Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Michael Mozina]

RHESSI does not observe fusion processes.

Not true.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

All of the gamma rays observed by RHESSI are identifiable as positron annihilation, neutron capture or nuclear de-excitation (mostly the latter). I have seen it suggested that deuteron fusion could take place in hot solar flares, but I am unaware of any observational evidence to support such speculation. But I am aware that there is no evidence for CNO or PP fusion from RHESSI data.

Then you'll have to find the fault in my paper. The neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere in particular would suggest your statements are false. There are very highly energetic events occurring in the solar atmosphere, well into the tens of millions of degree temperatures necessary to induce fusion.

In that case I shall stand corrected, although I cannot at the moment download the PDF document. Every time I try a "network error" ensues and the document fails to transfer. I suspect the server at the other end is unhappy about something.

Let me know when you've read it. He played with all kinds of different configurations and had all sorts of different "control mechanisms" that he used to try different ideas. The "discharge" process is well documented in his solar model, in fact it "predicts' coronal loop activity and high speed jets and "simulates* them as well.

Rather say that Birkeland demonstrated qualitatively that charge separation could be the driver for the process, not that it is the driver for the process.

I suppose that is accurate. He *qualified* the idea based on empirical testing. That has never been done for "magnetic reconnection" by the way. If we accept that "magnetic reconnection", "particle reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" all describe the same process, then of course Birkeland's work *would* apply to such a theory.

But of course charge separation is an entirely unphysical argument and can be safely ignored.

What? Charge separation shows up in a lab, and it can be shown to accelerate particles from a sphere in a 360 directional way, just as we observe from the sun. When was that ever done with 'magnetic fields"? He did in fact use "magnetic fields' in his experiments, but he showed that it was not the magnetic fields, but the "electrical energy" that did the work, accelerated the solar wind, and generate coronal loop activity.

Magnetic fields, on the other hand, are easy to generate & maintain, and are well known to accelerate charged particles through Faraday's Law (which is the driving mechanism in all particle accelerators, so we know it works).

We know from exactly those same laws that "electricity" works too. We also know that Birkeland was able to simulate solar wind by charging the sphere negative relative to the chamber/heliosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, I'm going to struggle to stay up with this conversation with everything else I have going on at the moment. I'll nibble as these as I get time, but I will keep up with the Lambda-CDM thread.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Indeed I am The One & Only World Famous Tim Thompson

Awesome. Can I have your autograph please? ... sir?

Its a small world. Now scott et al need to show up and we've nearly got a full house, and could maybe resolve any outstanding issues. Though, I've got a feeling he's quite happy making money from his lectures on EU at various colleges/uni's, $150 an hour to learn the whole of astrophysics is wrong aint bad at all by my rates

I dont agree with many of his ideas. Some I do. But I still like him.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The magnetic field topology changes and thus if draw field lines (accepted by Alfvén) you will see that they have changed completely.

So what? All that has happened is that the current flow patterns have rearranged themselves and now the magnetic field topology is different. No special energy is released in a unique way that is unique to "magnetic reconnection". It's simply "particle reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" and the "circuit energy" will determine what happens at the point of "reconnection". No magnetic lines are "disconnecting' or 'reconnecting' to any other magnetic lines!

If you take small time steps you will see that that means some have to "break" and "reconnect" in order to get that new topology. However, the places where the "breaking" takes place coincide with very low magnetic field strengths (going to zero) where the definition of a field line breaks down.

Boloney. There is nowhere in the solar atmosphere where curl B= 0 in magnetic field lingo. There are no NULL points, just "Short circuit" points. A zero energy point has *no* energy, so you aren't going to get anything other than zero from a zero energy point. Get real.

Please show us a model of this "particle reconnection".

Turn on a plasma ball some time. Turn off the switch and you'll watch the "circuit disconnection" process. Turn the switch back on and you watch "circuit connection" take place. If you could get two of these filaments to short circuit, you'd have "circuit reconnection"

Naturally, science has stood still ever since Alfvén invented MHD.

Naturally you're more of an expert on MHD theory than Alfven just because you say so, right?

This has noting to do with my comment about double layers.
Have you read through this whole thread? I don't think so, otherwise you would not have started from scratch asking questions again about things that have been discussed and chewed from months.

I've been through a lot of it, but I don't recall reading anything of yours that addressed my questions.

I have pointed out to you several times now that magnetic lines lack physical substance, and they form as a full and complete continuum. They are physically incapable of "reconnecting". Have also asked you repeatedly now what exactly you believe is physically "reconnecting" at the critical point in question, and you have repeatedly dodged this question. Why?

