AR 3614

[Drax Spacex]

For the case of perfectly constructive interference, the resultant combination of two M5.5 flares could theoretically add together to yield an X-ray flux of X1.1, but I don't think such coherence is usually the case.  The X-Ray flux value seems to depict more of a peak detector characteristic of the highest value on the solar disk, not a summation.

It depends on the X-Ray detector design; whether it uses spatial and temporal bins and whether the detection algorithm is a summation or peak detection. If the detector outputs the summation, I can see how contributions from two simultaneous events could register a detected value greater than either individual event alone.

 

[Parabolic]

10 hours ago, Drax Spacex said:

Dr. Skov says neither 3615 nor 3614 was an X flare, that instead they were both high M flares, which in combination produced a X-ray flux above X1.  I'm not so sure.

9 hours ago, hamateur 1953 said:

I tend to agree with @Drax Spacexmuch as I like Tamitha. At least earth based instruments are only capable of indicating the highest flux.  I think that distinguishing the exact source is a matter of aperture, and timing. Or am I missing something here?  Not a physics major, by any means.  Haha.  Edit. If this is a quantum physics issue (of course everything is, but..). I guess I have to pay closer attention…😢

I think I have thought of a possibility where it could occur.  If the two event wave frequencies were additive without any destructive waveforms, it could be possible. But that’s as far as my thinking will take me.  Mike.  I sent this to a close friend who teaches physics.  I hope she can find the time to get back to me later.  Mike 

 

I'll have to go back and find the info but I think in these situations, when there's high output flares that occur in rapid succession, they can identify a single event based on optical class in combination with particle measurements. Also, since there's two Short wave and to Long wave instruments (GOES-P GOES-S) they can comb through 4 data sets.

In short, combining our visual observations and our current particle detection, it should make it relatively easy to match the flares to the regions flaring.

 

Edited March 26 by Parabolic

[hamateur 1953]

9 minutes ago, Parabolic said:

 

I'll have to go back and find the info but I think in these situations, when there's high output flares that occur in rapid succession, they can identify a single event based on optical class in combination with particle measurements. Also, since there's two Short wave and to Long wave instruments (GOES-P GOES-S) they can comb through 4 data sets.

In short, combining our visual observations and our current particle detection, it should make it relatively easy to match the flares to the regions flaring.

 

That makes sense to me also.  Also noting that I think it possible if not likely that one event triggered the other as I think @Justanerd suggested in another thread not too long ago.  Tnx Mike 

[Philalethes]

7 hours ago, Drax Spacex said:

For the case of perfectly constructive interference, the resultant combination of two M5.5 flares could theoretically add together to yield an X-ray flux of X1.1, but I don't think such coherence is usually the case.

The total flux will be independent of interference in this case. It's the same with sound in principle; even though you might get destructive interference in some places in e.g. an auditorium, it's exactly counterbalanced by the same amount of constructive interference in others. The resulting interference pattern will be spaced by λD/d, where λ is the wavelength, D the distance between the sources and the detector, and d the distance between the sources; so for sound in an auditorium you can get "dead spots" due to how the wavelengths are fairly long (and correspondingly spots with excessive volume), but in the case of X-rays the wavelengths are so small that any interference pattern will be evenly distributed all across the detector, thus yielding a measurement of the total flux, i.e. the sum of all the sources across the entire disc. If we plug in the values in this case, even for the longest X-ray wavelengths of 0.8 nm, assuming the flares to be roughly half a Solar radius apart, we get a resulting interference pattern spacing of just 340 nm, which is so much shorter than the width of the detector that enough peaks and troughs will be detected to get an even measurement of the total flux.

In this particular case, from looking at the imagery and comparing with how the flux developed, I think Skov is correct, and that neither of the flares ever reached X-class on their own.

Addendum:

I would also add to the above that that's the ideal case for the sources of light (as shown in e.g. the classic double-slit experiment); in reality the light sources won't have the exact same wavelengths, nor will they be in phase, and on top of that there will be countless sources too, so realistically you'd get a very even measurement of the flux. It was more to show that even if you considered the two sources of X-rays to have the same wavelength and be in phase, so that they produced the maximum interference spacing possible, that would still be way too small.

