases
Date: Monday, 29 July 2013
Subject: [NASA HQ News] NASA’s Chandra Sees Eclipsing Planet in X-rays for First Time
To: hqnews@newsletters.nasa.gov
July 29, 2013
J.D. Harrington
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-5241
j.d.harrington@nasa.gov
Megan Watzke
Chandra X-ray Center, Cambridge, Mass.
617-496-7998
mwatzke@cfa.harvard.edu
RELEASE 13-237
NASA’s Chandra Sees Eclipsing Planet in X-rays for First Time
For the first time since exoplanets, or planets around stars other than the sun, were discovered almost 20 years ago, X-ray observations have detected an exoplanet passing in front of its parent star.
An advantageous alignment of a planet and its parent star in the system HD 189733, which is 63 light-years from Earth, enabled NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and the European Space Agency’s XMM Newton Observatory to observe a dip in X-ray intensity as the planet transited the star.
“Thousands of planet candidates have been seen to transit in only optical light,” said Katja Poppenhaeger of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) in Cambridge, Mass., who led a new study to be published in the Aug. 10 edition of The Astrophysical Journal. “Finally being able to study one in X-rays is important because it reveals new information about the properties of an exoplanet.”
The team used Chandra to observe six transits and data from XMM Newton observations of one.
The planet, known as HD 189733b, is a hot Jupiter, meaning it is similar in size to Jupiter in our solar system but in very close orbit around its star. HD 189733b is more than 30 times closer to its star than Earth is to the sun. It orbits the star once every 2.2 days.
HD 189733b is the closest hot Jupiter to Earth, which makes it a prime target for astronomers who want to learn more about this type of exoplanet and the atmosphere around it. They have used NASA’s Kepler space telescope to study it at optical wavelengths, and NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope to confirm it is blue in color as a result of the preferential scattering of blue light by silicate particles in its atmosphere.
The study with Chandra and XMM Newton has revealed clues to the size of the planet’s atmosphere. The spacecraft saw light decreasing during the transits. The decrease in X-ray light was three times greater than the corresponding decrease in optical light.
“The X-ray data suggest there are extended layers of the planet’s atmosphere that are transparent to optical light but opaque to X-rays,” said co-author Jurgen Schmitt of Hamburger Sternwarte in Hamburg, Germany. “However, we need more data to confirm this idea.”
The researchers also are learning about how the planet and the star can affect one another.
Astronomers have known for about a decade ultraviolet and X-ray radiation from the main star in HD 189733 are evaporating the atmosphere of HD 189733b over time. The authors estimate it is losing 100 million to 600 million kilograms of mass per second. HD 189733b’s atmosphere appears to be thinning 25 percent to 65 percent faster than it would be if the planet’s atmosphere were smaller.
“The extended atmosphere of this planet makes it a bigger target for high-energy radiation from its star, so more evaporation occurs,” said co-author Scott Wolk, also of CfA.
The main star in HD 189733 also has a faint red companion, detected for the first time in X-rays with Chandra. The stars likely formed at the same time, but the main star appears to be 3 billion to 3 1/2 billion years younger than its companion star because it rotates faster, displays higher levels of magnetic activity and is about 30 times brighter in X-rays than its companion.
“This star is not acting its age, and having a big planet as a companion may be the explanation,” said Poppenhaeger. “It’s possible this hot Jupiter is keeping the star’s rotation and magnetic activity high because of tidal forces, making it behave in some ways like a much younger star.”
The paper is available online at:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.2311
For Chandra images, multimedia and related materials, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/chandra
For an additional interactive image, podcast, and video on the finding, visit:
http://chandra.si.edu
-end-
Leif is still stuck on his statement that the sun is in freefall. How that is supposed to negate varying gravitational effects due to changing distances… I am still awaiting the explanation as my puny intellect simply does not comprehend the statement.
Did you see the latest on the NASA site where they are claiming that the “jets” from Enceladus are controlled by Saturn gravitation tightening some hypothesized “nozzle” when closer to Saturn and loosening it when further away???
I was thinking about what Leif would make of that!!
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-237
Anthony Watts says [on WUWT]:
August 1, 2013 at 7:34 am
Dr. Svalgaard should withdraw the claims of being “made up” and Tallbloke should apologize for posting a misleading link and fix it on his own page.
