Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Michael Mozina]

This has been explained to you several times. You haven't gotten it. Let me try again, using your preferred language.

Take two line currents---one at position X = +10m and flowing in the +Y direction, another at position X = -10m and flowing in the +Y direction. They generate magnetic fields. You are sitting at position X=0; you're holding a magnetometer which you can wave around within a meter or so of your position. All good? Have we violated any real physics yet?

None thus far. I've forgotten now where you stand on the "circuit reconnection = magnetic reconnection = particle reconnection" issue. Do you agree? Disagree?

We now let line currents move towards you, going from +/- 100m down to (say) +/- 1m. Anything horribly wrong? Is your high-sensitivity BS detector going off yet? Fairy alarm ringing?

Nope. So far you're doing fine.

Well, you've just experienced magnetic reconnection. Honest. The magnetic fields in your neighborhood changed in the way we've been talking about. It's as simple as that. Don't believe me?

Well, actually, "sort of". I guess that is what the mainstream is calling "magnetic reconnection" from what I've read as well, but the label itself is misleading. The circuits and particles can and do disconnect and reconnect inside the plasma. The magnetic field topology changes as a result. That is not however "magnetic reconnection" because magnetic lines form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. Unlike circuits and physical particles, the magnetic fields are physically incapable of disconnecting or reconnecting to any other field line.

I don't really have a problem with your physical explanation until you labeled it "magnetic" reconnection after describing it as two intersecting circuits. Wouldn't the term "circuit reconnection" be a better choice of terms, if only to keep in consistent with electrical engineering and because it conveys the importance of the total energy of the entire circuit, not just the point of reconnection?

 

[Michael Mozina]

1. If the sun has one charge and the heliosphere another , waht is the source of charge for both?

The interstellar wind would be the source of the charge at the heliosphere, and the sun itself would be responsible for the charge at the surface.

2. So where can you show that the sun or helio sphere has that kind of charge 9positive0, what maintains the charge in the heliosphere?

FYI, I missed what you're responding to in your post, and most of the rest of the questions look redundant. The heliosphere is buffeted by interstellar winds. These particle flows influence our sun just as the interplanetary winds influence and interact with our planet through the magnetosphere.

 

[ben m]

The circuits and particles can and do disconnect and reconnect inside the plasma. The magnetic field topology changes as a result. That is not however "magnetic reconnection" because magnetic lines form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. Unlike circuits and physical particles, the magnetic fields are physically incapable of disconnecting or reconnecting to any other field line.

1) Go back to my example. Go to {X=1,Z=1}, where you placed the test particle, and measure the magnetic field direction.
2) Take an infinitesimal step in that direction, measure again. Repeat.
3) Record your entire path.

This path is BOTH (a) the path a low-energy (adiabatic) charged particle will follow, and also (b) THE COMPLETE AND EXACT DEFINITION OF A MAGNETIC FIELD LINE.

You are incorrect to say that magnetic field lines can't "reconnect". They can and do. The do so by going through the same topology changes as the paths of adiabatic ions, because they're the same thing. As we've said repeatedly: you have been relying on some mistaken ideas about "field lines". This is a good illustration.

 

[Michael Mozina]

1) Go back to my example. Go to {X=1,Z=1}, where you placed the test particle, and measure the magnetic field direction.
2) Take an infinitesimal step in that direction, measure again. Repeat.
3) Record your entire path.

This path is BOTH (a) the path a low-energy (adiabatic) charged particle will follow, and also (b) THE COMPLETE AND EXACT DEFINITION OF A MAGNETIC FIELD LINE.

The magnetic field line is not 'reconnecting' to another field line. The particle is simply "reconnecting" to another circuit at worst case. The magnetic lines are simply caused by the current flow of those particles. The *particles* are physical and they contain kinetic energy that can and does get transferred to other charged particles, but the magnetic lines are not "reconnecting", just the circuits and particles that make up those lines of flowing current are "reconnecting".

You are incorrect to say that magnetic field lines can't "reconnect". They can and do.

No they don't. Alfven used a very similar particle example example in his book Cosmic Plasma and explained it this way:

1I .3 .2 . PARTICLE MOTION IN THE MAGNETOSPHERE
So far our model does not contain any movable charged particles (outside the wires). In this vacuum model, we inject one charged test particle, either in interplanetary space or in the ionosphere . Its motion is completely determined by the electric and magnetic fields . As the magnetic field is static, the energy W of the particle is given by where Wo is the initial energy, ds the line element, E the (static) electric field from the fixed charges, and e the charge of the particle.

Next, we inject a large number of solar wind particles (and particles from the ionosphere), but still only a negligible fraction, e, of what corresponds to the real case . Assuming that the mutual collisions (as well as the collisions with the model structure) are negligible, they will behave as a number of test particles . If our model is designed correctly, they will increase the space charge given by the fixed charges of the model by the fraction, e, and their flow close to the coil wires will increase the magnetic field by the same fraction . If we reduce all coil currents and all fixed charges by e, we will return to the same electric and magnetic field as before the injection . Hence, in this simple way, the electromagnetic fields in a stationary magnetosphere are described exclusively by electric currents and electric charges. A model based on this principle is worked out in HI .6. We now slowly increase e to unity . At the same time we reduce the coil currents and the fixed charges so that eventually they become zero . It is easily seen that this can be done in a way that allows the electric and magnetic fields to remain constant . We can now remove the model structure, and every particle will still move and change its energy as if it were a single test particle in the vacuum model . Our model now depicts how plasma in our surroundings flows and changes its energy .

11 .33. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT `FIELD LINE RECONNECTION' AND `MERGING' IN THE STATIONARY MAGNETOSPHERE
Our Gedanken experiment shows that neither the injection of one test particle, a small number of test particles, or all of the solar wind particles call for a change in the Maxwellian concept of magnetic field lines . There is no need for `frozen-in' field lines moving with the plasma, still less for `field-line reconnection' or `magnetic merging' . The magnetic field always remains static and not a single field line is `disconnected' or `reconnected'. The energy of a charged particle is given by Equation (6) . There is no 'field-line reconnection' that can transfer energy to the particles or release energy in any other way. Other arguments against reconnection models are forewarded by Heikkila (1978).

The do so by going through the same topology changes as the paths of adiabatic ions, because they're the same thing. As we've said repeatedly: you have been relying on some mistaken ideas about "field lines". This is a good illustration.[/QUOTE]

 

[Reality Check]

Could you please cite which specific experiment observed an electron to muon oscillation? It's been awhile since I've looked at this data, and perhaps there has been progress I am unware of. The last time I checked there were "missing' neutrinos observed which *might* be interpreted as oscillation, but if they have actually observed it now in controlled experimentation, I would like to read about it. I haven't been following the recent progress on oscillation observations.

The links that I posted are to the actual specific experiments. The oscillation has been seen in controlled experiments - the KamLAND experiment uses neutrinos from nuclear reactors.

But my guess is that you want the bit in bold. All we have to do then is build a neutrino trap using a few tame black holes, trap a neutrino and watch it oscillate.

Actual changes of leptons have been observed in various faculties, e.g.

• Kamioka Liquid Scintillator Antineutrino Detector (Wikipedia)
• Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (Wikipedia)
• Super-Kamiokande (Wikipedia)

I hope that you do not want an experiment where neutrinos are tracked through a detector and a scientists "says at this point the neutrino changed from an electron neutrino to a tau neutrino in the detector"!

 

[Dancing David]

The interstellar wind would be the source of the charge at the heliosphere, and the sun itself would be responsible for the charge at the surface.



