Talk:Aurora/Archive 2

Vandalism injection
Someone has vandalised the page generation script or something so that it inserts at the top of the body. The vandalism is not in the source but a related edit was recently reverted. This was clearly an attempt to re-add the #REDIRECT in a more revert-proof way after it was reverted. I don't know if it is for everyone or just some people. I don't know enough to say how this was done; maybe someone more knowledgable can figure it out and fix it. I've seen this kind of thing (vandalism injection) before but I don't know where to bring it up except the pages I see it on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.232.243.53 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Currently there is no vandalism. Ruslik_ Zero 19:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Traditional and popular culture
This section contains a couple of references to traditional culture but none to popular culture. Aurorae appear in Philip Pullman's novel series His Dark Materials (as a major plot point) and in the computer role-playing-game The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim". I could insert a short reference to that effect? ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 22:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you provide a source (like a game reveiw commenting on the aurorae) then that would be a great addition. He's Gone Mental 14:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Information
i think they should have more info kids understand. 79.71.84.215 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Aurora Australis From ISS.JPG to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Aurora Australis From ISS.JPG will be appearing as picture of the day on February 5, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-02-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 09:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Country-specific WikiProjects?
To me it seems a too tenuous connection to the four countries that currently have their WikiProject banners added to this article's talk page. I'd like to have them removed. __meco (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I sort of agree. Lastitem (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

New NASA picture
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79750 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.204.129 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Aurora Kp maps
The two Aurora Kp maps, in the Frequency of occurrence section, have text on them that state Click anywhere on the map to see Geomagnetic Latitude at that location. Since these images were lifted from the original application and no longer functions that text should be removed from the images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.93.238 (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Organization of Article
There seems to be a problem with the organization of this article. The sections Solar wind and the magnetosphere, Frequency of occurrence, Origin and Sources and types have redundant or closely related material about the relationship between the auroral and solar-terrestrial physics but none of them fully capture the relationship. The Forms and magnetism section has information that is about the history of aurora instead of being related to the title of the section. These problems may be due to different inputs at different times which did not properly consider the information already in this article. I suggest a major re-write of this article. Richfj (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed this too. Lastitem (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. There is a huge amount of overlap/redundancy of material in those sections. I sure wish editors would bother to take a good look at articles before they add whole new sections. Somebody with thorough knowledge of the subject needs to merge & restructure those sections. Cgingold (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Helps
I accidentally make a wrong edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.46.20 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

New video available
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okNSvH20Qlo It is already highly referenced on the Net; so I thought it would be a good idea to add it here as well. It is quite recent. I know the author, he would be honored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.191.241.48 (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Last sentence in intro section should be deleted
Right now it is referenced with #7. Points about writing style have nothing to do with northern lights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.148.113 (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aurora which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Bias towards aurora visible to the naked eye
It appears the page is lacking discussion/treatment of aurora manifested in ways not easily observed by the human eye, namely:


 * Hydrogen emissions (Lyman alpha, Balmer alpha, Balmer beta, etc).
 * UV emission lines
 * Infrared emission lines
 * Radio measures of auroral precipitation, e.g. auroral kilometric radiation, riometer measurements of D-region absorption

Regarding what can be observed by humans, sunlit aurorae, which are bluish-purplish tall rays owing to resonant scattering of sunlight, are not mentioned. No phenomenology of the dayside aurora is mentioned.

Considering the page does discuss the sound that the aurora creates, a topic of debate in the aeronomy / space physics community, one would hope that the above optical/radio phenomena, which are more conclusively observed and understood, should be mentioned.

I am willing to add content related to the above to make the page more neutral, but won't waste my time if it is not desired. Would that make the page too technical? Is that a bad thing?