It is possible that Tallbloke has himself been mislead [snip], in which case he may have acted in what he thought was ‘good faith’. If so, my claim must be withdrawn, pending Tallbloke’s apology for posting a misleading link and fixing his own page.
[Reply] Dr Svalgaard, it was an error on your part to claim I implied that the Poppenhaeger quote in NASA’s email newsfeed was in the NASA webpage I linked for further information. I didn’t “post a misleading link” because I never made any claims for it’s content. You, on the other hand, have made completely unfounded accusations that I behaved in a deeply unethical manner by fabricating a quote and attributing it to Katja Poppenhaeger. Accusations proven false by the copy of the NASA email newsfeed I posted immediately below your despicable allegation. An allegation more definitively proven false, (following your further insinuation on WUWT that I had tampered with the NASA email newsfeed copy, referring to the Poppenhaeger quote as “the alleged quote”), by the online copy of the NASA email newsfeed now linked from the references section. Mr Watts expects me to apologise for your error of assumption, yet merely requests you to “withdraw the claims of being “made up””. His judgement is biased towards you, his colleague.
You owe me a non-contingent and unreserved apology for your unfounded and defamatory allegations.
You have my apology [as you may have just been carried away by your zealotry, and as I’m big enough to tolerate your various insults], but you owe your readers an apology for trying to mislead them into believing that the Hot Jupiter is modulating magnetic activity at the present time. Your claim of that is at variance with the Poppenhager paper and with well-established stellar evolution theory.
[Reply] Apologising and calling someone a zealot in the same breath doesn’t cut it. Please make a proper unreserved apology. I’m not misleading anyone, because as you now admit by acknowledging the quote is not fabricated, Katja Poppenhaeger does indeed hold the view that:
“This star is not acting its age, and having a big planet as a companion may be the explanation. It’s possible this hot Jupiter is keeping the star’s rotation and magnetic activity high because of tidal forces, making it behave in some ways like a much younger star.”
What you refer to as “the Poppenhager paper” was co-written with two other authors, and although the wording is slightly more ambiguous, as is common for an entry in the literature when the authors are pushing beyond the limits of old paradigms, it is consistent with her own stated view. Indeed we have to conclude it is consistent, because there is no reason why Poppenhaeger would publish something inconsistent with her stated summary of it. Your radically more conservative interpretation is therefore likely incorrect, no matter how much you’d like to believe it is definitive.
“Poppenhaeger does indeed hold the view that:
“This star is not acting its age, and having a big planet as a companion may be the explanation. It’s possible this hot Jupiter is keeping the star’s rotation and magnetic activity high because of tidal forces, making it behave in some ways like a much younger star.”
You are not quoting her, but a press-release. And you are surmising without evidence that the authors may disagree.
Regarding apologies: Mine stands as it is [and that is what you get]. You must apologize to your readers for your misleading statements.
[Reply] You are incorrect. I am quoting her, as the press release does:
The main star in HD 189733 also has a faint red companion, detected for the first time in X-rays with Chandra. The stars likely formed at the same time, but the main star appears to be 3 billion to 3 1/2 billion years younger than its companion star because it rotates faster, displays higher levels of magnetic activity and is about 30 times brighter in X-rays than its companion.
“This star is not acting its age, and having a big planet as a companion may be the explanation,” said Poppenhaeger. “It’s possible this hot Jupiter is keeping the star’s rotation and magnetic activity high because of tidal forces, making it behave in some ways like a much younger star.”
The paper is available online at:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.2311
See those quote marks around the bolded quotations? That’s the writer of the press release DIRECTLY QUOTING Katja Poppenhaeger. A further clue is the inclusion of the words *said Poppenhaeger* between the two DIRECT QUOTES.
End of reading comprehension lesson.
I don’t mind the rough and tumble of scientific debate where someone might call you a pseudoscientist when they disagree with your theory, but baselessly accusing me of fabricating a quote and attributing it to a working scientist is a step too far.
Since you can’t bring yourself to make a proper apology for your despicable and unfounded allegation that I fabricated Poppenhaeger’s words, there’s nothing further to discuss.