FYI, I missed what you're responding to in your post, and most of the rest of the questions look redundant. The heliosphere is buffeted by interstellar winds. These particle flows influence our sun just as the interplanetary winds influence and interact with our planet through the magnetosphere.

Excuse me?

lets us see, you said that:

a.The electrons move from the solar surface to the heliosphere, right?

and then you said that:

b.The electrons drag the positive ions along with them on the trip to the heliosphere, right?

So then I asked how this makes the solar wind?

Because the same force that attracts the electrons to the heliosphere is going to repel the positive ions, right?

That is not redundant and as predicted you will not address the obvious contradiction in your model of how the soalr wind works.

So back to your model:
1. thermal energy provides a negative charge for the surface of the sun.
2. interstellar wind would be the source of the positive charge on the sun.

What data do you have that suggests that the interstellar wind provides a positive charge to the heliosphere?

 

[sol invictus]

The magnetic field line is not 'reconnecting' to another field line.

Really? Because in the solutions we're discussing, the lines reconnect in the most literal possible sense. At t<0 a line in the upper left is connected to one in the lower left; at t>0 that same line has disconnected from that one and now connects to a line in the upper right.

You were shown the solutions, simulations, and experiments. You ignored them all, because they go against your religion.

 

[ben m]

I think MM has two things mixed up.

1) I established two line currents---which I'm happy to call a "circuit"---and these currents created magnetic fields. The fields allow you to draw field lines, like any vector field does. Those field lines are "there" (i.e. draw-able) whether or not there's any additional charge or current in the area.

2) MM is happy to do the exact equivalent of drawing field lines as long as he does it by following a test particle rather than by vector tracing. However, once he's put a test-particle in there he starts thinking that this particle's current somehow causes the magnetic field---which is wrong, this field comes from the large line currents we defined earlier, and the test particle is infinitesimal. And he insists on calling this particle's path a "circuit" rather than a "field line" because Alfven told him never to mention field lines---but they're really exactly the same thing.

3) He's also somehow come back to discussing the kinetic energy of the particles. Don't get confused, MM, we're discussing a system with a large magnetostatic potential energy and an unspecified (but generally extremely small) kinetic energy. Please also note that there's no plasma in this problem yet---just two wires and a guy waving a magnetometer---so the relevant physics comes from Maxwell et. al. and long, long predates Mr. Alfven.

 

[ben m]

The links that I posted are to the actual specific experiments. The oscillation has been seen in controlled experiments - the KamLAND experiment uses neutrinos from nuclear reactors.

Be careful here. Oscillation has been seen in several experiments mostly in the patterns of how neutrinos disappear. This pattern is very specific---Kamland has the best data, seeing two full cycles of electron antineutrinos being visible, then invisible, then visible, the invisible again, as a function of the proper time in the neutrino rest frame. They do not, however, see what the neutrinos are turning into during the "invisible" step---but since they see them coming back it's pretty clear they did not decay, or do something else odd.

Appearance of the "missing" neutrinos has been seen cleanly in one and only one experiment, SNO, but it can also be tested by looking at the cross-mode agreement in elastic scattering vs. charged current data.

(It's possible that LSND or MiniBoone also see flavor appearance, but this is a difficult bit of data which is still being hashed out.)

 

[Reality Check]

Be careful here. Oscillation has been seen in several experiments mostly in the patterns of how neutrinos disappear. This pattern is very specific---Kamland has the best data, seeing two full cycles of electron antineutrinos being visible, then invisible, then visible, the invisible again, as a function of the proper time in the neutrino rest frame. They do not, however, see what the neutrinos are turning into during the "invisible" step---but since they see them coming back it's pretty clear they did not decay, or do something else odd.

Appearance of the "missing" neutrinos has been seen cleanly in one and only one experiment, SNO, but it can also be tested by looking at the cross-mode agreement in elastic scattering vs. charged current data.

(It's possible that LSND or MiniBoone also see flavor appearance, but this is a difficult bit of data which is still being hashed out.)

