Voyager 2 Detects Peculiar Solar System Edge

ClickOnThis writes "CNN reports that Voyager 2 has detected evidence of the magnetic edge of the solar system (aka the heliopause) at 76 AU (1 AU = 93 million miles), much closer to the Sun than the location of 85 AU found by Voyager 1. From the article: 'This implies that the heliosphere, a spherical bubble of charged low-energy particles created by our Sun's solar wind, is irregularly shaped, bulging in the northern hemisphere and pressed inward in the south. [...] The researchers think that the heliosphere's asymmetry might be due to a weak interstellar magnetic field pressing inward on the southern hemisphere.'"

Variable size?

[topher1kenobe]

Could it not simply mean that it changes in size? I'd be surprised if it *didn't* change in size, based on all the variable energy in the solar system. The sun changes, the planets change place, etc.

Er. Wait.

[Roody Blashes]

That's two data points, and "bulging" implies a highly irregular shape, or at least an even shape that couldn't be accurately modeled by two data points.

Wouldn't it be equally as logical to say that it's just expanding/contracting? How can they know with only two points?

Variable Heliosphere

[Anonymous Coward]

This implies that the heliosphere, a spherical bubble of charged low-energy particles created by our Sun's solar wind, is irregularly shaped

Er, couldn't it also imply that the heliosphere is changing size?

garbage!

[Quasar1999]

I'm sorry, I'm not a scientist and perhaps that's why I can't graps how the hell they came to this genius conclusion.

Let's sample a sphere at two pinpoint locations, and make all sorts of conclusions on the shape of an entire hemisphere of it...??? It rained today, and it was sunny yesterday, so that means that there's a 50% chance of it raining? Insufficient data...

Re:Variable size?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but if you think about how much it would have to change in size between the two Voyager probes encoutering them.. The difference is multiple trips from here to the Sun, in not that long a time period.

What I'm trying to say here: If it's moving, it's doing so with some gusto, at least in planetary terms.

Re:Variable size?

[Nos.]

I wouldn't think the positioning of the planets would have much to do with it. Thing of a spec of dust in front of a spotlight... pretty tough to notice the effects a significant distance away. However, given sun spots, solar flares, etc. I wouldn't think that the distance would be constant. Though a variation of around 11% is pretty significant. Of course, two data points at different times in different areas is hardly enough to make any kind of conclusions.

I hope someone programmed that thing with....

[Anonymous Coward]

the question: What does God need with a starship?

Re:Variable size?

[sidfaiwu]

Could it not be both changing sizes and be irregularly shaped and off center?

Good Engineering

[Screwy1138]

It's a credit to the teams that these things are still running. I feel like there is an old and new NASA. Imagine a project today to explore the edges of the Solar System (I know Voyagers did more than that but we have to keep it simple today). "Okay boys, now, we don't care what direction you go in, but could you please just not hit anything?" All in all, I really feel for NASA.

Re:Variable size?

[ClickOnThis]

Could it not simply mean that it changes in size? I'd be surprised if it *didn't* change in size, based on all the variable energy in the solar system. The sun changes, the planets change place, etc.

Excellent point. Whether something changes spatially or temporally is a difficult thing to determine when you're measuring things from just a few spacecraft. My guess is the feature is spatial, because the two Voyagers encountered it within such a relatively short time period. However, if it is temporal (i.e., the heliosphere expands and contracts) then perhaps we may see it expand so that Voyager 2 is inside it once again, and re-exits the heliosphere some time in the future. So, perhaps it looks spatial for now, but stay tuned?

Re:Variable size?

[MightyMartian]

This may be an incredibly stupid question, but is there any reason that we should assume that interstellar charged particles wouldn't be more powerful in one direction than another?

Symmetrical?

[mhore]

I read this a day or two ago, and wondered to myself, "Whoever said that it had to be symmetrical?"

If you look at many structures in the universe, there are quite a few that are not spherically symmetrical. So either, we're in an asymmetrical blob, or there's just a more complex symmetry present. This should come as no surprise to the astronomy community, IMHO.

It is interesting, I think. It may give insight into our local neighbourhood.

Mike.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Variable size?

[VWJedi]

"...based on all the variable energy in the solar system."

What about the energy outside the solar system? Although the distance is much greater between the sun and neighboring stars, those stars do have a gravitational effect on the movement of the sun, the planets, and all other objects in the solar system. They probably have an electro-magnetic effect as well.

Re:Variable size?

[Surt]

If solar energy output varied by more than 10% in a couple of years, we'd likely have weather and temperature issues here on earth as a result.

And the width of planets are insignificant compared to the radius of orbit, so unless the spacecraft happened to hit a one in a million chance of wandering through right on the orbital plane of one of the planets, just in sync with the orbit of that planet, this isn't a very likely explanation either.

Re:Good Engineering

[Scarblac]

In the meantime, both Spirit and Opportunity are still active, two years and four months after landing on Mars.

Re:garbage!

[misanthrope101]

I'm sorry, I'm not a scientist and perhaps that's why I can't graps how the hell they came to this genius conclusion.

Yes, your assessment of your own abilities is more accurate than your assessment of the science involved in what they are doing. What I don't see is how you started out so well, acknowledging the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about, and then stumbled on anyway to decide that they were making it all up and it was actually, as you called it, "garbage." It's as if you don't think that your own admitted, acknowledged ignorance diminishes the validity of your analysis. Are you really that arrogant? And if you are, might you not want to re-think something in your intellectual approach to science, and in fact to rational thought? Just an idea.

No, I'm not calling you stupid. I don't understand quantum mechanics, among other subjects. However, I realize that my ignorance means that I am extremely unqualified to dismiss any article on quantum mechanics as "garbage." That doesn't mean that I have to believe everything, or that I am suffering from the "argument from authority" fallacy, only that I recognize that science has been a very productive, very successful mental process, and the bare fact that I don't understand something scientists are saying doesn't mean that they're making it all up. Just saying "Zeuss did it" is just making it up, but flying a freaking spaceship out to the edge of the solar system to gather data to analyze proves that the thought process is based on something rational and dependable, even if I don't understand all the aspects of the science.

I know my response is disproportionate to your original post. The reason I wrote it is that too many people, knowing full well that they don't know what they're talking about, still feel eminently qualified to have a passionate opinion on scientific subjects. Usually their assessment is that the science is "garbage," that scientists are "just making it all up," and that it's just a "secular religion" used to explain away God, or some such crap. Meanwhile I'm sitting in an air-conditioned room, wearing glasses, looking at my car keys, and otherwise surrounded by things that were all created by science, none of which were created by prayer or chanting. Hearing people denigrate the scientific method, even while being surrounded by the fruits of that method, is starting to chafe my hide.