Sun's magnetic arches may be just a projection artifact, research suggests (opens in new tab)

(spacechatter.com)

124 pointssamweb33y ago27 comments

27 comments

22 comments · 8 top-level

> sometimes be optical illusions “created by folds or wrinkles in much larger ‘sheets’ of solar material that the authors call coronal veils.”

So we’re seeing a sheet of paper from the side?

egypturnash3y ago

Nah, more like wrinkled gauze. In fact there is a photo of a beautifully low-tech model at the bottom: two styrofoam balls, one with a few loops of plastic thread stuck in it, one with a loop of a wrinkled, gauzy fabric. Both are casting a shadow on the wall; the gauzy fabric's shadow has a lot of subtleties of translucency that the thread doesn't, and does indeed look more like all the sun photos above it.

kcexn3y ago

More like if you take some cellophane and crinkle it up. The thicker parts block more light than the thinner parts, so if you look at the shadows, you'll see structures that aren't representative of the shape of the material.

evrydayhustling3y ago

I, for one, find the veil model just as cool and spectacular as the loops. I object to calling it "just an optical illusion"!

simonh3y ago

They’re not calling the veil model an optical illusion, they’re just saying that the loop like structures we think we see are deceptively limited side effects of some aspects of the veil structures. It’s the image that’s the illusion, because it misleads us about the reality.

2 more replies

dr_orpheus3y ago· 3 in thread

I'm surprised by this discovery too, I would have thought we would have been able to observe something like this with the STEREO spacecraft [0] which are pair of identical spacecraft that are imaging the sun at different angles.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEREO

data-ottawa3y ago

The linked paper at the bottom of the article might shed more light on this for you:

“We demonstrate how apparently isolated loops could deceive observers, even when observations from multiple viewing angles are available”

I haven’t read it all yet and this topic is totally out of my wheelhouse, but it seems quite interesting.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac3df9

djbeadle3y ago

I had never heard of this and took a look at the Wikipedia page you linked.

> Contact with STEREO-B was lost in 2014 after entering an uncontrolled spin preventing its solar panels from generating enough power, but STEREO-A is still operational.

JohnJamesRambo3y ago

Damn things went Mono.

daveloyall3y ago· 3 in thread

In case anyone reading this works for Fortinet.. FYI, this domain is currently categorized as 'pornography'.

throwaway999e153y ago

I'm wondering how that happened. Is it based on image recognition?

I noticed the picture in this article on the front page, that could potentially be classified as something "suspicious" (could be considered NSFW)

https://www.spacechatter.com/2022/06/29/microgravity-worms-c...

inetknght3y ago

space porn is the best science porn

mcswell3y ago

Jabba the Hutt

1 more reply

xwdv3y ago· 3 in thread

At what point does something with an effect so powerful cease to be an illusion and become real?

top_post3y ago

Exactly what I was thinking. If the optical illusion looks the same from multiple different viewing angles, is it not then exactly what you see and not an illusion? Versus other illusions, once the perspective changes, the illusion is revealed. This shit is getting way meta.

hinkley3y ago

This is sort of the argument in Science. In the public discourse you have these conversations about Science being Right or Wrong. Within Science, you have more of this notion of All Models Are Wrong, But Some Are Useful.

We don't know if half of the things we know about physics are right or illusions. What we do know is that the models we have are consistent with the observations, and more importantly that they survive interaction. If I poke it, does the 'illusion' continue, or does it pop like a bubble?

Maybe magnetism doesn't work the way we think it does, but the way we think it works lets me cram millions of dancing lights onto a flat surface and organize them into pictures. And we got to millions of dancing lights from tens of thousands because we kept refining that model down and down into scenarios too small to see with the naked eye.

1 more reply

derbOac3y ago

Is light a wave or a particle?

Maybe that's different but my guess is the veil versus loop distinction gets fuzzy at some point.

bmitc3y ago· 1 in thread

The paper buried at the bottom of the article is recommended over the superficial article.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac3df9

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac3df9/...

I was balking at the term "optical illusion", and it turns out that the word "illusion" never even appears in the paper. The paper has a lot of excellent illustrations and simulation photos.

dang3y ago

Ok, we've changed the title to be less illusory above.

Thanks for making the point and thanks to gus_massa for the suggested wording!

dr_dshiv3y ago

I think this is akin to the illusion of ring nebulae, which are more like bubbles than actual rings. Because they are a gas explosion, their 3D exterior edges look thicker in 2D. So, if you are looking through a 3D cloudy sheet, it will look like a 2D “garden hose.”

yieldcrv3y ago

Flat sun

(The substantial introspection here is that modern flat earth fans believe that going into space and observing the earth results in an optical illusion)

so its going to be comical when other celestial bodies have that and it emboldens flat earth proponents

epgui3y ago

Am I the only one who finds the tube model weirder than the sheet/veil-like model? I know it's too easy to call findings out as "obvious" after the fact, but I guess I never even realized that the 3D volumetric structure needed this clarification.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

27 comments

22 comments · 8 top-level

NegativeLatency3y ago· 4 in thread

> sometimes be optical illusions “created by folds or wrinkles in much larger ‘sheets’ of solar material that the authors call coronal veils.”

So we’re seeing a sheet of paper from the side?

egypturnash3y ago

kcexn3y ago

evrydayhustling3y ago

I, for one, find the veil model just as cool and spectacular as the loops. I object to calling it "just an optical illusion"!

simonh3y ago

2 more replies

dr_orpheus3y ago· 3 in thread

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEREO

data-ottawa3y ago

The linked paper at the bottom of the article might shed more light on this for you:

“We demonstrate how apparently isolated loops could deceive observers, even when observations from multiple viewing angles are available”

I haven’t read it all yet and this topic is totally out of my wheelhouse, but it seems quite interesting.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac3df9

djbeadle3y ago

I had never heard of this and took a look at the Wikipedia page you linked.

> Contact with STEREO-B was lost in 2014 after entering an uncontrolled spin preventing its solar panels from generating enough power, but STEREO-A is still operational.

JohnJamesRambo3y ago

Damn things went Mono.

daveloyall3y ago· 3 in thread

In case anyone reading this works for Fortinet.. FYI, this domain is currently categorized as 'pornography'.

throwaway999e153y ago

I'm wondering how that happened. Is it based on image recognition?

I noticed the picture in this article on the front page, that could potentially be classified as something "suspicious" (could be considered NSFW)

https://www.spacechatter.com/2022/06/29/microgravity-worms-c...

inetknght3y ago

space porn is the best science porn

mcswell3y ago

Jabba the Hutt

1 more reply

xwdv3y ago· 3 in thread

At what point does something with an effect so powerful cease to be an illusion and become real?

top_post3y ago

hinkley3y ago

1 more reply

derbOac3y ago

Is light a wave or a particle?

Maybe that's different but my guess is the veil versus loop distinction gets fuzzy at some point.

bmitc3y ago· 1 in thread

The paper buried at the bottom of the article is recommended over the superficial article.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac3df9

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac3df9/...

I was balking at the term "optical illusion", and it turns out that the word "illusion" never even appears in the paper. The paper has a lot of excellent illustrations and simulation photos.

dang3y ago

Ok, we've changed the title to be less illusory above.

Thanks for making the point and thanks to gus_massa for the suggested wording!

dr_dshiv3y ago

yieldcrv3y ago

Flat sun

(The substantial introspection here is that modern flat earth fans believe that going into space and observing the earth results in an optical illusion)

so its going to be comical when other celestial bodies have that and it emboldens flat earth proponents

epgui3y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse