Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[GeeMack]

When does Occum's razor apply to this argument? Electrical current/discharges through plasma can generate and do generate x-rays and gamma rays on Earth and other bodies in the solar system every single day. Why do I need something "exotic" and something Alfven labeled "pseudoscience" to explain what nature does with electricity every single day of the year?

Occam's razor would actually lead us to the simple answer that there aren't electrical discharges in a plasma. Electrical discharges require an insulator, more particularly a dielectric, and the subsequent breakdown of the insulating capability of that dielectric creating a pathway for the current. That's what an electrical discharge is. Plasma is a conducting medium not an insulator, therefore there are no electrical discharges through plasma. Any arguments suggesting otherwise, after all the times it's been explained in this and related threads on this forum, are the result of seriously unqualified or poorly considered guessing, abject ignorance, complete dishonesty, or possibly flat out stupidity.

And Hannes Alfvén wasn't god. He's dead, dust, rotting in his grave. Just like Birkeland and Bruce. Dead guys. Easy to blame for seriously screwed up views of physics, yes, but dead, unable to defend their positions. And when the crackpots and EU/PC nutters go around using them as scapegoats for crap science it is the equivalent of spitting on their graves. Pretending to respect these legitimate scientists while bastardizing their positions isn't respect at all. If the best the crackpots can do is rely on dishonest distortions of science from 30, 50, 100 years ago, long since rejected by real scientists because it's a combination of wrong and obsolete, then they've got nothing.

 

[tusenfem]

So what *EXACTLY* creates a "double layer", and a "pinch" that might emit x-rays and gamma-rays and neutrons and stuff we observe in solar events?

A double layer can be created in a current carryng plasma through e.g. the non-linear development of the Buneman instability.

A pinch gets created when the current exceeds a critical limit and the magnetic forces .... see above

 

[tusenfem]

I know you've read Alfven's work, so I know that you know that you and he are in disagreement on this point. That also seems to be the basic disagreement between our two positions. Could you elaborate as to how the
B orientations delivers any more "energy" to the event than the E orientation?

I don't get it.

And you will never get it, because there is no disagreement between Alfven and me. You however have never really read Alfven, let alone understood what he has written. What makes you think that the B orientation would deliver more energy than the E orientation. However it is "energy" so probably you have (as usual) another definition here.

 

[tusenfem]

Could you briefly explain what you mean by "quality' and how that term (condition) might apply to the solar atmosphere?

Don't you know anything about double layers? And here I thought you had read Alfven's work, sheesh. I know you are familiar with "my" wiki double layer page.

Quality in this case could be: density, temperature, species, ionization degree, anything that will lead to an imbalance of particles penetrating from one plasma to the other plasma.

 

[tusenfem]

Huh? He "dealt with" every topic under the sun (and universe) in terms of "circuits". It's only 'complicated" now because you overcomplicate what should be and is an otherwise straight forward (electrical) process.

Thus he dealt with the long wavelength approximation of MHD (which itself is an approximation of plasma physics) and thus he did not care for microscale processes which are so important in lots of plasma processes.

As a self proclaimed expert on Alfven you know astoundingly little about the how and what.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A double layer can be created in a current carryng plasma through e.g. the non-linear development of the Buneman instability.

Yes, I know they can be created in *CURRENT CARRYING* plasmas, but you keep claiming the sun is a "neutral" plasma. Which is it, a current carrying or a neutral plasma? If it's a current carrying plasma why not just use current flow to describe the whole process?

A pinch gets created when the current exceeds a critical limit and the magnetic forces .... see above

Again, all of this requires *VAST AMOUNTS* of 'current flow' to explain flares and CME's and mutltimillion degree plasmas. I know how Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven explained these events, but why would you resort to looking ONLY at the magnetic components of a "current carrying plasma"?

Suddenly when you simplify for B that "current flow" gets ignored when you claim "magnetic reconnection did it". Its already a current carrying medium! There's therefore no net difference between "circuit reconnection" and magnetic reconnection. All you did was simplify for B instead of E, but in every other respect you have two "circuits" of energy "reconnecting" inside a "current carrying double layer".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Occam's razor would actually lead us to the simple answer that there aren't electrical discharges in a plasma.