--Candinavia (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Without good sources, someone can easily come along and revert the work. I try to tag entries for needing citation instead. Can you list the source(s)? Light from the aurora not visible to the human eye. Technical language can be simplified, and summarizing is also an option. - Sidelight 12 Talk 07:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Contradicting information in the lead section
In the lead section is written first "They are also referred to as polar auroras. This is a misnomer however, because they are commonly visible between 65 to 72 degrees north and south latitudes" and a little after that "with the chance of visibility increasing with proximity to the North Magnetic Pole. (The North Magnetic Pole is currently in the arctic islands of northern Canada.)" (apparently even the location of the North Magnetic Pole is not correct anymore, since accordingly with the wiki article is somewhere in Russia some 81-82 degrees north). Since both statements are unsourced, I have no idea which one is true. Can someone maybe fix the article and add some source? --Dia^ (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the same inconsistency. I am thinking about the best way to re-word this section and will update it soon. Most aurorae are seen in a band (known as the auroral zone) which is typically 3 to 6 degrees wide in latitude and at all local times. Aurorae exist during daylight hours but are usually not seen due to the sky brightness from the Sun. The band is typically 10 to 20 degrees from the magnetic pole defined by the axis of the dipole of the Earth's magnetic field and not the dip magnetic pole. During a geomagnetic storm, the radius of the auroral zones increases. As of Jan 2005, the dipole magnetic poles were at 83° N, 170° E and 74° S, 18° E. There are sometimes visible and sub-visible aurorae in the polar regions, the regions poleward of the auroral zones. Richfj (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-wrote the introduction to take care of this problem. Richfj (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

After you did, some-one rewrote it again, perhaps to clarify, but it introduced errors, saying it's 3 to 6 degrees from the geographical pole. I reverted to Richfjs version, but if it needs updating please tell me. EmilTyf (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, that some-one was me. I modified again, now it should be okay.


 * Original version had "typically 3° to 6° in latitudinal extent", however "latitudinal extent" naturally suggests a width extending from geographic poles. "typically 3 to 6 degrees wide in latitude" in Richfj's message is a better wording in terms of clarity, and i re-modified the line in the lead section accordingly.


 * By the way, equivalency that I expressed in the rewrote with "error" was also (roughly) correct (see below data), it just wiped the information on the width of the auroral zone:


 * Year 2014


 * North Geographical Pole: 90.0N - 0.0W
 * South Geographical Pole: 90.0S - 0.0E


 * North Magnetic Pole: 85.9N - 149.0W
 * South Magnetic Pole: 64.3S - 136.8E


 * North Geomagnetic Pole: 80.2N - 72.5W
 * South Geomagnetic Pole: 80.2S - 107.5E  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.37.26 (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"The Earth's magnetic field traps these particles"
I think this section needs some expansion. It is not intuitively obvious how this might occur. Maybe one or two diagrams would help. 121.216.222.116 (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Forthcoming Edit to Section 8 (Origin)
The paragraph in the Origin Section (#8) which describes “parallel potentials” requires some clarification, especially as one reference is undefined. A revision is proposed to elaborate on the mechanisms described and this will include reference to more recent findings and developments. Posting of this amendment will be held for a few days to allow notice of a change and invite interest. RAL2014 (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just do it. Seems the Evans (1974) ref tag was added back in 2005 by a now inactive user and never defined (Wiki referencing requirements were rather lax back then). That serious lapse is reason enough to do a rewrite or at least add ref details if you can locate the reference. Revise away ... Vsmith (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for endorsement. Revision has now been made. More seems to need doing! RAL2014 (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Response to Organization of Article - See 13. above
Correspondents Richfj (talk) 15 Jul 2011, Lastitem (talk) 1 Nov 2011 and Cgingold (talk) 5 Jul 2013) have suggested that this article might be improved.  It is proposed to attempt this over the next few weeks by introducing a series of changes by way of step transformations without losing the many excellent features of the present article. Progressive stages are envisaged as follows: Stage1 –  To re-order existing text, without other changes. Stage2 – To revise section headings with further text re-ordering. Stage3 onwards – To edit existing text - plus additional description and references for consistency and hopefully enhanced conciseness.

