Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Reality Check]

Reality check,what values did you use for M_r and _r in your equations?

How many Coulomb's did you estimate from the solar surface (visible) to Heliosheath? (80-100Au) approx but Several? has a few meaning but lets just say 210-300Au "downwind".

What would _r be using the above example?

Remembering the E field extends from the visible surface to the Heliosheath's boundary. i.e. the boundary of the Suns double layer.

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Gas_discharge.jpg

Read the paper by L. Neslusan (who by the way is not me as I stated in the original post)

 

[Sol88]

Anaconda

Apparently, you have not understood a word of what I wrote in my lengthy answer. And apparently you cannot read, and similar to Sol88 you put words in the mouths of other people (in this case Reality Check) to hide your misunderstanding of what is written. But anywhoooooooooooooooo



(First, you can use the "quote" button in every message, then you don't have to write "tusenfem wrote", and which makes it clearer what the quoted text is and what you wrote).

Plasma scaling, yeah I know, Alfvén has written about it, but would you please tell me how you would like to scale my laboratory double layers (well I also discussed them on the sun, so not really laboratory) to the universe? Observations in the Earth's magnetosphere have shown that double layers in nature are indeed several tens of deBye lengths. Unfortunately, I cannot find the reference at the moment, but plasma physics calculations on double layers, trying to find out the size, have shown that this is a good estimate. That is all based on the way that DLs can be create (instabilities and such) which all lead to a scaling with the deBye length. And yes, you can "scale up" the deBye length, because that is dependent on density, temperature, plasma composition.

But I asked you, what do you mean with the "power" of a DL? Do you mean how much it will accelerate an electron or ion? The gamut of DL electric field strengths runs from very weak (less then the thermal energy of the plasma particles) to relativistic (meaning that electrons can be accelerated over 0.5 MeV). The question is moot, because it all depends on what the situation is. Double layers are effects in a plasma, not causes. An example:

Current in the Earth's magnetosphere, field aligned. The current flows from the relative dense plasmasheet in the tail to the high latitude regions which have much less density. Now, at a certain point the density will become too small to maintain j = n q v, and thus, as current must be divergenceless in this region, the only possibility is to increase v. This is done by the creation of an electric field, maintained by a DL.

So, cause and effect. DLs are created by instabilities or discontinuities.



So, you do not mean dynamo, you mean that the accelerated particles exiting a DL can again create instabilities (see my "solar flare" paper, did you download it?) and thus drive some dynamic processes. NOTE dynamo ≠ dynamic.

And then, as an important aside, most of the electric fields that accelerate particles are inductive electric fields, created by moving magnetic fields. Double layers are not inductive electric fields and they are few and far between.

And also non-constant forces accelerate particles and can be important for processes. E.g. electron acceleration through solitary kinetic Alfvén waves, where in the end the wave is gone and the particles are energized.

Tusenfem, your magnetosphere double layer specialist here, perhaps you could tell the posters here the difference between the Earths magnetosphere, Jupiter's, Saturn's and or Sol's to name just a few?

Are they all basically the same or each one is highly dynamic and hard to approximate?

io's flux tube is transferring 2 x 10¹⁸ watts and a 1 x 10⁶ amps sounds alot, is it? or is it insignificant?

 

[tusenfem]

Is that correct? 10^-36 I thought it was 10³⁶ to 10³⁹?

Did I miss read something here?

Sol88 once more showing his ignorance and misunderstanding.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88 once more showing his ignorance and misunderstanding.

Not quite. He just noticed a typo:

The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 10⁻³⁶ of the magnitude of gravity

should read

The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 10³⁶ of the magnitude of gravity

This has nothing to do with the actual calculation in the paper.

 

[tusenfem]

Tusenfem, your magnetosphere double layer specialist here, perhaps you could tell the posters here the difference between the Earths magnetosphere, Jupiter's, Saturn's and or Sol's to name just a few?

Are they all basically the same or each one is highly dynamic and hard to approximate?

io's flux tube is transferring 2 x 10¹⁸ watts and a 1 x 10⁶ amps sounds alot, is it? or is it insignificant?

yadayadayadayada

Check your spelling, Sol88, e.g. "your magnetosphere double layer specialist here" is rather strange, because I have no specialist, and if I had one, I would doubt that he was "here" with you.

Every magnetosphere is different: in size, field strength, rotation rate, dynamics etc. etc. Why not buy Kivelson & Russell: Introduction to Space Physics, a very good introductory and overview book.