No, just you and the mainstream that *STILL* can't figure out solar wind, let alone demonstrate full sphere solar wind in a lab even though it was done in a lab 100 years ago with 'current flow".

Electrical discharges require an insulator, more particularly a dielectric, and the subsequent breakdown of the insulating capability of that dielectric creating a pathway for the current.

No. They "begin" that way to be sure, but once the plasma forms, the arc doesn't stop. You and RC keep ignoring the CAUSE of the "plasma discharge".

That's what an electrical discharge is. Plasma is a conducting medium not an insulator, therefore there are no electrical discharges through plasma.

It carries *HUGE* amounts of "currents" however and Alfven refers to them as "circuits".

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed off topic remark

Any arguments suggesting otherwise, after all the times it's been explained in this and related threads on this forum, are the result of seriously unqualified or poorly considered guessing, abject ignorance, complete dishonesty, or possibly flat out stupidity.

In other words, you're right back to calling everyone who disagrees with you "stupid".

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal attack

And Hannes Alfvén wasn't god.

I never claimed otherwise. He did have a Nobel Prize in MHD theory. Do you have one? Have you actually read and commented on his work? No and no!

He's dead, dust, rotting in his grave. Just like Birkeland and Bruce. Dead guys. Easy to blame for seriously screwed up views of physics, yes, but dead, unable to defend their positions. And when the crackpots and EU/PC nutters go around using them as scapegoats for crap science it is the equivalent of spitting on their graves.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal attack

Pretending to respect these legitimate scientists while bastardizing their positions isn't respect at all.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal attack

Care to explain why Alfven called it a "circuit"?

If the best the crackpots can do is rely on dishonest distortions of science from 30, 50, 100 years ago, long since rejected by real scientists because it's a combination of wrong and obsolete, then they've got nothing.

Ya, I've seen how "crackpot" is slung around as your replacement for "evil". In every other respect your dogma is pathetic. None of it works in the lab *WITHOUT* current flow. None of works in the lab PERIOD actually, well no more than 4% of it anyway.

You personally can't explain squat about the behaviors of plasmas. Prove me wrong and explain why Alfven refers to these loops as "circuits".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thus he dealt with the long wavelength approximation of MHD (which itself is an approximation of plasma physics) and thus he did not care for microscale processes which are so important in lots of plasma processes.

As a self proclaimed expert on Alfven you know astoundingly little about the how and what.

I know how *ALFVEN* did things. I have no idea how you're trying to explain exploding double layers and the formation of "pinches" in plasmas in the *ABSENCE* of "current flow". I already know that "current flow" works in the lab, and I've never seen any lab test of "magnetic reconnect" that worked without "current flow" in massive volumes. In fact the lab experiments related to "magnetic reconnection" make it clear that you're "rewiring the current flow" and calling it "magnetic reconnection".

 

[Michael Mozina]

And you will never get it, because there is no disagreement between Alfven and me.

Yes, there is a fundamental difference between your two positions. Alfven described these high energy events in terms of "circuits", and exploding "double layers". He outright rejected the whole premise of 'magnetic reconnection" as even being a valid form of "science". He specifically and consistently treats the solar atmosphere from the E orientation of MHD theory.

You however have never really read Alfven, let alone understood what he has written.

That's a bunch of baloney. I have read his work and I certainly understand what the term "pseudoscience" means.

What makes you think that the B orientation would deliver more energy than the E orientation.

I don't. I misread this statement:

And yes, you can find the energy of that circuit, and what could be released by some process, however that process will be too small to be described by the circuit representation.

I don't understand what you mean by the part in yellow.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, *NO* plasma is 100% ionized. For instance, neon +2 hardly shows up in SERTS data. Neon + 4,5,6 & 7 show up big time. The only way that can happen is current flow ionizing the neon, because it's definitely not in the +4 or better ionization state at 5700K.

 

[Reality Check]

FYI, *NO* plasma is 100% ionized.

FYI: *NO* one is saying that *ANY* plasma is 100% ionized.

