Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Reality Check]

More boloney. Birkeland showed that it must be which is why he "predicted" (real prediction via real experiments) high speed solar wind!

More boloney.
Birkeland speculated that there was a solar wind and was right.
He never produced a solar wind in his experiments.
I have never seen a predication from him of the speed of the solar wind.

First asked 28 December 2009
Michael Mozina,
Can you give a citation for Birkeland's prediction for the high speed solar wind?
We know that he predicted a solar wind. All you need to do is cite where he calculated the speed of the solar wind. Then we can compare it to the actual measured speed of the solar wind.

I have seen a prediction of the speed of his cathode-ray pencils which are not any known solar phenomena and was wrong for speeds of the the solar wind, flare, and CME events.

First asked 28 December 2009
Michael Mozina,
Just what are Birkeland's cathode-ray pencils in modern terms?
They are not the solar wind which is both protons and electrons.
They are not flares which are both protons and electrons.
They are not CME which are both protons and electrons.
Also the maximium speed involbed in these is one CME that got to half the speed of light.

A question first asked on 27 December 2009:

I looked up the context of the quote in his book and you are right.
Birkeland is actually talking about "long pencils of cathode-rays" from electrical discharges from his metal globes when a magnetic field is not applied.
These discharges look a bit like sunspots when a magnetic field is applied.

Birkeland states on page 662

If the pressure of the gas is very small during these discharges, there issues (fig. 249, globe not magnetised) from each of the patches
narrow pencil of cathode-rays so intense that the gas is illuminated all along the pencil up to the wall of the tube. This splendid phenomenon
recalls our hypothesis according to which sun-spots sometimes send out into space long pencils of cathode-rays.

So he is not really talking about what we call solar flares - they are not "long pencils" of particles as Birkeland must have known.

Someone like you who knows such a lot about experimental physics rolleyes will instantly see the defect in Birkeland's analysis of his experiments. Figs 248 and 249 should give you a clue. You will need to know some basic electromagnetism.

I do not think, however, that Schuster's objections have any serious bearing on my theory, if we consiider the properties which the new sunbeams must be assumed to possess.
I have shown that cathode-rays from the sun, which are to strike down towards the earth in the Aurora polaris zones, must have a transversal mass about m = 1.83 X 10^3 X m . In other words, the longitudinal mass of our particles is 6 milliard times greater than the mass of the particles upon which Schuster calculates in his energy-comments. Thus these cathode-rays will pass the earth, not with a velocity of 9 kilometres, but with a velocity very little short of that of light.

Birkeland is stating that the cathode-rays (electrons) will pass the Earth with a velocity very little short of the speed of light. He is wrong as we now know that

1. There are no electrical discharges on the Sun. Sunspots are primarily magnetic phenomena.
2. The Sun emits protons and electrons.
3. Their velocity is much less than the speed of light.

As for your link - the speed of particles in solar storms is typically much less than the speed of light.
Solar flare: "Most proton storms take two or more hours from the time of visual detection to reach Earth's orbit. A solar flare on January 20, 2005 released the highest concentration of protons ever directly measured,[3] taking only 15 minutes after observation to reach Earth, indicating a velocity of approximately one-half light speed.".

This was a A New Kind of Solar Storm and not typical of solar storms. It was the only storm of this type to be confirmed in 2005 (a proton storm in February 1956 is suspected to be similiar).

 

[ben m]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...rossed-magnetic-streams-and-magnetic-portals/

If you take all of the pop science articles where a scientist is quoted as saying "We don't understand X", then you'd think we know nothing at all. This quote is found in nearly every popular science article ever written.

Find me a research article describing what, specifically, is wrong with the mainstream model of solar flares. I have been very specific about what is wrong with the EU model.

 

[Reality Check]

"The problem is, researchers can’t explain it."
Something very interesting and fundamental is going on that we don’t really understand — not from laboratory experiments or from simulations,” says Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...rossed-magnetic-streams-and-magnetic-portals/

First point:
The Geospace Physics Laboratory is involved with the "exploration and study of the heliosphere through the conception and development of missions designed to observe its origins, evolution, and interactions with the Earth, other planets, and the interstellar medium.". Thus Melvyn Goldstein is probably talking about the observed magnetic reconnection events in the heliosphere, espcially those around the Earth.

Second point:
Understanding something that is not really understand is what science is all about.

 

[brantc]

How could you not understand something from experiment and simulations unless your basic physics assumptions are wrong.

"Whenever the attractive force between simulation columns such that the repulsive force starts to become comparable to the attractive force, a burst in radiation occurs. For the parameters used in these simulations, this distance is of the order of several pinch radii." (Biot-Savart Law)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...att86TPS-I.pdf

The burst of radiation is from a "single filament discharge arc" between the filaments leading to a pinch in the discharge causing the burst of radiation.
Or a double layer forms between the filaments when they get close enough and the double layer accelerates protons in one direction and electrons in the other direction forming jets.