The intermediate stages 1&2 will temporarily disrupt the flow of text until superfluous and repetitive dialogue is rationalised in the later stages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAL2014 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. It might be easiest to do this on a sandbox subpage, there you have to be less careful about temporary textflow disruptions and there will be less interference by editors unaware of the ongoing process. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  21:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Odd consideration of possible vandalism
Just a moment of consideration of the December 8, 2010 edit which added, "duck farts", to alternate names for aurora borealis. I found myself considering the possibility that "duck farts" could actually be an established idiom wherein loggers or prospectors in the Yukon or wherever, having little entertainment potential in their evenings, eventually back up to the campfire and ignite some methane. Thereafter, the green flares in their northern sky suggest Isiah's crazy antics around the fire and well, "Hey, look at that, Tobias! It's like a whole flock of ducks are up there lighting their farts at the same time!" ...Just a thought. Aerolin55 (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * An excellent thought. From now on I shall refer to the aurora exclusively by this evocative name. Will-o'-the-wisps, which really are the ignition of gases, I shall call "plant farts". AtticusX (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say; this is the best discussion I've read on any talk page. I, too, will be calling them duck/plant farts. Long live the name! Akebai (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree BakerStMD  T&#124;C 19:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Image use--too many images?
Throughout the article, many images are used that would, individually help the article, but together, they seem to be quite repetitive, and although they are all nice pictures, should some be taken out? I am not an expert on the topic, so I do not know exactly which ones should be removed, but I think it would make the article much cleaner and easier to read.14jbella (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, would it be possible to replace these images with a poster? -->
 * Help verifying copyright information for this would also be greatly appreciated. Thanks.14jbella (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyright data found--Thank you User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I will add this poster, but if others disagree with the use of it, I will be happy to remove it. 14jbella (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Current images are great, including the rare colors. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Additionally to the original comment of too many images, there are also images which have aurora in them, but really seem to be about something else. There are also instances where the caption is absent of any explanation as to why it is being used to illustrate this article. For instance, one caption reads: "ISS Expedition 6 team, Lake Manicouagan is visible to the bottom left"... fine, but what is the relevance to aurorae? There is a general montage of aurorae images at the top, so any further illustration should be directly relevant to the text, with explanation in the caption indicating this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.231.240.17 (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Diagree. The aurora is primarily a visual phenomenon, so as someone for whom this article is out of my editing-wheelhouse and who simply stumbled on it, I greatly appreciated all the pictures. I also liked the mention of Lake Manicouagan, because it is always cool to see terrestrial features from space, especially in relation to atmospheric phenomena. This particular terrestrial feature is in the northern latitudes, which is fitting given the atmospheric phenomena in question. BakerStMD  T&#124;C 19:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

3-D type Picture of the auroral doughnut needed.
Several of the images from space (Earth and other planets) show the doughnut shape of the aurora. This is a natural consequence of the interaction of the solar particles and the magnetic field of the planet. But it is not intuitive. We need a 3-D type drawing showing how the solar particles spiralling inwards and around the magnetic field lines inexorably leads to many things. The doughnut shape itself, how it aligns around the magnetic poles but not at them, and how the doughnut is not symmetrical in terms of brightness. I understand how this works, but am not skilled enough in drawing to do the job. 121.217.14.103 (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree I actually came to this page looking for just that sort of picture to remind myself how the earth's magnetic field creates the aurora, and was mildly surprised not to see the sort of excellent professional-quality illustration seen elsewhere on wikipedia. Hope one of those professional illustrator types can work on that! BakerStMD T&#124;C 19:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi there, user:Bakerstmd alerted me to this request for a 3D render. Below is his/her last comment:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * I found http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm and the thumbnail at right, neither of which are perfect, but which give a sense of the sort of thing that you might draw. I did a google image search and found lots of images of the shape, but none of them are a perfect 3-D image. I'm not an expert on this field and I'm sorry I can't advise you better. Hope that helps. BakerStMD T&#124;C 16:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rendering_of_Van_Allen_radiation_belts_of_Earth.jpg
 * }
 * Do you have a reference image from a reputable publicly-accessible source I can base it on? Can you please describe how the particles spiral inwwards?