 

[Reality Check]

I was looking for something *OTHER THAN* charge separation RC.

The appropriate part of the article is: Double layer

Current-free double layers occur at the boundary between plasma regions with different plasma properties. We explain how they form (neglecting the ions which are considered solely as a neutralizing background). Consider a plasma divided into two regions by a plane, which has a higher electron temperature on one side than on the other (the same analysis can also be done for different densities). This means that the electrons on one side of the interface have a greater thermal velocity. The electrons may stream freely in either direction, and the flux of electrons from the hot plasma to the cold plasma will be greater than the flux of the electrons from the cold plasma to the hot plasma, because the electrons from the hot side have a greater average speed. Because many more electrons enter the cold plasma than exit it, part of the cold region becomes negatively charged. The hot plasma, conversely, becomes positively charged. Therefore, an electric field builds up, which starts to accelerate electrons towards the hot region, reducing the net flux. In the end, the electric field builds up until the fluxes of electrons in either direction are equal, and further charge build up in the two plasmas is prevented. The potential drop is in fact exactly equal to the difference in thermal energy between the two plasma regions in this case, so such a double layer is a marginally strong double layer.

You guys just told me that no plasma can have a net "electrical" charge, all it can do is "carry current". Which is it?

Both.
Plasmas are conductive, i.e. they carry currents. This means that you have electrons moving one way and ions moving another way.
At a large enough scale, plasmas are quasi-neutral.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, I know they can be created in *CURRENT CARRYING* plasmas, but you keep claiming the sun is a "neutral" plasma. Which is it, a current carrying or a neutral plasma? If it's a current carrying plasma why not just use current flow to describe the whole process?".

tusenfem has never claimed that "the sun is a "neutral" plasma".
He has stated what everyone knows about plasmas:

They are quasi-neutral, i.e. at a large enough scale they are neutral.
​

Solar plasma is

1. like all plasmas capable of carying currents.
2. like all plasmas quasi-neutral at an large enough scale (the Debye length), e.g. from 10^-11 meters at the core to 10 meters for solar wind.

(excluding plasmas like the pure electron plasmas created in labs).

The currents in plasma are only part of their physics. No scientist (even Alfven did not) would try to describe plasma in terms of just currents.

You really should read a textbook on plasma physics to learn these basic concepts (Debye length, quasi-neutrality, that plasmas conduct). It is rather old (1981) but I have heard good things about Hannes Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma".

 

[Reality Check]

I already know that "current flow" works in the lab, and I've never seen any lab test of "magnetic reconnect" that worked without "current flow" in massive volumes.

Lets see - 10 seconds with Google and I find:
Magnetic reconnection and plasma dynamics in two-beam laser-solid interactions.

We present measurements of a magnetic reconnection in a plasma created by two laser beams (1 ns pulse duration, 1 x 10(15) W cm(-2)) focused in close proximity on a planar solid target. Simultaneous optical probing and proton grid deflectometry reveal two high velocity, collimated outflowing jets and 0.7-1.3 MG magnetic fields at the focal spot edges. Thomson scattering measurements from the reconnection layer are consistent with high electron temperatures in this region.

In fact the lab experiments related to "magnetic reconnection" make it clear that you're "rewiring the current flow" and calling it "magnetic reconnection".

In fact the lab experiments related to magnetic reconnection make it clear that you are confused about

• the creation of plasmas using electricity,
• the resulting plasma,
• the magnetic reconnections in that plasma and
• the electric currents that are within the plasma.

This post shows you remain ignorant about the physics that shows that current flow cannot explain the energy released in magnetic reconnections. That topic was addressed comprehensively in the Magnetic reconnection and physical processes thread. I suggest that you go there and read the replies to your misunderstandings about magnetic reconnection.

 

[Reality Check]

Alfven described these high energy events in terms of "circuits", and exploding "double layers".
...
He specifically and consistently treats the solar atmosphere from the E orientation of MHD theory.

I think that you are confusing two different things here.