A change in magnetic topology means nothing. It is not a form of "magnetic reconnection", just a change in current flow. There is no unique form of energy release called 'magnetic reconnection' because they lack the physical capacity to do "disconnect" or "reconnect".

 

[Perpetual Student]

s. i.:

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I seems to me, based on your comments, that the most condemning evidence against PC is the dearth of observational evidence for charged matter, which is so easily detected. I would imagine the PC people have conjured up some rational for this apparent game-ending problem. I wonder what that might be -- Mr. Mozina?

 

[Michael Mozina]

A comment like "flux tubes transport energy" the first question has to be why?? A fluxt tube is just a mathematical entity describing a bunch of magnetic field lines. This flux tube in and by itself does not transport anything.

Boloney. A "flux tube" is just your bogus jargon for "current carrying filament". The current flow in the filament is carried through the "flux tube", and that's the part you seem to be utterly oblivious about. It's the 'current flow' that is carried by the "magnetic rope". Alfven described a magnetic rope as a Bennett Pinch.

Now often it is the case that along such a flux tube currents flow.

False again. It is *always the case* that currents flow or you wouldn't have what you are calling a "magnetic line" in the first place. That "tube' is no different that what we observe inside an ordinary plasma ball. It's a "current carrying filament" being 'pinched' by the magnetic field that forms around the current flow.

You guys are oblivious to the *physics* of what's going on. You may understand the "math" just fine, but when it comes to the actual PHYSICS part, you're totally out to lunch. Magnetic fields not not "disconnect" or "reconnect". Only particles and circuits can do that in plasma.

The magnetic field only exists *because* of the current flow inside the tube. You can turn off the plasma ball and watch all the "flux tubes" disappear. You can turn it back on and watch them form again. It's the "current flow" inside that filament that is heating the plasma to millions of degrees! Get real.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In any case the "electric universe" is just plain stupid, really, and there is not much more to say than that.

This statement is just plain stupid IMO, and it's beneath you too IMO. I've spoken with you enough time over the years to know that in most instances you have a reasonable attitude, but on this issue specifically, you're emotionally attached IMO, and you are clearly out to lunch.

EU/PC theory is "lab tested" Tim. It's not one of those "pie in the sky" ideas that is shy around a lab like inflation or dark energy. It's based on *EVIDENCED* forces/curvatures of nature, not the kind of junk that we find in current theory. Even if it's eventually shown to be wrong, at least it's not "woo in the sky" stuff like we find in current theory.

It violates just about every law of physics you can think of;

Huh? It worked in Birkeland's lab Tim. It doesn't violate any known laws of physics, unlike inflation.

it is especially ironic, I think, that people who claim to be such experts on plasma physics & electromagnetism, clearly do not understand either much beyond the level of a good AP high school student.

It's especially ironic that folks claim to be the worlds foremost EU/PC critics and often they haven't even read Birkeland's material. Have you read Cosmic Plasma, or are you doing all this skeptical review via clairvoyance?

Just consider the worn out claim that you can only generate magnetic fields with electric currents. That is in fact not true, and it has been known to be not true for 100 years, so you would think somebody in the EU crowd would have figured that out by now.

That might be relevant if you we weren't talking about the solar atmosphere where no solids are present and none can show there isn't current flow involved.

Look at it from our perspective too Tim. We *KNOW* that the Earth experiences "electrical discharges' that release gamma rays and x-rays here on Earth. We "know* that large physical bodies experience larger discharges in their atmosphere. The sun's atmosphere is often filled with million degree coronal loops that have been shown by Bruce to be due to electrical discharges. We know magnetic lines don't disconnect or reconnect. The mainstream is still claiming this stuff is related to magnetic reconnection, when Birkeland showed it was caused by "electricity" over 100 years ago.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have some chess to play.

Good luck on your chess game.

 

[ben m]

Not true.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

It's good practice to note that (a) this paper is by *you*, (b) It's in a fusion journal, not an astro journal, and (c) its *only* citation is from an omnibus 250-page review of neutrino physics which does not discuss this result at all, and most importantly (d) there are dozens of papers explaining the 2.2 MeV flare-associated gamma line, none of which invoke CNO.

Seriously, MM, this is why people call you a crackpot. Not because you have an alternative theory for the Sun; because you promote your alternative theory using standard crackpot midirection and evasiveness.

A non-crackpot, in response to the challenge "RHESSI does not observe fusion processes", might be imagined to respond "RHESSI sees a 2.2 MeV gamma line which I have argued is due to fusion; see (citation) which includes the full discussion." Oh, except your paper doesn't seem to mention the mainstream interpretations at all, does it?

