Solar Superstorms: the end of the Internet (and other communication concerns ...) from 2023?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

no but I agree, it is the electronics around the cables that are sensitive

you can also forget your credit card ... there is nothing more electronic and telecommunications than these means of payment ...

Yes, that's why I wrote it.

[ABC2019]

But did you read the article before commenting?

I'm not too convinced for several reasons

* directive emission of high energy particles: the solid angle embracing the earth from the sun is very small, in summary, to speak in simple language, 99.999% of the solar directions do not impact the Earth

We don't care, given what the Sun sends into space, what matters is the density of what happens at the level of the Earth, and already the usual solar wind puts the electronic circuits at tough test, you need "hardened" components to withstand, we do not put basic electronics in the satellites. If the eruption multiplies the flow of charged particles by 100 or 1000, that can destroy a good part of it. It's like everything, we adjust the quality and the price according to the "usual" constraints but it does not withstand an exceptional event (we are talking about centennial events)

* submarine internet cables are optical fibers that are not sensitive to magnetic fields

what the article explains is that it is not the optical fibers that risk being destroyed, but the repeaters installed regularly along the fiber which re-amplify the signal which tends to attenuate along the length of the fiber. 'a fiber. They are powered by electric cables, and it is in fact the electric wave induced in the earth, which propagates in the soil, which risks shooting them, much like a lightning strike can electrocute cows by the ddp. between their paws.

* the Earth has its own magnetic field which channels charged particles of high energies

certainly, but they are channeled towards the poles, which gives the polar aurora. The problem is that a massive event precisely causes currents which will vary this field on a large scale, which by induction produces currents in the ground, it is like eddy currents. And it is these currents that are likely to produce surges in the ground and gun down the devices connected to it.

I am not able to judge if the orders of magnitude are correct but there are plenty of references in the article which seem serious and well documented. The basic problem is based on what acceptable risk do we dimension our systems and agree to pay the price for protection? For example, how high is a tsunami expected for a nuclear power plant? we make "reasonable" estimates, but sometimes we get confused ...

[ABC2019]

We know that there would be no impact on the fiber, I had the same thoughts as you, the repeaters, which are supplied from the terminals, so we have copper wire from one end to the other , conductor who can also act as an antenna.
I also know that VLFs are used by submarines for their communications, so that waves of some KHz can pass through seawater.
From there to think that there would be a significant level coming from a solar storm, certainly not. The link budgets with submarines are catastrophic, which is why transmitters must often exceed the MW, and to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, the bandwidths be very reduced and digital transmissions be at very low speed as the signals are weak (no question of passing the speech, for that there are only sound waves, but over very short distances).

but we are not talking about a small localized transmitter which tries to cross sea water, but of a gigantic generator on the scale of the planet which causes induced currents in all the ground, like eddy currents. The wave does not propagate through the water, it is the ground charges which move "longitudinally" and they propagate in the seabed: the problem is precisely that the repeaters are connected to the earth at the bottom, if they were in the middle of the water like submarines, then yes they would undoubtedly be protected.

As regards conduction, water is conductive, of course, but without a difference in potentials, it is also impossible to generate destructive currents. The sea is like the land, the reference potential, changing it does not change the phenomena for which it is the reference (gauge invariance).

This is ok when the Earth's magnetic field does not change, but if it is disturbed by a large-scale wave, it causes an induction field, that is indisputable, it is even the principle of alternators as you know very well .

Let's move on to the context analysis. Contrary to what you said, There are no "experts" but only one person, who is not an expert.
I inquired about the author. It's a young assistant professor whose skills are not in physics, not in electromagnetism, but in computer science!

it is undoubtedly that the "physical" part is precisely already known and not contested, and that its contribution is to evaluate what that would do to the network according to its connectivity and the links which would be affected ... it is not the physics which is discussed, it is the side "organization of the network".

[Remundo]

I am not able to judge if the orders of magnitude are correct but there are plenty of references in the article which seem serious and well documented. The basic problem is based on what acceptable risk do we dimension our systems and agree to pay the price for protection? For example, how high is a tsunami expected for a nuclear power plant? we make "reasonable" estimates, but sometimes we get confused ...

the article does not seem to have analyzed the sociological consequences of Internet withdrawal for certain individuals.

otherwise I agree with your analyzes ... which resume mine.

a lot of articles are catastrophic, we were all going to die of COVID, now we're going to lose the internet. and then how will one do for the nasal impasse and the electronic controls of the masses? This is a real concern for the globalist oligarchy.

[Exnihiloest]

...
but we are not talking about a small localized transmitter that tries to cross sea water, but of a gigantic generator on the scale of the planet
...
it is undoubtedly that the "physical" part is precisely already known and not contested, and that its contribution is to evaluate what that would do to the network according to its connectivity and the links which would be affected ... it is not the physics which is discussed, it is the side "organization of the network".

Your guesswork is yours alone. Solar winds, there have already been violent ones which damaged satellites or brought down electrical networks as in Quebec in 1989. They have never put underwater telecommunications networks in difficulty. However at the time they were much more sensitive than today because not all with optical fibers, but with links in pairs of copper, with considerably more repeaters than for optical fibers.
The theoretical blah which does not stick to the observations, which is more when it is speculative and claims apocalyptic effects: direction the trash, it is pseudo-science. Do not be taken in by appearances.

[ABC2019]

Your guesswork is yours alone. Solar winds, there have already been violent ones which damaged satellites or brought down electrical networks as in Quebec in 1989. They have never put underwater telecommunications networks in difficulty. However at the time they were much more sensitive than today because not all with optical fibers, but with links in pairs of copper, with considerably more repeaters than for optical fibers. .

Honestly, I will not engage in a discussion with you on the subject, because I am unable to say if the raised risk is serious or not, one would have to look a little more at the cited references. What I have already heard, however, is that the electronics were much more miniaturized and were more sensitive to surges than before ...

[Christophe]

The mass media are starting to talk about it: https://www.levif.be/actualite/sciences ... 67951.html

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

I still see NOTHING ...