Polarization in Gamma-Ray Bursts Produced by Pinch Discharge
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c03905

 

[brantc]

More boloney.
Birkeland speculated that there was a solar wind and was right.
He never produced a solar wind in his experiments.
I have never seen a predication from him of the speed of the solar wind.

I suspect that there was a particle flow from his sphere to the wall of his Terrella.

 

[Reality Check]

I suspect that there was a particle flow from his sphere to the wall of his Terrella.

There was a flow of electrons.
But the solar wind, etc consists of electrons and protons as Birkeland was the first to state.

 

[Reality Check]

How could you not understand something from experiment and simulations unless your basic physics assumptions are wrong.

Read the news article that you quoted: It is about the fact that the observed magnetic reconnection events in the Earth's magnetosphere are not really understood. This means that

• Magnetic reconnection has been detected to occur.
• What happens in these events does not really agree with the computer simulations and experiments.
• Thus there are aspects of the real world magnetic reconnects that science does not currently really understand.

It is not that there is no understanding of the magnetic reconnection events. It is that the understanding that we have of these events is incompletse.
We know from measurements that they are magnetic reconnection events. It is just that what is going on is more complex than we expected, i.e. there are factors missing from the computer simulations and experiments.

The "basic physics assumptions" are that Maxwell's equations are right (they allow for magnetic reconnection).
If you have any evidence that Maxwell's equations are wrong then you should publish a paper and win a Nobel Prize!

I will ignore the "Polarization in Gamma-Ray Bursts Produced by Pinch Discharge" in your post since it has nothing to do with magnetic reconnection.
The other link does not work but looks like Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets Anthony Perrat (1986). That is a prime example of the wrong physical assumptions leading to the computer simulations that give results that are fatally flawed.

Just to emphasis the point:
The physical assumptions behind magnetic reconnection are not wrong. Maxwell's equations allow magnetic reconnection. The observations of magnetic reconnection in experiments means that magnetic reconnection can happen in reality. The observation of actual magnetic reconnection means that it happens in reality.
But ... Like many other phenomena that the universe presents us, we do not fully ("really") understand magnetic reconnection, e.g.

A current problem in plasma physics is that observed reconnection happens much faster than predicted by MHD in high Lundquist number plasmas: solar flares, for example, proceed 13-14 orders of magnitude faster than a naive calculation would suggest, and several orders of magnitude faster than current theoretical models that include turbulence and kinetic effects. There are two competing theories to explain the discrepancy. One posits that the electromagnetic turbulence in the boundary layer is sufficiently strong to scatter electrons, raising the plasma's local resistivity. This would allow the magnetic flux to diffuse faster.
A second explanation, from Hall MHD states that the ions decouple from that magnetic field at a distance comparable to the ion skin depth,

. The electrons are then accelerated to very high speeds by Whistler waves. Because the ions can move through a wider "bottleneck" near the current layer and because the electrons are moving much faster in Hall MHD than in standard MHD, reconnection may proceed more quickly.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Whereas dark energy, inflation and magnetic reconnection are pure science.

The dead "iron sun" deity is definitely woo.

You people *really* have a problem distinguishing between physically real things (like iron) and "make believe" things like "inflation" and "dark energy". An empirical theory can be right or wrong but it can never be "woo". Only invisible stuff that is shy around a lab is "woo".

FYI, Alfven applied his theories to a "gas model" solar theory, so from the standpoint of EU theory it's actually irrelevant what you think of Birkeland's solar model.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, I'm saying that there is no electrostatic voltage involved; that magnetic field lines reconnect as usual;

Gah! Magnetic fields form as a completely and full continuum. They are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" from any other field line! Only "circuits" "disconnect" and "reconnect".

and that energy is transferred from magnetic field energy density to particle kinetic energies.

That is called "INDUCTION". It already has a "proper" scientific term!

The thing that is "wrong" with you theory is that it is "psuedoscience" according to the author of MHD theory. Magnetic lines are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other magnetic field lines. Induction is not "magnetic reconnection" and 'induction' is the proper scientific term for what you're describing! Are those criticisms specific enough for you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

There was a flow of electrons.
But the solar wind, etc consists of electrons and protons as Birkeland was the first to state.

How did "soot" from the metal sphere get on the glass of the chamber walls?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I suspect that there was a particle flow from his sphere to the wall of his Terrella.

Lots of it in fact, and not just electrons.

 

[ben m]

Gah! Magnetic fields form as a completely and full continuum. They are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" from any other field line! Only "circuits" "disconnect" and "reconnect".

No, the "crossover" happens at points where |B|=0, and it is totally fine---nay, necessary, I think---that two lines enter and two lines leave such points. The vector fields are just fine and there is no violation of continuity.

The thing that is "wrong" with you theory is that it is "psuedoscience" according to the author of MHD theory. Magnetic lines are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other magnetic field lines.

If that is Alfven's claim, Alfven is wrong. (I repeat myself.)

 

[ben m]

How did "soot" from the metal sphere get on the glass of the chamber walls?

Sorry, is that supposed to be evidence that a metal-ion wind was blowing towards the walls? You've heard of sputtering?