 * I found this graphic on http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/earth_mag/ . Someone redrew it as on the right, but I think the original is clearer. There are some differences e.g. partial ring current which I don't understand. I can add superimpose the Northern auroral oval on the Earth. Is this what you had in mind?


 * Cheers, cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 14:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Aurora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831112729/http://britishcolonist.ca:80/display.php?issue=18591019&pages=001,&terms=aurora to http://britishcolonist.ca/display.php?issue=18591019&pages=001,&terms=aurora
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061219115954/https://odin.gi.alaska.edu:80/FAQ/ to http://odin.gi.alaska.edu/FAQ/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004061641/https://www.aurora-northern-lights.com:80/ to http://www.aurora-northern-lights.com
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100902122923/https://www.twanight.org:80/newTWAN/gallery.asp?Gallery=Aurora&page=1 to http://www.twanight.org/newTWAN/gallery.asp?Gallery=Aurora&page=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817082341/http://vimeo.com/27315234 to http://www.vimeo.com/27315234

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Aurora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061220050940/http://gse.gi.alaska.edu/recent/javascript_movie.html to http://gse.gi.alaska.edu/recent/javascript_movie.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://britishcolonist.ca/display.php?issue=18591019&pages=001%2C&terms=aurora
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://odin.gi.alaska.edu/FAQ/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aurora-northern-lights.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.twanight.org/newTWAN/gallery.asp?Gallery=Aurora&page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aurora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722101345/http://www1.umn.edu/urelate/style/sciterminology.html to http://www1.umn.edu/urelate/style/sciterminology.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100728192250/http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/index.html to http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110127004149/http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/10_ultravioletwaves.html to http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/10_ultravioletwaves.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110214105537/http://www.mythome.org/bxxxviii.html to http://www.mythome.org/bxxxviii.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Small copy-editing
Some small rephrasing in the section of visual forms and colours done. Further I removed the claim that UV-aurora has been produced by HAARP - we know that HAARP can cause ionization and that this should lead to emissions also in the UV part of the spectrum, however, there is no published observations of such emissions - at least to my knowledge.176.11.17.194 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * HAARP (and also the Heating Facility at EISCAT) have produced artificial aurorae. Do a search for HAARP artificial aurora and you will find numerous scientific journal papers on the topic. Also, certainly in the HAARP case, these are UV-aurorae. The EISCAT facility has produced visual aurora, but the brightness levels are quite low, so you typically need a long-exposure photograph with a camera to detect them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.69.7.6 (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI
https://luminous-landscape.com/auroras-lies-and-camera-sensors/

Samsara 12:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Very true. Apart from the exaggerated exposures, there is also skewed spectral response of some cameras. The "parrot green" colour that is often shown in photographs is a result of the very specific oxygen emission line (557.7nm) getting a response from the "green" pixel in the CCD. Rather than mapping this correctly to red-green-blue, when the image is presented, it simply saturates the green, resulting in the primary green that is depicted in many images. While I would not advocate removing all the "pretty pictures", I would strongly recommend that a more representative photograph of the aurora is included somewhere in the article with such an explanation, so as to give the reader a more reliable depiction of what they look like to the human eye.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.69.7.6 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

One of the worst written articles I've seen, and that's saying a lot
Amount I knew about the Aurora Borealis before reading the first paragraph? Zero. Amount I knew after reading the first paragraph? Still zero, or even less. "Precipitating protons"--seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.28.103 (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree it is poorly written. It is badly structured and goes from being vague to overly detailed. Technically, the term "precipitating electrons" is correct (this is what is used in the scientific literature), but it is still badly formulated. The article should cater to both a general-public and topic-specialist audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.69.7.6 (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

External link cleanup
Th external links needs a clean up. At the moment, it is just a random collection of external links, with no sorting or description. Some of the links lead to dubious sources (such as misinformation, or sites which reproduce public data from observatories, but harvest advertising revenue from them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.69.7.6 (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Rationale for latest amendment to text regarding 'double layers'
It is noted that modifications added on 21 December 2015 appear to introduce a justification for violating Poisson’s Equation. Amendments to Section 4 have now been made to scientifically rationalize the text concerning double layers in the aurora with accepted physics. Differing views are invited to be added to this ‘Talk’ Section, to judge the concensus from plasma physicists.