That clarifies what I thought the experiments showed.

My comment about KamLAND being a controlled experiment was to cater for MM's obsession with controlled vs uncontrolled experiments. I suspect that any oscillations detected in solar neutrinos fits his criteria for uncontrolled (and so can be ignored) experiments.

 

[Dancing David]

So, MM

You say that the heliosphere is positively charged by the interstellar wind, what evidence do you have?

And then there is this conflict you presented
1. Electrons are drawn from the negative solar surface to the positive heliosphere.
2. Electrons drag the positive ions with them and they then pass through the heliosphere to help create a solar wind with both positive and negative ions.

So what propels the electrons past the heliosphere?
What keeps the positive ions moving as they appraoch the heliosphere?

Now you likely have an explanation so, i will wait.

 

[Dancing David]

Any way the wind blows, really doesn't matter to me...

BUMP

 

[brantc]

Excuse me?

lets us see, you said that:

a.The electrons move from the solar surface to the heliosphere, right?

and then you said that:

b.The electrons drag the positive ions along with them on the trip to the heliosphere, right?

So then I asked how this makes the solar wind?

Because the same force that attracts the electrons to the heliosphere is going to repel the positive ions, right?

That is not redundant and as predicted you will not address the obvious contradiction in your model of how the soalr wind works.

So back to your model:
1. thermal energy provides a negative charge for the surface of the sun.
2. interstellar wind would be the source of the positive charge on the sun.

What data do you have that suggests that the interstellar wind provides a positive charge to the heliosphere?

"Anomalous cathode reaction forces varying in proportion to the square of the input current were first identified separately by Tanberg and Kobel, in 1930, during studies of cathode vaporization in "vacuum"-arc discharges (VADs) and stationary cathode spots (1,2). In his original paper, Tanberg made a case for the presence of longitudinal forces on electrodynamic interactions, which he attributed to the counterflow of vaporized cathode particles (1), but K. Compton demonstrated that the vapor jet only accounted for <2% of the reaction force's magnitude (3)
<snip>
Mounting evidence for longitudinal electrodynamic forces was then emerging from the study of relativistic electron beams (27-28), high-frequency plasma spikes (29-32), anomalous plasma heat transfer (28, 33-34) and anomalous discharge structures (35). Three possible plasma instability mechanisms have been discussed in the literature for the explanation of the observed anomalous energy transfers, invoking magnetosonic waves (35-36), ion-acoustic plasma instability modes (37-38) or the vacuum-field effect caused by the Zero-point energy (ZPE) (39-45). More recently, others have suggested that these nonlinear interactions, such as the ion-acoustic plasma instabilities, high density abrupt electrical discharges, and microprotuberance field emission indicate the presence of resonant coherences with the ZPE (46-47).
<snip>
Admission of longitudinal interactions has always been problematic for the relativistic law of Lorentz (11), as well as for the Bio-Savart treatments of Ampere's Law (12). Quantum treatments of (high) field-emission, such as the Fowler-Nordheim law (strong fields pull out electrons with low energies, ie Fermi electrons) (13), also did not take these interactions into account.
<snip>
By the 1960's, it had become apparent that the presence of tremendous electrodynamic forces acting longitudinally in the direction of the discharge could not be accounted for by the Lorentz/Bio-Savart Law. Moreover, as Plyutto et al remarked, the Tanberg vaporization hypothesis also could not explain the observed dependence of cathode reaction forces on gas pressure, nor the high velocity plasma streams emerging from the cathode (18). Plyutto's model of an ambipolar mechanism, where the electrons sweep the ions forward as a function of the anomalous rise of potential in front of the cathode spot, while the spot moves backwards, may well explain the dynamic relation of these forces, but not their initiation mechanism."

http://web.globalserve.net/~lambdac/PwrfromAEemissions.html

 

[Dancing David]

I see you are back, but quoting something is not answering the question Brantc, I ask it simply so respond to the questions:

1. MM stated that the electrons were moving towards the positively charged heliosphere.
2. MM also stated that the electrons were 'dragging' the positive ions towards the heliosphere.

