Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection I
Got a link to a paper where gamma rays were created by "magnetic reconnection" in a lab Tim? You've always been such a great source of info on such topics.
No, but then again, so what? You fall victim to the extreme logical fallacy that
anything which cannot be recreated exactly in a laboratory cannot be an example of valid empirical science. On that point, as has been exhaustively pointed out in the past,
you are dead wrong (e.g.,
What is "Empirical" Science? III). The universe at large, and the astrophysical systems in it are far larger than any laboratory could possibly be. The universe at large, and the astrophysical systems in it are capable of far larger energies than any laboratory could ever generate or contain. Therefore it is a
logical necessity that the universe at large, and the astrophysical systems in it can and will generate phenomena which cannot possibly exist in any conceivable Earth-based laboratory. It is therefore not relevant whether or not magnetic reconnection generates gamma rays in a lab.
It is relevant that magnetic reconnection
has actually been observed in Earth-based laboratory experiments (e.g.,
Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III), a fact which you brazenly continue to deny, which says more about the relationship between you and ignorance personified, than anything else. It is relevant that accelerated charged particles will emit electromagnetic radiation, as a necessary consequence of the laws of physics. And it is relevant that, given a high enough acceleration, those charged particles will emit gamma rays. We have been over all of this before, and on this point you remain steadfastly as wrong now as you were then,
and will always be.
You seem to be dismissing "discharges" as an option based on this specific criticism as I understand it:
Electric discharge, as I understand the words, is not physically reasonable. In order to have "electric discharge", you have to mechanically separate charges to build up a strong electric field (that's what Bruce tries to do). Then you get breakdown and discharge arcs. Then you have to do it all over again. It's pretty hard to tell the difference between that scenario and a perpetual motion machine. If the energy we see is all supposed to come from the discharges, then where does the energy come from, and what is the mechanism, that produces charge separation in the first place? And since you are separating charges in an electrically conductive environment, how do you prevent quick discharge, and manage to build up strong electric fields?
Alfven handles that by suggesting it's connected to different points on the photosphere and the movements of plasma around the footprints continues and therefore continues to generate the charge.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963IAUS...16...35
Once again, you are entirely wrong. Alfven is talking about electric
currents, not electric
discharges. Bruce talks about electric
discharges as a result of friction between dust particles, and Bruce's argument is absolute garbage that violates the laws of physics with gusto & determination. As for the electric
currents, neither I nor the standard model of solar physics have any problem with electric currents flowing throughout the photosphere of the sun and above. Indeed, electric currents are a necessary requirement of the standard model.
Bruce and his work can be dispensed with as a joke pure & simple. Alfven was right that electric currents flow in the sun, but his manner of describing them is not well suited for modern plasma physics, which is far more complicated than anything Alfven dealt with. But you don't accept Alfven anyway, so why do you even bother with him? It is the primary claim of the
electric sun theory that nuclear reactions inside the sun are either a minor source of energy, or absent altogether, and that the sun is powered by electric currents flowing into the sun from the outside. It is crucial to point out that this electric sun hypothesis is not consistent with anything Alfven ever said or did. So, if you accept the
electric sun, then as a necessary logical consequence, you must reject Alfven. Likewise, if you accept Alfven, then you must reject both the
electric sun, and in particular everything from Bruce. Make up your mind.
I stand fast by the conclusion I voiced over a year ago:
It makes far better physical sense to realize that magnetic reconnection will transfer a great deal of kinetic energy directly to the plasma, and that Faraday's Law will also generate strong (but temporary) electric fields as a result of the ubiquitous and unavoidable dynamo magnetic fields in the photosphere. This completely avoids all of the physical difficulties related to discharge mechanisms, is all completely consistent with known basic physics, and is all completely consistent with the wide variety of observed properties of the sun.
In short, the mainstream models work well and make physical sense, whereas the electrical discharge mechanism does not work and does not make physical sense. Hence, unless you can come up with far stronger arguments than you have managed to muster thus far, I will stick to the mainstream.
