Electric universe theories here.

[Mashuna]

As described.

Could dig out. Better to ask the super duper space plasma physicist that modeled it.

Knows it better than me.

You want me to ask the writer of this paper why Sol88 thinks it sounds similar to what tusanfem wrote 'with regard to current sheets n what not'?

How would they know why you think it's similar?

 

[tusenfem]

Nothing about plasma moving across magnetic fields giving rise to electric fields?

why would that give rise to electric fields?

I do see NASA (Experts?) update their Sun page from to

We do not see you update your knowledge.

driven by the magnetic forces generated by this churning plasma. but not electric fields?

Why not first try to understand how the solar dynamo works?

Maybe not radial in the electrostatic pith ball type model but most definatly electric fileds involved in the solar current sheet the comet moves thru.

Really, Scott shows that? He just copy-pasted introductory space plasma physics and makes his readers believe it's all his idea.

Again, nice confabulation using semantics.

There is nothing new new in Scott's "paper", and he did not discover the solar wind sectors, heck there is not even data in his paper.

 

[tusenfem]

Sounds a lot like your turbulent cascade dissipation of energy, tusenfem, that you wrote some time with regard to current sheets n what not.

Fresh-up my memory.
This is supposed to link to the Loureiro et al. paper? (djeez! so much mathamajics in it.)

 

[The Man]

Of course that’s what you’d think…it’s what your incorrect model tells you.

Snappy field lines…



Children might believe it but then I’m not sure if you understood the words, not the math they used, to prove to field lines snap and release energy but the understanding of the model of magnetic reconnection?

Tusenfem, I think, was pretty clued up on the topic.

It is also what a couple of the business card type refrigerator magnets can show you. Slide two of them against each other in the right orientation and you'll find those "Snappy field lines".

 

[The Man]

Stand down mystery solved...its all electric!

Solving a Plasma Physics Mystery: Magnetic Reconnection



Oh..PLASMA!

ok, keep going, seem important



Listnen up, mob here comes the oompf!



further



Enter the Plasmoid

Talk about cumm'n tusenfem you 'ol dog, ay!





So, not snapping field lines but electric currents, plasmoids

From your own quote of your own citation...


"The theory proposes that as more bubbles form and sheets break up, the magnetic lines crash into each other and break. The lines disconnect from the ions first, then the electrons. The breaking feeds magnetic energy into the particles, heating them up and accelerating them. As time goes on, the whole process becomes faster and faster. It creates a runaway effect — fast reconnection."


So explicitly "snapping field lines" and even a runaway effect of fast reconnection ("snapping field lines").

 

[Sol88]

From your own quote of your own citation...


"The theory proposes that as more bubbles form and sheets break up, the magnetic lines crash into each other and break. The lines disconnect from the ions first, then the electrons. The breaking feeds magnetic energy into the particles, heating them up and accelerating them. As time goes on, the whole process becomes faster and faster. It creates a runaway effect — fast reconnection."


So explicitly "snapping field lines" and even a runaway effect of fast reconnection ("snapping field lines").

Better said as ELECTRIC CURRENT rearranging themselves!

Latest story out...Direct observations of a complex coronal web uncover an important clue as to what mechanism drives solar wind

I'll point the error straight out

In this study, the team used an advanced magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) model to simulate the magnetic field and plasma state of the corona for this time period.

MHD?

Busted flush!

At first, scientists assumed they could explain magnetic reconnection using the standard theory that explains how fluids affected by magnetic fields behave. That didn't work.

MHD failed (plasma as a fluid (gas)).

Now this is were you seem to fall over, read carefully.

Next up was the Sweet-Parker theory, proposed in 1957. It described thin, stretched-out sheets of electrical current forming in the plasma. Magnetic field lines sit on top of these sheets of electrical current. As the magnetic field lines break apart, the particles that normally flow along the field lines break away from them and stop being magnetized.

Right, what we are really talking about is a reconfiguration of the electric currents.

Why not just say it?

Snapping field lines...




Thats a good one!

'cos it leads to very smart people saying this

According to the team's new results, the hot solar plasma in the middle corona flows along the open magnetic field lines of the coronal web. Where the field lines cross and interact, energy is released.

Again, flowing plasma down a field line is an ELECTRIC CURRENT, flux tube, Birkeland current, FAC, Force free field aligned...

Again, MHD is a bust!

 

[Sol88]

Plasma, scalable for the lab to the Universe.

Amazing!

So, again please inform me why a "jet" form an AGN is not an electric current?

Specifically a FORCE FREE FIELD ALIGNED current.

Because MHD says no?

Or the ELECTRIC/PLASMA Universe cranks are right and you've been wrong (for quite some time now) and the only thing left is for you to double down on the "science"?

And prove you can divide by zero?

 

[Sol88]

Moreover, the slow solar wind is not homogeneous, but reveals, at least in part, a ray-like structure of clearly distinguishable streamers. Where and how do they originate? These are the questions addressed in the new study.

Ahh...wind!

Sounds like I should be hoisting the mainsail!

Still, Kristian Birkeland could give you a few pointers!

 

[Sol88]

A plasma ball showing lotza magnetic reconnection.

A plasma ball. Mentions a bit on the universe to boot.

Though the gas explanation sound like your interpretation of what plasma

 

[hecd2]

Well pick Don Scotts Apart.

Where is the error in his calculation?

Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model

Really? Are you really going to play? OK, here goes.