A ‘double layer’ requires a source of energy to create a pair of opposing electric potentials in space by a separation of charge. No mechanism has ever been formulated for generating such a structure in the plasma pervading the earth’s magnetic field, either within the radiation belts or in the auroral zone, nor has their existence so far been justified by any observations. Theories based on the concept of double layers are therefore a chimera, and cannot present a credible mechanism for accelerating particles in the aurora. Crucially, the entries made on 21 December 2015 are based on a faulty analysis which defies Poisson’s fundamental equation of physics by failing to acknowledge that double layers, if they exist there, would produce nullifying external fields, as well as the invoked internal ones.

It might do further justice to the article if the references added on 21 December 2015 were to be subsequently removed. Do the moderators have a view?

RAL2014 (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that there is not a consensus on the subject, but many (most?) researchers in the field consider quasi-steady field and double layers a viable acceleration process. Since there is no consensus, the entry should contain both sides of the debate, and should not have been edited to delete views the editor disagrees with.

Further references should be supplied. The argument that this form of acceleration is impossible contains only one reference. This is to a 1998 book (apparently not peer reviewed) and a quick search turns up reviews saying the author is known to be opinionated and disagrees with the majority of scientists in the field, on exactly the topic in question (whether or not Poisson's equation forbid double layers/quasi-steady potential drops. This seems to be a biased reference and citations of recent, peer-reviewed papers should be added.

The new/current text is caustic in tone and should not have used biased/inflammatory phrasing. For example, "Inexplicably though, some authors [44][45] still..." or "In some cases,[46] consistency with double layers is misleadingly cited..." At the very least, a reference needs to be included. Who has shown the Carlson et al. analysis (reference 46) is misleading?

Fcrary (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This intervention is greatly welcomed, but is disappointing because it has no physics content.

•        The problem of consensus here, and achieving a balanced view, basically just requires an understanding, and acceptance, that no assembly of static electric charge, double layer or otherwise, is capable of providing net acceleration or deceleration to charged particles passing through it. It must be pointed out that the conservative nature of central forces is not an opinion, but has been a foundation stone of physics since Isaac Newton’s work on gravitational fields in the 17th century. It is not clear how such basic facts require ‘debate’. The intervention suffers from a misunderstanding… it is not claimed that double layers do not exist --- only that, even if they do exist, they are incapable of delivering energy to particles passing through them. •	The 1998 book that was questioned has received positive reviews by EOS, The Journal of Plasma Physics, The Observatory, Astronomy Now, Nuclear Fusion and Il Nuovo Cimento. These can be found on the web under ‘Reviews’.

•	 Rather than being inflammatory, the description ‘inexplicably’ simply implied that many researchers do not explain how they justify their belief that auroral charged particles are accelerated by double layers or other static or quasi-static electric fields in the magnetosphere. Where electrons might enter and exit is also left unexplained. To cite consistency with double layers as indicating proof of existence, is misleading. A diagram (Figure 2.) in the reference by Carlson et al.. presents an example of misleading equipotentials that are not closed, and shows only half a potential well.

It is inexplicable that the fundamental point that there can be no open-ended equipotentials still escapes the notice of peer reviewers, despite various publications that have pointed it out.

The six citations given above are listed after the remaining sections at the end of this TALK.

RAL2014 (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not include any "physical content" in my previous talk page response, because I believe it violates general policy of Wikipedia. Specifically, under Talk page guidelines I find, "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." and "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material." So I did not feel a technical debate on the subject was appropriate. For these purposes, I felt showing that there are multiple views in the professional community, and saying that both should be represented would be sufficient.