Io's flux tube is interesting, and there is a lot of power dissipated there, and creates a nice aurora at the polar regions of Jupiter. Is is much? Depends on what you compare it with, now doesn't it. It is huge if you compare it with the energy of the plasma in the Jovian magnetosphere. It is insignificant if you compare it to the rotational energy of Jupiter. These kind of questions are meaningless, unless you put them into perspective.

Also, what does this have to do with my reply to Anaconda????
You keep on amazing me (and not in a pleasant way).

 

[Sol88]

Sol88 once more showing his ignorance and misunderstanding.

Apology accepted, Tusenfem.

Did you happen to browse thru that particular paper?

Check your spelling, Sol88, e.g. "your magnetosphere double layer specialist here" is rather strange, because I have no specialist, and if I had one, I would doubt that he was "here" with you.

Yeah typical Sol88 cock up, "your magnetosphere double layer specialist here" should read You are the magnetosphereic and double layer specialist here

Cool now!

 

[edd]

Not quite. He just noticed a typo:

The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 10−36 of the magnitude of gravity

should read

The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 1036 of the magnitude of gravity

This has nothing to do with the actual calculation in the paper.

No, there's no typo. The electrostatic force between the two stars is 10^-36 that of the gravitational force, not 10³⁶.

You're roughly comparing the force between two 77C charges and two solar masses at the same distance apart. A coulomb of charge is a lot of charge but a solar mass is a heck of a lot of mass.

 

[Reality Check]

No, there's no typo. The electrostatic force between the two stars is 10^-36 that of the gravitational force, not 10³⁶.

You're roughly comparing the force between two 77C charges and two solar masses at the same distance apart. A coulomb of charge is a lot of charge but a solar mass is a heck of a lot of mass.

You are right - the preceding sentence is

We can also demonstrate that the electrostatic interaction between two idealized stars charged with the electrostatic charges, derived here, is extremely weak compared to gravity.

 

[tusenfem]

Apology accepted, Tusenfem.

Did you happen to browse thru that particular paper?

I ain't no appologizing I ain't!!

Yes I did, a "long time ago" already, basically when it came out. I see in the abstract that:

The global stellar electrostatic field is 918 times stronger than the corresponding stellar gravity and compensates for a half of the gravity, when it acts on an electron or proton, respectively.

That is on an electron or proton, however, does not discuss the interaction between two charged stars. However, that could also be easily calculated.

I am not so sure if this:

We can also demonstrate that the electrostatic interaction between two idealized stars charged with the electrostatic charges, derived here, is extremely weak compared to gravity. The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 10⁻³⁶ of the magnitude of gravity

is really a typo as Reality Check says. The fact quoted above from the abstract comes from the discussion, which is more refined:

However, if we study the dynamics of an electrically charged elementary
particle or ion, with mass mx and charge qx, then the electrostatic force acting between this particle and charge Qr is −qx(mp−me)=(2qmx) multiple of gravitational force. Thus, the magnitude of the force represents about 50% of the magnitude of gravity, if the star acts on proton, and it is about 918 times more intensive than gravity, if the star acts on electron.

However, one could calculate, of course, F_G and F_E for the two stars.

r² F_G = G M_sun² = 6.7E-11 * (2E+30)² = 2.7E+50
r² F_e = (4πε₀)^-1 Q_r² = 9E+9 * 77² = 5.3E13 (or 5.3E19)
(unless I read the number wrong and it should be 77043 (and the dot is not a decimal dot), that adds another 1E+6 to the electric force)

Mmmmmmmmm rather big difference for two solar mass stars.

Ahhh, I saw that edd found the same as I did, and that Reality Check saw it too now.

 

[Sol88]

So where does that leave us?

 

[sol invictus]

Wrong. Sure accelerated charged particles radiate.

Back to your old habit of arguing with yourself?

But processes that produce synchotron radiation are much more specific (much higher energy) and not simply due to disordered movements of -e's.

They're not only due to that. As for energy, I said nothing about it.

 

[sol invictus]

So where does that leave us?

Where we should have started - with everyone acknowledging that electromagnetic forces have zero effect on the motions of stellar-mass objects, let alone galaxies and galaxy clusters.

In other words, plasma has little to do with cosmology.

 

[Dancing David]

Tusenfem wrote

Considering

1%?

Even a partially ionized gas in which as little as 1% of the particles are ionized can have the characteristics of a plasma (i.e. respond to magnetic fields and be highly electrically conductive).

Which other ionized gases are NOT plasma's then Tusenfem?