Edited March 26 by Philalethes
typo

[hamateur 1953]

3 hours ago, Philalethes said:

The total flux will be independent of interference in this case. It's the same with sound in principle; even though you might get destructive interference in some places in e.g. an auditorium, it's exactly counterbalanced by the same amount of constructive interference in others. The resulting interference pattern will be spaced by λD/d, where λ is the wavelength, D the distance between the sources and the detector, and d the distance between the sources; so for sound in an auditorium you can get "dead spots" due to how the wavelengths are fairly long (and correspondingly spots with excessive volume), but in the case of X-rays the wavelengths are so small that any interference pattern will be evenly distributed all across the detector, thus yielding a measurement of the total flux, i.e. the sum of all the sources across the entire disc. If we plug in the values in this case, even for the longest X-ray wavelengths of 0.8 nm, assuming the flares to be roughly half a Solar radius apart, we get a resulting interference pattern spacing of just 340 nm, which is so much shorter than the width of the detector that enough peaks and troughs will be detected to get an even measurement of the total flux.

In this particular case, from looking at the imagery and comparing with how the flux developed, I think Skov is correct, and that neither of the flares ever reached X-class on their own.

Addendum:

I would also add to the above that that's the ideal case for the sources of light (as shown in e.g. the classic double-slit experiment); in reality the light sources won't have the exact same wavelengths, nor will they be in phase, and on top of that there will be countless sources too, so realistically you'd get a very even measurement of the flux. It was more to show that even if you considered the two sources of X-rays to have the same wavelength and be in phase, so that they produced the maximum interference spacing possible, that would still be way too small.

I was more or less being a bit whimsical with the double slit stuff. sorry, @Philalethes  Anyway evidently GOES does  detect the sum or net energy produced by the two flares in question, making Dr. Tamitha Skov correct in this specific case and myself a bit more informed on the subject.   Mike 

[Philalethes]

3 minutes ago, hamateur 1953 said:

I was more or less being a bit whimsical with the double slit stuff. sorry, @Philalethes  Anyway evidently GOES does  detect the sum or net energy produced by the two flares in question, making Dr. Tamitha Skov correct in this specific case and myself a bit more informed on the subject.   Mike 

10 hours ago, Drax Spacex said:

It depends on the X-Ray detector design; whether it uses spatial and temporal bins and whether the detection algorithm is a summation or peak detection. If the detector outputs the summation, I can see how contributions from two simultaneous events could register a detected value greater than either individual event alone.

I was going to add this to the above post, but I might as well make this a separate one.

Rereading the post of Drax above, I realize they might have meant something different by interference than I interpreted it as at first, but I guess I'll let the above stand for anyone interested anyway.

In the case of what I think they're talking about it's got more to do with how well they match up temporally indeed; I agree that it would be difficult for two M5.5 flares to yield an X1.1 in this way, since their peaks would have to match up perfectly, but it would however not be as difficult for e.g. two M7 flares to do so, since they wouldn't need to match up as well temporally.

As for the XRS (X-Ray Sensor) instrument, it does feature a 4-quadrant photodiode which is used to locate flares (as described here), so in principle it could provide a flux measurement with the assumed background subtracted, but this would not work for multiple flares given how you wouldn't know what to subtract in that case (although it might be theoretically possible to get an estimate for each by first subtracting the background, then trying to locate the different centers of mass, and separate them out somehow, but that seems to be far beyond the scope of what is actually done). There's also nothing to suggest that the listed X-ray flux measurements (1-minute average) have had the background subtracted from them even in the case of single flares, but rather that the process goes the other way around: flares are registered by increases in the sum total of the flux, and only after that is the additional processing described above performed, but without altering the 1-minute average itself.

So based on all this I'm still fairly certain that the listed X-ray flux measurements all represent the sum total of all the flux from the entire disc at any given point in time (or rather, the 1-minute averages in this case).

[hamateur 1953]

It is interesting from the whole disc perspective @Philalethes I remember wondering exactly why NRC didn’t register a monster flux increase during a series of M class events as I expected it should have…. This caused me to look into both the chunk of spectrum that their receivers monitor. ( 100 mhz) and the character waveforms of M flares in general.  Another interesting subject but that is most definitely off-topic here.  I dismissed it I think by assuming that somehow NRC missed them or just calculated baseline flux ( possible) and posted the observations and adjusted plus URSI at all three intervals.   Puhleeze lets not go into quantum weirdness. My brain is still reeling from 1 and 2 k spots 😂

Edited March 26 by hamateur 1953
Typo