Along these lines, I also fine under Five Pillars, "Second pillar Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"."

The statement by RAL2014, that "consensus here, and achieving a balanced view, basically just requires an understanding, and acceptance, that no assembly of static electric charge, double layer or otherwise, is capable of providing net acceleration" is a personal opinion, not a fact. A large number of researchers do not see any basic, physical objections to quasi-steady electric fields. A brief check of a citation database, Web of Science, turns up 59 papers published between 2010 and 2016, under the topics "aurora" and "parallel electric field", 31 under "aurora" and "field-aligned potential", and 35 under "aurora" and "double layer".

The difference of opinion is further evident in the reference to the book by Duncan, referenced in RAL2014's edits to the main entry. I mentioned the first review of it I found, in a google search. To be specific, that was a review in Nucl. Fusion (39, 1071, 1999), which begins, "Duncan Bryant is a retired space plasma physicist who spent most of his career at the Rutherford–Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, England. For many years he has been challenging a widely accepted theory, that auroral electrons are accelerated by double layers, on the grounds that it contains a fundamental error (allegedly, an implicit assumption that charged particles can gain energy from conservative fields)."

It appears there is disagreement on the subject; since many scientists who are active in the field disagree with that expressed by RAL2014, both sides of the issue should be presented. The opposing view is even described as "widely accepted." Some balanced discussion of this in Wikipedia is in order.

The physical points I would add/change are:

1) reverting the change and adding my previous statement, that the parallel field need only be present for a short time (fraction of a second) since that is the time required for an electron to pass through the acceleration region.

2) Note that many people feel the argument, based on Poisson's law, is not clearly applicable. Poisson's law only applies to a closed path, and auroral electrons do not follow a closed path. They stop in the upper atmosphere and deposit their energy there. They do not return to their point of origin. Net acceleration along an open path (partial line integral) is allowed Poisson's law.

3) It could be said (correctly) that this partial path represents only a part of the system. However, studies of auroral acceleration focus on this part of the system, rather than attempting a compete description of the entire magnetosphere. 4) Finally, some phrases in the current entry are phrased in a potentially offensive manner (I used the word "inflammatory" in a previous talk comment. Regardless of RAL2014's opinion, describing Carlson et al.'s use of data as, "In some cases,[46] consistency with double layers is misleadingly cited..." could be considered offensive and insulting. It certainly could be since no alternative interpretation (i.e. in a peer reviewed journal) is referenced or described. Words like "inexplicably" to describe the views of those who disagree also seem inappropriate; it implies that someone (the editor) does not understand the reasoning of those involved, not that the reasoning is incorrect.

In addition, I question the initial statement in this section, "The electrons responsible for the brightest forms of aurora are well accounted for by their acceleration in the dynamic electric fields of plasma turbulence encountered during precipitation from the magnetosphere into the auroral atmosphere. " I am not aware of any published literature explaining _all_ observations in terms of dynamic (turbulent or wave-particle) acceleration. FAST data, in many cases, show events which are generally explained by a quasi-steady electric field. If there are other interpretations, they should be referenced before making a sweeping statement.

I would prefer not to get into an edit war, and I suspect this is the direction things are heading. I'm going to give people a few weeks to look over and comment on this talk comment. Then, depending on the response, I may either drop it, make appropriate edits or bump it up to Wikipedia's third-party process for settling disagreements between editors.

Fcrary (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This talk page discussion has not been added to in about a month. The subject is not inactive, despite the appearance. Some of the issues involve the technical validity of certain theories. Since this is not really appropriate to a Wikipedia talk page (which should discuss the presentation, not debate the facts), this discussion has ended up as an email exchange involving Martin Courtier, Duncan Bryant and Frank Crary. The results will, with luck, help Fcrary and RAL2014 reach an agreement on how to present the subject in the Wikipedia entry.