Hi Sol88, I had a very nive discusion with Ian Tresman on this very quote. Would you care to find the source?

It is a quote from Alven and what you will find is that it is very specific as to which parts of that 'plasma' characteristics are operating uder the '1%' ionization. Just to let you know, iy involves a very specific part of plasma, not all the charateristics of plasma.

It has to do with the fact that momentum amongst charged partciles is transferred at a higher aret than the mechanical momentum. It does not have to do with carrying a current or magnetic organization at all.

So would you like to find the quote?

That way we can discuss how many 'charteristics' of plasma a 1% ionization rate can produce.

BTW: I just checked Ian Tresman's web site and he modified it! That is what makes him very nice to chat with. He still has the '1% ionization' quote but he has modified the page to reflect a more accurate picture than it has previously.

 

[Dancing David]

Here is the quote that Ian had

".. it is convenient to discuss separately the properties of weakly ionized gases, where the collisions of the charged particles with the neutral gas molecules are the most important, and those of highly ionized gases, where collisions between charged particles play a dominant role. It must then be observed that due to the large effective cross-section for collisions between charged particles, such collisions can be dominant even at a relatively low degree of ionization. Thus, as far as collision processes are concerned, plasmas with degrees of ionization larger than 1 per cent are to be considered as highly ionized." (emphasis in original) Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, Cosmical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edition, 1963 (p.145)

from here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-109843.html

 

[Dancing David]

So, people not gonna bother saying anything about my post above? Just another post to be lost and forgotten forever in this thread I guess...

*ETA Sol, will try again.

[btw, what does ETA stand for? Just realised I used it without actually knowing what its an abbreviation for, I've just noticed other people seem to use it in this sort of way]

ETA: Edit to Add,

the question Zeuzzz is this, in large scale plasmas what maintains the charge seperation, according to plasma physics there must be an energy source to maintain the charge seperation.

That was my understanding at least.

So choose your large scale plasma , which might have double layers and then state the energy source?

 

[Reality Check]

So where does that leave us?

With what?

If it is the recent posts then we now have a maximum charge on the Sun of 77.043 Coulombs. This means that the galactic magnetic field exerts a force on the Sun that is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times less than that of the gravitational force of the galaxy.

 

[Sol88]

64 million dollar question

the question Zeuzzz is this, in large scale plasmas what maintains the charge seperation, according to plasma physics there must be an energy source to maintain the charge seperation.

That was my understanding at least.

So choose your large scale plasma , which might have double layers and then state the energy source?

No one knows!

Much like saying what came before the big bang!

 

[Sol88]

Reality check,what values did you use for M_r and _r in your equations?

How many Coulomb's did you estimate from the solar surface (visible) to Heliosheath? (80-100Au) approx but Several? has a few meaning but lets just say 210-300Au "downwind".

What would _r be using the above example?

Remembering the E field extends from the visible surface to the Heliosheath's boundary. i.e. the boundary of the Suns double layer.

[qimg]http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Gas_discharge.jpg[/qimg]

Reality check,what values did you use for M_r and _r in your equations?

and a quote from On the global electrostatic charge of stars

Inspecting the conditions assumed in the derivation procedure of the eld (3) in more detail, it is clear that the result is valid for an ideally quiet, perfectly spherical, non-rotating star. Obviously real stars do not have physical properties completely identical to ideal stars and this causes the instantaneous global charge of a given star to different from the value Q of an ideal star. Nevertheless, the star permanently tends to set up this charging and we can assume it as a rough approximation (rough but much better than exact neutrality).

An ideal star?

Global electrostatic charge?

Something doesn't seem correct here RC, what am I missing?

 

[Reality Check]

Reality check,what values did you use for M_r and _r in your equations?

One more time for the unable to comprehend:

1. Not my paper.
2. Not my calculations

If you could read you would see that M_r is solar masses. So I would put M_r = 1 and get Q_r = 77.043 Coulombs.

 

[Reality Check]

Reality check,what values did you use for M_r and _r in your equations?

and a quote from On the global electrostatic charge of stars

An ideal star?

Global electrostatic charge?

Something doesn't seem correct here RC, what am I missing?

You are missing the ability to comprehend what you read. As I already said:
Note that even the author states that their calculation is a rough approximation. This means that they may be as much as an order of magnitude out (in either direction) compared to a fuller treatment.

But then they would have to be 22 orders of magnitude off in order for the galactic magnetic field to have any efffect on the Sun's orbit.