 

[tusenfem]

First point:
The Geospace Physics Laboratory is involved with the "exploration and study of the heliosphere through the conception and development of missions designed to observe its origins, evolution, and interactions with the Earth, other planets, and the interstellar medium.". Thus Melvyn Goldstein is probably talking about the observed magnetic reconnection events in the heliosphere, espcially those around the Earth.

Second point:
Understanding something that is not really understand is what science is all about.

And Mel is right, there is something we do not know, and what we do not know is what exactly is going on in the electron diffusion region in which the magnetic null is embedded. MMS the mission about which is written, has a separation that should be small enough to have multiple spacecraft inside the electron diffusion region. (for those who do not know what this is, this is the region around the reconnection site where the electrons are no longer bound to the magnetic field) These multiple spacecraft in that region will give the possibility (like Cluster did in the ion diffusion region, which is much bigger) to measure magnetic field gradients, determine associated currents etc. etc.

In the laboratory, only now we are getting to the point that this electron diffusion region can also be measured. Experiments by Intrator et al. are now reaching the point that they can have probes on the electron inertial scale and now start to probe the electron diffusion region.

That is the context in which Mel's comments should be seen.

 

[tusenfem]

How could you not understand something from experiment and simulations unless your basic physics assumptions are wrong.

"Whenever the attractive force between simulation columns such that the repulsive force starts to become comparable to the attractive force, a burst in radiation occurs. For the parameters used in these simulations, this distance is of the order of several pinch radii." (Biot-Savart Law)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...att86TPS-I.pdf

The burst of radiation is from a "single filament discharge arc" between the filaments leading to a pinch in the discharge causing the burst of radiation.
Or a double layer forms between the filaments when they get close enough and the double layer accelerates protons in one direction and electrons in the other direction forming jets.

Can you please explain that a little bit better, what you want to do with your magical double layer?
A double layer forms between the filaments - which orientation has this double layer - why would it form between the filaments - what is driving the double layer.

I know that in EU a double layer can do anything (more than I ever wrote in the introduction chapter of my PhD thesis), but this is a bit vague even for me, so please, explain.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, the "crossover" happens at points where |B|=0, and it is totally fine---nay, necessary, I think---that two lines enter and two lines leave such points.

How much energy is "stored" in a magnetic field where |B|=0?

If that is Alfven's claim, Alfven is wrong. (I repeat myself.)

It was Alfven's claim and I'd like to see you demonstrate that Alfven was wrong on that point.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Can you please explain that a little bit better, what you want to do with your magical double layer?

Double layers are not magical. Even Langmuir understood them better than you folks.

A double layer forms between the filaments - which orientation has this double layer - why would it form between the filaments - what is driving the double layer.

"Current flow" from one filament to the other. This is also known as a "short circuit" and at any second it can become unstable and "explosive". We may even see a change in the "circuit topology".

I know that in EU a double layer can do anything (more than I ever wrote in the introduction chapter of my PhD thesis), but this is a bit vague even for me, so please, explain.

Now that you've heard the explanation, let's hear your response.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry, is that supposed to be evidence that a metal-ion wind was blowing towards the walls? You've heard of sputtering?

I think you just "explained" solar wind?

 

[Michael Mozina]

More boloney.
Birkeland speculated that there was a solar wind and was right.
He never produced a solar wind in his experiments.

You know RC, when you say ignorant stuff like this, it's really hard to take you seriously. He most certainly produced it and therefore "predicted" it. Nobody at the time was claiming solar wind traveled at more than a few kilometers/second at the time. Birkeland was the first one to predict that the particle flow was "high speed" and during solar storms could approach even light speed. He didn't 'make it up in his head' like you folks, he build "real physical empirical experiments" and his "predictions" were a direct result of the standard empirical method. When you simply go into pure denial like this it becomes very clear you didn't ever read his material. I have quoted him for Geemack in one of these threads somewhere. The fact you can't even be bothered to keep up with these conversations speaks volumes IMO.

 

[tusenfem]

Double layers are not magical. Even Langmuir understood them better than you folks.

yeah yeah I know we are nitwits

"Current flow" from one filament to the other. This is also known as a "short circuit" and at any second it can become unstable and "explosive". We may even see a change in the "circuit topology".

And why exactly is this double layer forming? Just current flow from one filament to the other does not make a double layer.
And why should this be a "short circuit" when both currents are flowing to the same anode from the plasma guns.
Also double layers cannot accelerate plasma perpendicular to the magnetic field like is seen in reconnection, nor can they accelerate ions and electrons in the same direction as is seen in reconnection.
And "at any second they can become unstable and "explosive" gimme a break. I worked on double layers for hours at the Alfvén Laboratory in Stockholm, and none of them ever exploded.
And you still don't understand the change in magnetic topology that is happening at reconnection. You cannot get that with induction, nor with any other name you want to give magnetic reconnection.
Your model is lacking, maybe you should rethink it, and write up specifically what is happening, including figures, equations etc.

Now that you've heard the explanation, let's hear your response.

Well, my basic answer is that it is nonsense.