Which is fine both these statements seem to be okay.

The question which is you could answer simply (and then we can expand is this):

If there positive ions are positively charged (which I assume is why they are called positive ions) are they not going to be repelled by the positive charge of the heliosphere, proportionate to the inverse of their distance from the heliosphere?

I assume you are smart enough to answer the question, it was not how can the electrons drag along the positive ions, it was 'what keeps the positive ions moving towards and past the positively charged heliosphere'?

MM's theory seems to be violating Coulomb’s law, and it does not involve QM effects.

That paper looks interesting but maybe you could explain how it is related to the question I asked.


Unless you are here to play the standard PC game which is to mention irrelevant points and not answer direct questions.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Corona Redux

How, exactly, nobody knows. However, the problem is not that there are no explanations available, but rather how to choose between the likely candidates.

All of them involve "current flow" don't they?

That depends on my knowing why you chose to put "current flow" in quotation marks. You usually insist on classical electrical currents, like electrons flowing in a wire. If that's what you mean, then I answer no, none of the mechanisms involve that kind of current flow. If, on the other hand, you mean to include flow in an otherwise charge neutral plasma (i.e., the positive & negative charge carriers are not bound into neutral units, but are equal in number, such that the net charge in a representative volume is zero), then I answer yes, they do involve that. But not necessarily directly. For instance, Alfven waves are certainly not a current of any kind, but owe their existence to the flow of a charge neutral plasma (as described above). If Alfven waves are directly responsible for heating the corona and accelerating the solar wind, as may well be the case, then the "current flow" is only indirectly involved.

Which specific natural process is known to emit gamma rays in the Earth's atmosphere? Shouldn't we start there?

Broad band gamma emission in Earth's atmosphere comes from discharge mechanisms (i.e., lightning, sprites & etc), while narrow line emission comes from positron annihilation, neutron absorption and nuclear relaxation. So if we do in fact "start there", we get exactly what I said before. The narrow line emission as seen by RHESSI is most easily explained in terms of the usual suspects (which do not and indeed cannot include electrical discharge).

One might appeal to electrical discharge to explain broad band gamma emission from the sun, but that would be naive. Electrical discharge is not a mechanism that is actually directly responsible for an gamma ray emission. Rather, it is the electrical discharge that accelerates electrons to high energy, and that is what is directly responsible for the gamma ray emission. So anything that accelerates electrons to high energy will do the job. Electrical discharge is not physically reasonable in the case of the sun because there is no known physics to generate the required continuous charge separation. However, there is lots of known physics to generate Alfven waves, and Alfven waves will certainly accelerate electrons to high energy. So naturally, we start with the known physics, and appeal to the unknown physics only after the known physics is known to fail.

That will have to do for now, more meetings tonight.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That depends on my knowing why you chose to put "current flow" in quotation marks. You usually insist on classical electrical currents, like electrons flowing in a wire. If that's what you mean, then I answer no, none of the mechanisms involve that kind of current flow. If, on the other hand, you mean to include flow in an otherwise charge neutral plasma (i.e., the positive & negative charge carriers are not bound into neutral units, but are equal in number, such that the net charge in a representative volume is zero), then I answer yes, they do involve that.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701

I'd like you to read through this paper Tim and consider the following:

Electrical discharges occur in the Earth's atmosphere and release gamma rays in the process. Why would you not consider the single most obvious explanation for these high energy photons? The plasma is "current carrying" inside coronal loops, just as an ordinary plasma filament is 'current carrying'.

I don't want throw too much at you at once since I know you're busy and I would like you to read that paper and answer my primary question before we go any further. I'm hoping that paper changes your mind a bit.