 

[brantc]

A coronal loop does not "explode" although it may be called that in popular language. The loop twists, or somehow the two sides of the loop come together and there where the to parts of the loop come together, where the magnetic field is oppositely directed, reconnection can happen and the top part of the loop gets "converted" to a "bagel" of magnetic field and plasma (and associated currents). However the description above that you copied from the RHESSI page has very little resemblance with the "ideas" that you presented in your first message. Now you are just propagating the mainstream view of reconection, for which I thank you. And ttp://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/nuggets/?page=article&article_id=14]here is the RHESSI page about solar loops.

My bold red. I explained that exact process to you. I used mainstream terminology. I have not said anything "woo".

Again. The electron gyro radius in a plasma is much larger than in a solid wire.
The electron is now approaching the motion of an electric current in a SOLENOID. Because of the electrons gyroradius the magnetic field has a parallel component that is visible. Think of the flux tube as a long SOLENOID.
That is where the parallel component/vector comes in.

Conversely as a plasma approaches a solid (wire), the gyroradius becomes almost negligible producing the most extreme case of the right hand rule with almost straight electron travel.

Now if you have 2 filaments next to each other they have some repulsive force.
If there is a fluctuation in the current supply feeding the magnetic field, the repulsive force collapses(attractive force takes over) and the filaments touch.
This causes a short circuit and bang "reconnection". Not magnetic reconnection.
The change is current changing from flowing in 2 parallel strands to flowing across 2 strands. There is also a short lived double layer that forms between the two strands as the current flow switches direction. As the current increases in strength "between" the 2 strands the middle will increase in magnetic field strength ejecting some particles.

And your right, its not really exploding because the magnetic field continuum is ramping up and down(due to inductance) as the current flow changes, leading to an impulsive ejection of particles, generally jets.

2 filaments are reconnecting. The energy comes from the electric current flow.

So no I am not propagating the mainstream viewpoint. I am correcting the mainstream view point in one specific area, and explaining the "somehow" mystery. And in addition, showing how flux tubes are current carriers with a "'parallel" magnetic field.

There is nothing woo about this. Something is making that electromagnetic field, and that is moving electrons. Something is making those electrons move down that flux tube, and that is the electric field across (potential difference) the flux tube. And as such we can say that flux tubes carry electrical current to equalize the potential difference(between objects), no matter the reason for the difference..

From looking at what is going on here, what is lacking is objective causality.
You have to start somewhere. Everything should reduce to one basic idea(ideally). With plasma and magnetic fields that is electric current.
My favorite unit is the eV or electron volt. You can describe most everything in eV....

 

[brantc]

The bulk motion of a charge neutral plasma will generate a magnetic field, and that's where the magnetic fields in cosmology & astrophysics come from, not from streams of classical electric currents. This has been proven in both theory & practice and is a simple fact of nature. It is just one of many simple facts of nature ignored by EU enthusiasts.

Please point me to that paper......

 

[Tubbythin]

Not true.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

Just to repeat a request, could you talk me through this whole neutron-neutron repulsion business?

 

[Zeuzzz]

You have been unable to support most of your claims in the past, you ignore huge holes in your theories, and then you come back and just pretend that they don't exist.

I do not pretend they dont exist. I do take it all in, and I appreciate peoples feedback. I'm just stubborn.

You seriously expect me to admit when I'm wrong? Surely, you know me better than this Maybe, (as i recall happened before) a certain said substance reduces my intransigency.

But I still hate you all.*

Now, I admire you for trying to make this thing work, I admire your patience in struggling to make it make sense. You really have tried, but maybe, just maybe, you don't have a model and your don't have a theory.

I do have a model. And I do have a theories. They just dont work.



....well, some anyway.

Many 'alternative' cosmologists have various theories on par with, or at least strikingly similar in approach, to plasma cosmology. But hey, PC (Lerner [1980-95] + Peratt) is pretty much dead. I spoke with Lerner the other day on his fusion forum, he acknowledged this himself. However, the unique and logical plasma based approach to cosmology/astrophysics/EU is still a perspective that could hold fruit. And not just apples and bannanas, but pinapples and gooseberries. I'm not alone in my various views. I'm in good company

So, meanwhile, I'll just keep picking holes in the silly little thing called BIG BANG. Maybe its more a philosophical quibble than rigourously science based opinion, but hey. When the more definitive alternatve explantions that explain the inflation field and CMB emerge I'll be the first to post it here. Theres no shortage of people looking, and no shortage of potential theories.

Theres a heck of a lot of material to get though, and a hell of a lot of new theories to contemplate http://www.cosmology.info/

*that was a joke**

**an attempt at one anyway

 

[sol invictus]

Please point me to that paper......