1) In equation 14, Scott makes it a condition of his solution that current density should be proportional to magnetic field strength everywhere. This is arbitrary, unwarranted and unphysical. This condition is required to get to eqn 26, the partial differential equation which Scott solves to get the Bessel function form of the axial and azimuthal magnetic field as a function of radial distance. Since this condition is arbitrary, unwarranted and unphysical, so is the solution

2) The factor alpha introduced in equation 14 determines the distance scale of the axial and azimuthal reversals of current density and magnetic field, but nothing in the solution gives or constrains the magnitude of alpha, which can be as large or small as you like - what sort of physical solution is that?

3) Scott fails to impose appropriate boundary conditions in solving the partial differential equation, eqn 26. As a consequence the solution does not converge at infinity and the total current in the solution is infinite.

It is clear that Scott's model has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

It also has nothing to do with Drake's model where there is no solution that looks anything like Scott's Bessel function solution (see Drake fig 2, where there is a flux rope imbedded in a uniform magnetic field). Finally, Scott's solution is steady state, whereas Drake's simulations are dynamic and driven by reconnection. The two things are completely different.

 

[Sol88]

Uphysical?

What term in the math is unphysicsl? Understand an unwarranted term, even arbitrary sign somewhere in his math but unphysicsl?

Are you able to clarify?

current density should be proportional to magnetic field strength everywhere

This is unphysical? It’s not maths but it’s just words, like a word salad.

Is that not how it works here on Earth? An electric current has a magnetic field proportional to the current?

Maybe you could design a massive great big space clamp metre

Fascinating. What would happen to the equation if the current density varied along the length of the current? Would the magnetic field not be proportional.

If the current density becomes to low Double layer formation can take place. Or plasma instabilities in general. Something like a kink in the jet maybe. Maybe a “shock”?

 

[Sol88]

No boundary condition at any non-zero value of r is introduced. There will be, in all real currents in space, a natural limit, r = R, to the extent of the current density j(r).

Which bit in the math is confusing you. r?

The Parker solar probe has now flown thru a coupe of these now, you call the switchbacks.

Sure in real electric currents in space there is a boundary, a noisy lossy coaxial cable metaphor. Couple pages back now.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is that not how it works here on Earth? An electric current has a magnetic field proportional to the current?

You are confused, as usual. The field produced by a current is proportional to that current, but the current density at any location is NOT usually proportional to the total magnetic field at location. If it were a requirement, we could never produce magnetic fields in a vacuum.

 

[The Man]

Better said as ELECTRIC CURRENT rearranging themselves!

Tell that to the authors of your own citation, as evidently they don't concur.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which bit in the math is confusing you. r?

hecd2 isn't confused. He's saying Scotts didn't do something (impose a boundary condition) which he should have done, and the failure to do so disconnects the math from any physically relevant scenario.

Sure in real electric currents in space there is a boundary

Quite so. Which is why Scotts leaving one out invalidates his results.

 

[Sol88]

So no electric currents in space then?

‘Cos the maths wrong?

 

[hecd2]

Uphysical?

What term in the math is unphysicsl? Understand an unwarranted term, even arbitrary sign somewhere in his math but unphysicsl?

Are you able to clarify?

Yes, it is not generally the case in solutions of Maxwell's equations that current density is proportional to magnetic field at every location throughout the field. In Scott's paper he offers no physical reason for imposing this assumption, therefore his assumption is unphysical.

current density should be proportional to magnetic field strength everywhere

This is unphysical? It’s not maths but it’s just words, like a word salad.

This is what eqn 14 of Scott's paper says. I can see that maths is a closed book to you. This is not a physical requirement - there is no physical reason to constrain the current density to be proportional to magnetic field at all points in the field. It is an arbitrary, unwarranted and unphysical assumption

Is that not how it works here on Earth? An electric current has a magnetic field proportional to the current?

In general electric current density is not proportional to magnetic field throughout the field. This is trivially obvious by considering the fact that the magnetic field arising from a current carrying wire is non zero outside the wire whereas the current density outside the wire is zero.

Fascinating. What would happen to the equation if the current density varied along the length of the current? Would the magnetic field not be proportional.

In Scott's model the current density and magnetic field are constant axially, (and are steady state) but vary as a function of radial position. Scott imposes an assumption that the current density is proportional to the field at all points throughout the field without offering a physical reason for this constraint. It is therefore unphysical, arbitrary and unwarranted.

 

[Ziggurat]

So no electric currents in space then?

‘Cos the maths wrong?

 

[Sol88]

So what math are you going to use to describe electric currents in astrophysical plasma?

Treat plasma as gas(fluid) with a frozen in magnetic field?

If like to talk math as complete nonsense start there.

How far from the centre of the currrent to the boundary of said current? Mathamagicians?

See the data in a couple probes that have flow thru flux tubes.

 

[hecd2]

No boundary condition at any non-zero value of r is introduced. There will be, in all real currents in space, a natural limit, r = R, to the extent of the current density j(r)

Which bit in the math is confusing you. r?

I'm not confused but you seem to be. That is Scott explictly pointing out that j should go to zero at some radial distance r less than infinity and then explicitly admitting that he failed to apply a Cauchy boundary condition. Maybe, if you disagree, you can point out exactly where, with equation numbers, Scott sets a boundary condition before attempting to solve equation 26. And then you can explain away the fact that in his solution total current fails to converge resulting in an infinite total current.

Then you can explain the physical meaning of alpha.