Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-07T09:45:15.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

33. The present state of the corpuscular theory of magnetic storms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

V. C. A. Ferraro
V. C. A. Ferraro*
Affiliation:
Queen Mary College, University of London, England

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The evidence in favour of a corpuscular theory of magnetic storms is briefly reviewed and reasons given for believing that the stream must be neutral but ionized and carry no appreciable current. It is shown that under suitable conditions the stream is able to pass freely through a solar magnetic field; the stream may also be able to carry away with it a part of this field. However, because of geometrical broadening of the stream during its passage from the sun to the earth, the magnetic field imprisoned in the gas may be wellnigh unobservable near the earth.

The nature, composition and dimensions of the stream near the earth are discussed and it is concluded that on arrival the stream will present very nearly a plane surface to the earth if undistorted by the magnetic field.

Because of its large dimensions, the stream will behave as if it were perfectly conducting. During its advance in the earth's magnetic field the currents induced in the stream will therefore be practically confined to the surface. The action of the magnetic field on this current is to retard the surface of the stream which being highly distortible will become hollowed out. Since the stream surface is impervious to the interpenetration of the magnetic tubes of force, these will be compressed in the hollow space. The intensity of the magnetic field is thereby increased and this increase is identified with the beginning of the first phase of a magnetic storm. This increase will be sudden, as observed, owing to the rapid approach of the stream to the earth.

The distortion of the stream surface is discussed and it is pointed out that two horns will develop on the surface, one north and the other south of the geomagnetic equator. Matter pouring through these two horns will find its way to the polar regions.

The main phase of a magnetic storm seems most simply explained as due to a westward ring-current flowing round the earth in its equatorial plane. Under suitable conditions such a ring-current would be stable if once set up. The mode of formation of the ring is, however, largely conjectural. The possibility that the main phase may be of atmospheric origin is also briefly considered. It is shown that matter passing through the two horns to the polar regions could supply the energy necessary for the setting up of the field during the main phase. The magnetic evidence in favour of such a hypothesis, however, seems wanting.

Type
Part V: Electromagnetic State in Interplanetary Space
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 6: Electromagnetic Phenomena in Cosmical Physics , 1958 , pp. 295 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958 

References

1. Birkeland, K. Arch. Sci. Phys. Geneva , 4, 497, 1896.Google Scholar
2. Störmer, C. Arch. Sci. Phys., Geneva , 24, 5, 113, 221 and 317, 1907; 32, 33 and 163, 1911; 35, 483, 1913.Google Scholar
3. Schuster, A. Proc. Roy. Soc. A , 85, 44, 1911.Google Scholar
4. (Lord Cherwell), Lindemann. Phil. Mag. 38, 669, 1919.Google Scholar
5. Chapman, S. and Ferraro, V. C. A. Terr. Mag. 36, 77 and 171, 1931; 37, 147 and 421, 1932; 38, 79, 1933; 45, 245, 1940.Google Scholar
6. Alfvén, H. K. Svenska Vet. Akad. Handl. 18, 1939.Google Scholar
7. Alfvén, H. Cosmical Electrodynamics (Oxford University Press, 1950), ch. 6.Google Scholar
8. Maunder, E. W. Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. 64, 205, 1904; 65, 2, 538 and 666, 1905; 76, 63, 1916.Google Scholar
9. Chree, C. Proc. Roy. Soc. A , 101, 368, 1922.Google Scholar
10. Meinel, A. B. Astrophys. J. 111, 555, 1950; 113, 50, 1951.Google Scholar
11. Milne, E. A. Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. 86, 459, 1926.Google Scholar
12. Kahn, F. D. Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. 109, 324, 1949; 110, 477, 1950.Google Scholar
13. Kiepenheuer, K. O. Geophys. Res. 57, 113, 1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Bennett, W. H. and Hulburt, E. O. Phys. Rev. 95, 315, 1954; J. Atmos. Terr. Phys. 5, 211, 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Ferraro, V. C. A. Ind. J. Meteor. Geophys. 5, 157, 1954.Google Scholar
16. Ferraro, V. C. A. J. Geophys. Res. 57, 15, 1952.Google Scholar
17. Schmidt, A. Z. Geophys. 1, 3, 1924.Google Scholar
18. Alfvén, H. Tellus , 7, 50, 1955.Google Scholar
19. Chapman, S. Terr. Mag. 46, 1, 1941.Google Scholar
20. Martyn, D. F. Nature, Lond. , 167, 92, 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Chapman, S. and Bartels, J. Geomagnetism , vol. 2, p. 897 (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1940).Google Scholar