Dunno if this is precisely what Tim has in mind, but one of the most basic features of plasmas is that magnetic field lines are almost frozen to the plasma around them. Which means if you start with some B field, no matter how small, you can increase its magnitude tremendously through currents (not electric currents - just ordinary net-neutral flows of particles) which carry the lines with them and tangle them up. Very small seed B fields can get multiplied by huge factors, particularly when the flows are fast and turbulent.

Those basic facts are born out by theory, numerical simulations, and experiments.

 

[Perpetual Student]

A question for CP/EU believers:

Since you are not physicists nor cosmologists, who are you? Are you astronomers? Is this a pastime (hobby)? Is this stuff taught anywhere? How does one become one of you? Does any university teach PC/EU theory? Is it taught anywhere as an alternative theory (like alternative medicine)? Can one get PC/EU credentials? How have any of you obtained your knowledge of PC/EU theory? Is there a PC/EU organization or club?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's good practice to note that (a) this paper is by *you*,

Well, Duh! It's not like I'm using anything other than my real name here at Jref. It's not just "mine" however, there are others involved in writing this paper.

(b) It's in a fusion journal,

I would expect a fusion journal to know about fusion, wouldn't you?

not an astro journal,

So what?

and (c) its *only* citation is from an omnibus 250-page review of neutrino physics which does not discuss this result at all, and most importantly (d) there are dozens of papers explaining the 2.2 MeV flare-associated gamma line, none of which invoke CNO.

Would you have been happier if I cited Alfven's work or Bruce's work on discharge theory?

Seriously, MM, this is why people call you a crackpot.

The term "crackpot" must be another thing they teach in Lambda-CDM theory. That has to be the most ironic term I've heard coming from a guy that can't get inflation to do squat in a lab and defending that as "science". As me if I even care what you think of me. You guys run from all the real "observations" related to solar theory. You ignore the obvious when it comes to explaining "discharges" in the solar atmosphere, and you're at least 100 years behind Birkeland. I don't much care what your industry thinks of me, because I have zero respect for current cosmology theory. It's pure BS. You guys are the "crackpots" that peddle snake oil. Inflation is mythical mathical nonsense, and the same is true of "dark energy"'. You must made them up or your math doesn't fit right.

Not because you have an alternative theory for the Sun; because you promote your alternative theory using standard crackpot midirection and evasiveness.

Oh don't even get me started about misdirection and evasiveness. None of you folks *ever* address the actual images on my website and you evade all the direct question about these images. You make up nonsense about "magnetic reconnection" when magnetic lines lack physical substance and they only form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end. Don't even think about lecturing me about astronomy and physics. You don't have a leg to stand on.

A non-crackpot, in response to the challenge "RHESSI does not observe fusion processes", might be imagined to respond "RHESSI sees a 2.2 MeV gamma line which I have argued is due to fusion; see (citation) which includes the full discussion." Oh, except your paper doesn't seem to mention the mainstream interpretations at all, does it?

Why would my paper mention your nonsense about "magnetic reconnection" when Alfven called it "pseudoscience". Would you have been happier if I had noted it, and cited Alfven's comments when he called it pseudoscience?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Since you are not physicists nor cosmologists, who are you?

I am me, surprisingly.

Are you astronomers?

hmmm. No. A physicist with an interest in space physics and plasma behaviour.

Is this a pastime (hobby)?

Suppose so.

Is this stuff taught anywhere?

Yeah, but unlikely to be in any specific curriculum just taught by professors that are adherants to various PC/EU ideas.

How does one become one of you?

Grow a beard, learn the fandango, and publish a paper on cucumbers.

What does this mean? We are not a 'type' of person. I dont even really know who 'we' would be when I say that.

Does any university teach PC/EU theory?

Certainly aspects, but it will not be recognised as "EU" or "PC" theory, more plasma physics, cosmic electrodynamics or alternative cosmologies. They will not be taught how to apply this knowledge to various PC/EU ideas though, as they are considered 'fringe' by most. Or, rather, wrong.

Is it taught anywhere as an alternative theory (like alternative medicine)?

Many supportera do do lectures to their classes, but there is no specific course for it as far as I am aware.

Can one get PC/EU credentials?

hmmmm. Badgers like marmite in the springtime.

Dunno what this means really... but, I dont think so.

How have any of you obtained your knowledge of PC/EU theory?

From my university physics course, where the library had a copy of Alfvens amazingly interesting book "Cosmic Plasma", which still remains pertinent, correct, and largely ignored by standard astronomers to this day.

