Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumEvaluating the Impact of New Evidence

### Heating the Solar Corona

The Sun’s outer atmosphere, the corona, has a temperature of over 1×106 K1 \times 10^6\text{ K}, which is far hotter than the Sun's surface (the photosphere) at approximately 5,800 K5,800\text{ K}. Scientists have proposed two hypotheses to explain how energy is transported from the surface to heat the corona.

Hypothesis 1
Energy is transported by Alfvén waves (oscillating magnetic waves) that originate at the photosphere. These waves travel along magnetic field lines up into the corona, where they dissipate their energy as heat into the surrounding plasma.

Hypothesis 2
Energy is transported by nanoflares (small-scale magnetic reconnection events). As magnetic field lines in the corona twist and cross due to surface motions, they suddenly snap and realign. This process releases stored magnetic energy in rapid, localized bursts that heat the corona.

New Evidence
Researchers measure the wave energy of Alfvén waves at different heights above the solar surface and find that these waves lose nearly all of their energy in the chromosphere (the layer between the photosphere and the corona), long before reaching the corona.

Which of the following statements best describes how this new evidence affects the two hypotheses?

  1. A
    It supports Hypothesis 1 because it confirms that Alfvén waves dissipate their energy, and it weakens Hypothesis 2.
  2. B
    It weakens both Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 because both hypotheses depend on Alfvén waves transporting energy to the corona.
  3. It weakens Hypothesis 1 because it suggests that Alfvén waves cannot deliver sufficient energy to the corona, but it does not affect Hypothesis 2.Answer
  4. D
    It supports both Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 because it demonstrates that energy is released as heat in the solar atmosphere.

Answer

The new evidence weakens Hypothesis 1 because it shows Alfvén waves dissipate before reaching the corona, but it does not affect Hypothesis 2 because nanoflares do not depend on Alfvén wave propagation.
The correct answer is the option stating that the evidence weakens Hypothesis 1 but does not affect Hypothesis 2. Since the new measurements show that Alfvén waves lose almost all of their energy in the chromosphere, they cannot reach the corona. This directly contradicts the requirement of Hypothesis 1 that the waves travel up into the corona to heat it. Meanwhile, Hypothesis 2 depends on nanoflares, which are localized magnetic reconnection events in the corona itself, and does not require energy to be transported from the surface by Alfvén waves. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is unaffected.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the core claim of Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 1 states that Alfvén waves travel into the corona and dissipate their energy there to heat the corona.
To evaluate the impact of the new evidence, we must first define what each hypothesis predicts.
2
Analyze the core claim of Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 2 states that magnetic field lines twisting and snapping (nanoflares) in the corona release energy to heat it.
This establishes the mechanism for the second hypothesis, which relies on local magnetic reconnection rather than wave propagation.
3
Evaluate the impact of the new evidence on both hypotheses.
The evidence shows Alfvén waves dissipate in the chromosphere (below the corona). This contradicts Hypothesis 1's claim that they transport energy to the corona. It does not contradict or support Hypothesis 2's nanoflare mechanism, which occurs independently of these waves.
Comparing the location of wave energy loss to the requirements of each hypothesis reveals that Hypothesis 1 is weakened while Hypothesis 2 is unaffected.

Key Concept

Evaluating how new experimental evidence supports or weakens competing scientific hypotheses.
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Evaluating the Impact of New Evidence

More questions from this topic