IMO you and I *both* require a discharge to fully explain these events. These neutron capture signatures in particular are most easily explained in discharge activity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I see you are back, but quoting something is not answering the question Brantc, I ask it simply so respond to the questions:

1. MM stated that the electrons were moving towards the positively charged heliosphere.
2. MM also stated that the electrons were 'dragging' the positive ions towards the heliosphere.

Which is fine both these statements seem to be okay.

If you read through Birkeland's terella (metal sphere) experiments, you'll find that when he charged the outside of the sphere as a cathode, the sphere discharged itself toward the chamber and carried particles along the way. He even describes having to clean the soot off the glass. He also noticed "loop like" structures formed at the "bumps" of his terella, and he could control their positioning based upon current flow and the magnetic field strength inside the sphere. I have one of his images side by side with a yohkoh x-ray image of the solar atmosphere during an active phase. These are not "coincidences". The continuous flow of particles from the sun, the high energy discharges, the tornado like effects, all of these things are related to current flow and magnetic fields. Bruce by the way documented the relationship between propagation speeds in the solar atmosphere and discharges on Earth. Bruce wrote extensively about discharge theory and his work and Birkeland's work and Alfven's work are all "first rate". Their work is also loaded with that "math stuff" everyone seems to like too. I'm more of a "show me" sort of guy, but the math is useful as well.

If there positive ions are positively charged (which I assume is why they are called positive ions) are they not going to be repelled by the positive charge of the heliosphere, proportionate to the inverse of their distance from the heliosphere?

I'm assuming it's more like a "flow pattern", and by the time the protons reach a certain distance, many of them have picked up a spare electron from somewhere and cooled off a bit and are not necessarily charged at that point. I assume the heliosphere works a bit like the Earth's magnetosphere and that it is a moving and flowing process, not a stagnant wall of particles. I'm looking forward to the IBEX data and I'm looking forward to the IMAX movie coming here to the West Coast. That will be very enlightening on this topic specifically IMO.

I assume you are smart enough to answer the question, it was not how can the electrons drag along the positive ions, it was 'what keeps the positive ions moving towards and past the positively charged heliosphere'?

I think you're assuming they *stay* positively charged forever which I do not, and that the heliosphere is semi-rigid in some way, which I do not.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/03/swift-detects-x-ray-emissions-from-comets/

By the way, you can see the effect of the electron "pick-up" process in comet activity:

Comets suddenly become significant X-ray generators as they get blasted by solar wind ions. The total power output from the coma can top a billion Watts.

A billion watts is only possible because we live inside an electric universe and there is "current flow" from the surface to the heliosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.ibex.swri.edu/
Here is the link to the IBEX data which should help shed some light on your questions DD.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That clarifies what I thought the experiments showed.

My comment about KamLAND being a controlled experiment was to cater for MM's obsession with controlled vs uncontrolled experiments. I suspect that any oscillations detected in solar neutrinos fits his criteria for uncontrolled (and so can be ignored) experiments.

The oscillation idea in general is theoretically "testable" via controlled experimentation. I'm not sure that it has been fully established that they oscillate from one to another as of this particular date. A lot of "missing" neutrino observations have been observed in controlled experiments but I"m not sure about the progress on establishing an actual oscillation observation from controlled experiments with a known and measured source. I haven't kept up however so feel free to set me straight.

Simply *assuming* that all the neutrino flavors we observe from the sun began as electron neutrinos remains to be seen IMO. I rather doubt that is the case in fact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Really?

Really.

Because in the solutions we're discussing, the lines reconnect in the most literal possible sense.

What "literally" (physically) reconnects? Carrier particles as in induction, or ions and electrons as in "current flow"? Neither type of "reconnection" would be a form of "magnetic reconnection". Induction already has a proper name and it generates 'current flow'.

Let me ask you a simple question, can "magnetic reconnection" occur and release energy in a pure vacuum, devoid of all ions and electrons?