Searching journals also. The IEEE plasma science journal does a "special edition" on cosmic plasma every year or so with PC material. Also various other journals contain PC material, though often not actually under the specific title of plasma cosmology. Birkelands work is also very central, as is Bruce and Bostiks material.

Is there a PC/EU organization or club?

Na. Maybe the 'alternative cosmology group' comes closest, but they rather just show issues with BBT rather than proposing plasma cosmology models.

There is also the far more unorthodox "thunderbolts" group, which certainly is not *totally* without merit, involving people such as Wallace Thornhill, Don Scott, and a few others. Nothing to do with Veliskovsky and various catasrophism ideas, though people often try to link him to them to discredit people.

I hope this all makes sense. Tis been a long day, and I'm off to bed now.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A question for CP/EU believers:

Since you are not physicists nor cosmologists, who are you? Are you astronomers? Is this a pastime (hobby)?

I am a programmer by trade, a businessman, husband, and father of two children in my late 40's. I've been interested in astronomy since I was a kid and first watched men walk on the moon. I've studied solar satellite images since the Yohkoh days. Mostly it's a hobby since it's not a paying gig. I wouldn't have the same freedom to criticize this industry today if I was employed in the industry, so frankly I'm glad I'm on the outside looking in.

Is this stuff taught anywhere?

Sure, it is taught in Birkeland's book in terms of real empirical lab work, which I cited for Tim, and also in the work of Alfven, Bruce, Peratt and many others.

How does one become one of you?

There is a secret handshake required, but I can't tell you about it yet. As far as I know, you simply "join" of your own free will. We'll let you.

Does any university teach PC/EU theory?

Not to my knowledge. Currently only bogus nonsense is being taught at the college/university level. Birkeland's work is typically glossed over, and MHD theory has been "cludged" beyond recognition by the mainstream while Alfven's actual cosmology theories have been stuffed into a closet.

You'll have to "discover' EU/PC theory on your own without a lot of help from the "educational institutions" at the moment. They're busy peddling pure metaphysical dogma at the moment and ignorantly fighting against empirical physics. "Electricity" is the one "unmentionable" in astronomy today.

Is it taught anywhere as an alternative theory (like alternative medicine)?

It's written about in books and papers by Alfven and Peratt and Bruce and others which you can access via the internet, or purchase over the internet.

Can one get PC/EU credentials?

You can only get your EU credentials by being able to stand here in cyberspace with the "big boys" of astronomy and being able to "slug it out" with them if necessary. They'll resent you of course for doing it, so don't ever expect to get a paying job in astronomy if you get your EU credentials.

How have any of you obtained your knowledge of PC/EU theory?

I personally believe your best bet is to study Birkeland's work first which is freely accessible over the internet, and then Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma". Peratt's book is also excellent (better IMO), but it is out of print, and beyond the financial reach of most folks.

Is there a PC/EU organization or club?

No, and they don't even serve free coffee and donuts. The only satisfaction you'll get is "empirical knowledge" once you finally "get it". IMO it's worth it too.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Reconnection.

He *qualified* the idea based on empirical testing. That has never been done for "magnetic reconnection" by the way.

Magnetic reconnection certainly has been empirically tested. Evidently you missed my earlier post with the details: Comments on magnetic Reconnection.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Magnetic reconnection certainly has been empirically tested. Evidently you missed my earlier post with the details: Comments on magnetic Reconnection.

The term "magnetic reconnection" is not simply an argument about semantics Tim, and no one has done what Birkeland had done with "electricity" in a lab, namely use "magnetic reconnection" to generate whole sphere discharges and coronal loops, jets, etc. I'll start off tomorrow "debunking" the PPPL paper for you since I've already been through that paper at space.com. We'll go though them one by one if you like, but each and every one of the most likely used "current flow" to get their party started, and to generate these events in plasma.

The magnetic lines lack physical substance, and they are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other magnetic field line. These are simply "particle/circuit reconnection" events, not "magnetic reconnection" events. It simply "current sheet acceleration", nothing more. It's late tonight, and all start on your papers tomorrow, but I did upload a PDF of Birkeland's work to my website so you have at least two download locations:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf

 

[sol invictus]

No magnetic lines are "disconnecting' or 'reconnecting' to any other magnetic lines!
<snip>
I have pointed out to you several times now that magnetic lines lack physical substance, and they form as a full and complete continuum. They are physically incapable of "reconnecting".
<snip>
There is no unique form of energy release called 'magnetic reconnection' because they lack the physical capacity to do "disconnect" or "reconnect".

Along with two decades and more of laboratory experiments that falsify the silly nonsense I quoted above, here's a movie showing the results of a numerical simulation of Maxwell's equations in plasmas (click on the orange image). It speaks for itself.