• The "E orientation" of MHD is the standard practice in non-relativistic physics of expressing electromagnetic theories in terms of the electric field.
  This is correct because the magnetic field (the "magnetic" part of electromagnetic) is determined by the electric field and curent density (E and J).
  The "M orientation" of MHD is equally valid.
• The circuit representation is a way of modeling a physical system as a network of resistors, capacitors, inductors (and double layers).
  It can be applied to any physical system. I believe that it has even been applied to economic systems.

 

[tusenfem]

Yes, I know they can be created in *CURRENT CARRYING* plasmas, but you keep claiming the sun is a "neutral" plasma. Which is it, a current carrying or a neutral plasma? If it's a current carrying plasma why not just use current flow to describe the whole process?

Are we getting to that idiocy again, Michael?
A plasma is called neutral when in a volume equal amounts of positive and negative charge is present, please look that up in Alfvén's or Peratt's book.

Charge = Σ_k n_k q_k

where the index k runs over all species (positive and negative) in a plasma

Current = Σ_k n_k q_k v_k

there is no reason at all to claim that when the scalar charge is equal to zero that the vector quantity current is also equal to zero, nor does the opposite reasoning hold true.

Now, the problem with you is that you have the perception that a because there may be a voltage drop over a region this immediately means that the plasma is not neutral, because in your limited view a voltage drop can only be created by a charge separation. That, naturally is nonsense, because then your dynamo on your bicycle would never ever work. That is through inductive electric fields because of moving magnetic fields.

Really this is all in Peratt's and Alfven's books (In Cosmical Electrodynamics for example it would be chapter 3.2, in Physics of the plasma universe it would be chapter 2.4, however Peratt uses particle distribution functions and integrals, which may be too complicated for you, but if you skip that part and go to equations 2.14, you will see he defines it just like me or any other qualified plasma(astro)physicist).

now you will show me exactly where Alfven or Peratt state that current carrying plasmas are not neutral

Again, all of this requires *VAST AMOUNTS* of 'current flow' to explain flares and CME's and mutltimillion degree plasmas. I know how Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven explained these events, but why would you resort to looking ONLY at the magnetic components of a "current carrying plasma"?

What kind of stupidity is this, MM? Really, do we have to have this discussion every few month, do I have to keep on explaining the same old same old to you, that you could actually read and (maybe) understand from Peratt's book? If you would have actually looked at my paper on flaring near black holes, you would see that we do not only look at the magnetic field, indeed the current flowing in the loop is important, however, the critical point that needs to be crossed for a flare is more easily expressed in magnetic field nomenclature where we just transform the current into a toroidal magnetic field component.

Suddenly when you simplify for B that "current flow" gets ignored when you claim "magnetic reconnection did it". Its already a current carrying medium! There's therefore no net difference between "circuit reconnection" and magnetic reconnection. All you did was simplify for B instead of E, but in every other respect you have two "circuits" of energy "reconnecting" inside a "current carrying double layer".

We don't ignore currents, that is such a blatant lie that I don't even want to go into that whole old discussion about your misconceptions of mainstream plasma(astro)physics. If you would read up on modern day reconnection then you find that there are all kinds of currents involved, which are also actually measured by e.g. the Cluster mission, and that to a high degree of correspondence with what theory is predicting. You are so out of your league that you have to just keep on claiming falsehoods about what mainstream is thinking.

Now, you still have not produces a circuit theory of reconnection and I doubt you will ever present such a model. You just will keep on claiming that such a thing exist, but when asked for proof you say "read Birkelands book" or something of the kind. If you are the fringe expert, then please give me chapter and page number where I can find said model.

I expect no real answer from you, but I would love to be shown wrong.

 

[tusenfem]

I know how *ALFVEN* did things. I have no idea how you're trying to explain exploding double layers and the formation of "pinches" in plasmas in the *ABSENCE* of "current flow". I already know that "current flow" works in the lab, and I've never seen any lab test of "magnetic reconnect" that worked without "current flow" in massive volumes. In fact the lab experiments related to "magnetic reconnection" make it clear that you're "rewiring the current flow" and calling it "magnetic reconnection".