Fcrary (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Follow-on comments on the preceding note.

a)	Fcrary has not yet responded to an email of 1 April 2016.

b)	Fcrary has contradicted his statements above of 3 April 2016 with an edit on 1 Feb 2018 under Double layer (plasma) ‘Talk’.  These latter edits, which are also defamatory, are therefore due for deletion.

RAL2014 (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Aurora Australis from ISS 2011 - 1.ogv will be appearing as picture of the day on 2019-01-30. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2019-01-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Certain aliases not necessary
In the beginning of the article, the terms "northern lights" and "southern lights" are referred to as aliases for auroras. I find this to be somewhat bizarre.

Auroras seen near the South Pole would never be called "northern lights", and auroras near the North Pole would never be called "southern lights". So therefore, they are not terms describing auroras collectively, but specific regional auroras.

You don't see the page for the Pacific Ocean staring with "the Pacific Ocean, also known as the North Pacific Ocean and South Pacific Ocean..."; neither would you see God "also referred to as Yahweh or Allah". --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Aurora borealis accompanied by sound
When in Saskatoon in October 2002 'n had the wonderful privilege to witness two hours of the Northern Lights. Being from South Africa that is real special. I am sure that I heard a strange noise - unearthly, difficult to describe - coinciding with the spectacle. Was that my imagination, or has anybody else also heard such noises? jannie du toit, Melville, Johannesburg, agterplaas@icon.co.za —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.36.63 (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Auroral sounds appear to exist, but no mechanism for their generation is known. People with no previous experience with aurorae often report them, and they are found internationally and in in the historical record. Some evidence exists, see this for example. --vuo (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read the same thing. But I don't have a good source though. Lastitem (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.aalto.fi/en/current//news/view/2012-07-09/ clip of sound and study
 * added section on aurora sounds ✅ Sidelight12 (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Previous link is broken and I couldn't find the clip or any clip of sounds other than unrelated? sounds of the radio waves generated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.183.141.28 (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Structural changes and shortening/splitting
I think the article could be improved by some changes to the structure and organization. First and foremost, I think it's become too long. Wikipedia guidelines suggest splitting articles longer than about 50,000 characters, and says that articles over 100,000 characters "almost certainly should be divided". The current length of this article is about 97,000 characters. I've tried and failed a few times to read it in one sitting.

Second, much of the information is repeated across multiple sections. Information on what causes the aurora is split unevenly across sections 2 through 5 and would be more understandable if it were consolidated and organized. Alternatively, it could be summarized in this main article and split off into its own article, perhaps "Physical Causes of Aurora". The latter article could be more technical, leaving this main article more readable.

Third, the text in the "causes" section (3) is nearly impenetrable. Much of the text was originally written by David Stern (User:DavidStern, 16 Dec 2005), and the original version is factually accurate and very readable. But over the years, the text has slowly been replaced, and the current version is filled with inaccuracies and non-sequiturs.

Finally, as noted above in the "External link cleanup" section, the external links need cleaning up. The 95 external links in the present document interfere with reading more than they support it.

I'd be willing to try re-structuring the article, but I'd like to get some feedback from other users. Do you think it should be split? Edited to shorten it? Left alone?

CullyC (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The article definitely needs improvement. Shortening it by removing redundant content would be a good first step, but probably not enough. I'd suggest splitting section 2 (Occurrence) off into a separate article, while retaining a briefer description in the main article. I'd also suggest doing the same thing with sections 3-5 (Causes, Interaction of the solar wind with the Earth and Auroral acceleration processes.) There's enough content there, when combined, to warrant an article of its own. A briefer summary should be retained in this article. At least for now, I think we should leave the other sections unmodified. They could use some work, but not as much as sections 2-5. Fcrary (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Aligning the "Auroral particle acceleration" section to a neutral POV
The section on "Auroral particle acceleration" in this article did not follow Wikipedia standards for balance, neutrality and impartiality. It focused narrowly on a theory from a small minority (one researcher and a few of his close colleagues) that was dismissed by the scientific community in the 1990s. I re-wrote the section to bring the section more in line with community standards.

Acceleration of electrons by quasi-static electric fields is a core concept required for understanding what causes the quiet discrete aurora. The theory has been developed over decades, with key papers receiving roughly 200-600 citations (Scopus, April 2021). The 2020 review by Lysak et al cited in the revised text gives an excellent overview of the primary literature on the theory and its continued use and refinement. Similarly, acceleration by Alfven waves is also a fundamental concept required to understand what causes smaller-scale discrete aurora. Key papers in that area also draw up to a few hundred citations, with ongoing support from the scientific community clearly evident in the form of continuing publications, citations and talks.

In the Wikipedia article, the quasi-static electric field theory was snidely dismissed as "inexplicable" and having "little justification", based on original research by Wikipedia editor RAL2014 and 2 references to sparsely-cited works: Bryant and Perry [1995] and Bryant [1998]. Excluding self-citations, the 1995 work has been cited a total of five times and the 1998 work has been cited 26 times. I checked the citing works; not one of them supports the idea (formerly vigorously stressed in the Wikipedia article) that acceleration due to quasi-static potentials is unphysical. As far as I can see, there is no support for this idea in the primary literature beyond the works of one author.

Wikipedia has a well-developed fundamental policy requiring a neutral point of view, discussed in detail here. From that page:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

I've edited the article to remove the viewpoint, held by an extremely small minority, that the community-accepted theories for auroral acceleration are unphysical. My intent with this edit is to restore a more balanced and neutral point of view to the section.

CullyC (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the changes you have made, and appreciate your making them. However, I think we should include more discussion of Alfvenic acceleration versus acceleration by quasi-static, parallel electric fields. Both processes are significant. The earlier text which dismissed parallel electric fields as "inexplicable" and having "little justification" was clearly inaccurate, but I think the current text underemphasizes wave-related acceleration. That's particularly important since the article also mentions the aurora of other planets, and based on Juno results, Alfvenic acceleration appears to be a more dominant process at Jupiter than at the Earth. Fcrary (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that both processes are significant. More importantly, there's broad consensus in the scientific community that both processes are significant. I've added some text on Alfvenic acceleration. Thanks for the suggestion. CullyC (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"anti-black aurora"
"anti-black aurora" :
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81363-9
 * .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Accelerated towards Earth?
The article says the ions are "accelerated toward Earth". Is this really the case? I would have to think about it a bit more. Certainly they are constantly accelerated in terms of the change in direction of their velocity, but are they accelerated in terms of change in speed? I can't see what potential energy they could lose to power an increase in kinetic energy. They have negligible magnetic moment, and electric and gravitational fields are negligible.

To me the critical effect is the convergence of magnetic field lines, which funnels solar wind ions and causes a localised increase in the frequency of collision with air atoms. -- Russell E (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In the case of field-aligned currents there is formed an electric field because the magnetic mirror represents an obstacle for the electric current. I am not sure whether ions are also accelerated, usually it's electrons with electric field directed away from the Earth. 2A00:1028:9192:4E22:64E3:9396:6E5C:38E5 (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The currents have to close. So there are regions where the field-aligned currents and electric fields point towards the Earth and ions are accelerated downward. Proton aurora have been observed in those regions. Fcrary (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't this make more sense?
Boreas -> boreal -> aurora borealis Notus -> notual -> aurora notualis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3750:6460:a9c1:b61:16b3:e55 (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Aurora Borealis and Australis Poster.jpg

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by WZ2372 (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Date unfounded, doesn't make sense.
The third paragraph reads, 'The oldest known written record of the aurora was in a Chinese legend written around 2600 BC. On an autumn around 2000 BC[79], according to a legend'. There are two issues with this I'm not 100% on. For one, how would a 2600 BCE author know about events in around 2000 BCE. For another, the cited reference (79) does not include the 2000 BCE date, only 2600. If this could be cleared up, that'd be awesome. All the best, Caskade720 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)