First of all, there have, as far as I know, been no observations of these exploding double layers. It is an interesting model, but no evidence at all anywhere in nature.

Nor am I explaining double layers and pinches in the absence of currents, this is just part of your misconceptions about plasma physics (see previous posts and Alfven's and Peratt's books)

Yes of course you are "re wiring the current" and if you would please read up on modern day observations in space, than you would see how and what and why.

 

[tusenfem]

That's a bunch of baloney. I have read his work and I certainly understand what the term "pseudoscience" means.

and that is about the only word you understand

I don't understand what you mean by the part in yellow.

What I mean is that there are processes on small scales that are very important in plasma physics, i.e. scales smaller than the length of the solar magnetic loop (to stay with that example) and all these micro-scale physical processes are all heaped together to be described as an overall resistance R and an overall capacitance C. What you are looking at in the circuit approximation is a long wavelength approximation of the MHD equations which are again an approximation of full plasma physics. It measn that you cannot look at processes that ahve a length scale smaller that the length of the magnetic loop.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Lets see - 10 seconds with Google and I find:
Magnetic reconnection and plasma dynamics in two-beam laser-solid interactions.

Well, let's see what you found, shall we?

We present measurements of a magnetic reconnection in a plasma created by two laser beams (1 ns pulse duration, 1 x 10(15) W cm(-2)) focused in close proximity on a planar solid target. Simultaneous optical probing and proton grid deflectometry reveal two high velocity, collimated outflowing jets and 0.7-1.3 MG magnetic fields at the focal spot edges. Thomson scattering measurements from the reconnection layer are consistent with high electron temperatures in this region.

Emphasis mine. So, what *EXACTLY* do you figure powers those two "lasers", and if we remove the power source, do you figure it's going to work?

In essence, they are creating two streams of photons (AKA the carrier particle of the EM field), and aiming them at atoms. They observe a pattern of Thompson scattering happening that produces a pattern of outbound directional photon streams (they always were streams to start with) and they call it "magnetic reconnection". That is just silly!

All they are doing is taking two streams of photons (created by pulsed (electrically powered) lasers), seeing a pattern of Thompson scattering consistent with those "streams", and calling it "magnetic reconnection'. That's a ridiculous premise!

The photons started out in streams and QM dictates the interactions those streams will have with atoms. What's the big deal? All that is happening is "Thompson scattering". It has nothing whatsoever to do with 'magnetic reconnection". No "magnetic lines" reconnected in any way.

Oh, and by the way, without "electricity" to power those lasers, your experiment is a dud.

If you really want to demonstrate "magnetic" reconnection, let me see you produce multimillion degree plasma from a couple of earth magnetic and no electricity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In fact the lab experiments related to magnetic reconnection make it clear that you are confused about

the creation of plasmas using electricity,

Um, no, that happens in the Earth's atmosphere every single day. Electrical current has that effect on atoms.

the resulting plasma,

What ionization state does NEON have at 5700K at the pressure of the surface (top foot) of the photosphere?

the magnetic reconnections in that plasma and

There are no "magnetic reconnections" that happen in plasma. There are only "particle collisions" in plasma, and the transfer of magnetic field energy to charged particles (AKA *INDUCTION*) happening in plasma. Magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning, without end, and without the ability to disconnect or reconnect to any other magnetic line. You're essentially changing the topology of what Alfven called two 'circuits", AKA "circuit reconnection". No magnetic lines disconnect or reconnect.

the electric currents that are within the plasma.

The currents flow is what actually experiences a "topology change/time". In other words the circuits simply reorient themselves over time. Big deal. There's nothing magical about it, nor is their any need to create a new word for it. Alfven fully explained the events in terms of "circuits" and explosive double layers. I've never heard a "better" scientific explanation.

This post shows you remain ignorant about the physics that shows that current flow cannot explain the energy released in magnetic reconnections.

When you can tell me what is *PHYSICALLY* unique about "magnetic reconnection", that is unique and different from ordinary particle collisions in plasma, and/or induction, let me know. So far all I've seen are physical experiments where the "current flow topology" changes over time. In no way does that equate to "magnetic reconnection happens".