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

[Ziggurat]

So what? Filamentary shapes (AKA PINCHES) form in that conducting medium! It's not a homogeneous 'current flow' once you crank up the current.

I never said it was. But stop calling that current "discharge", because it's not.

Says who? Neon must certainly "break down". At 5700K it's not ionized to a PLUS 7 state! Something sure must be ionizing the neon.

You don't get it. It doesn't matter if you can further ionize a plasma: once it's a plasma, it's already conducting. Any further changes are not phase transitions. Further ionization is not a dielectric breakdown. There is no dielectric breakdown. There cannot be a dielectric breakdown. Because it's already conducting.

No breakdown, no first-order phase transition, no discharge.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's really not fair of you. You know he can't.

Even if it were true, so what? No scientific theory rises and falls on the maths skills of yours truly. Get over it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Even if it were true, so what? No scientific theory rises and falls on the maths skills of yours truly.

Thank goodness.

The point is not that your ideas are wrong because you can't do math, the point is that you can't evaluate the rightness or wrongness of pretty much anything under discussion because you can't do math. You can't tell if standard theories give reasonable answers, and you can't tell if your own ideas produce ridiculous answers, because you can't determine any of that for yourself. Given such monumental inability, one might think that after all these years you might have tried to educate yourself sufficiently to be able to start doing that...

 

[GeeMack]

No breakdown, no first-order phase transition, no discharge.

So given every attempt so far to support the claim that electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs, there has not yet been any valid support for the claim. Apparently the electric Sun conjecture isn't supportable, or at the very least its supporters don't have the qualifications necessary to express their position in a reasonable, scientific, and cogent manner. You'd think that in almost 200 posts there'd be a little something, a crumb or two, something that could actually be described as legitimate scientific support. But alas, no such luck it seems.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I never said it was. But stop calling that current "discharge", because it's not.

It's certainly ionizing elements! A 5700 degree plasma does *NOT* explain coronal loops. You need current flow and plasma PINCHES to explain million degree plasmas and heavily ionized iron. And don't try to tel me magnetic lines do that. A *SINGLE* magnetic line doesn't do squat in terms of producing million degree plasmas so you're really up a creek without a paddle in the first place since individual loops reach millions of degrees.

You don't get it. It doesn't matter if you can further ionize a plasma: once it's a plasma, it's already conducting.

You don't get it. It doesn't matter that it's conducting. It's still going to form "pinched circuits" inside the plasmas. Those circuits are going to carry the bulk of the current and evacuate the areas around those same threads to produce a form of "insulation" in term of path of least resistance. Electrons don't care if it's is "soft of" conductive, they only care about the path of least resistance and that is to "go with the flow" (of the filament).

When two of them "connect", a double layer forms and ultimately 'explodes' just as Alfven describes it. Any circuit topology changes are a result of "current flow changes" and have nothing to do with reconnecting magnetic lines.

Any further changes are not phase transitions. Further ionization is not a dielectric breakdown.

But only *SOME* of the elements are ionized in virtually ANY plasma, certainly the photosphere. Some elements are not ionized at all. Those elements get ionized inside the coronal loops.

There is no dielectric breakdown. There cannot be a dielectric breakdown. Because it's already conducting.

But it's not conducting equally everywhere and an increase in the "current flow' can cause the elements inside the filament to become MUCH MORE IONIZED than plasmas around the filament!

No breakdown, no first-order phase transition, no discharge.

Sorry, but iron and neon and carbon are in fact being "ionized" by the "pinched current flow" It's not being ionized by "magnetic lines', it's being ionized by "current flow" through the filament.

 

[nvidiot]

Michael, physics as a science is almost pure math. (hence why I sucked at it but still found it fascinating) If you can't quantify your hypothesis in a testable and repeatable fashion, then you don't really have one. You have a vauge notion pointing in a direction somewhere over yonder.

The sciences have advanced since Birkeland, Alfvien etc. Quite a lot more. And none of it even close to suggests EU theories, let alone provides distinct and umambigious proof of it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(emboldening mine) While you are absolutely correct that argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy, there is something to the arguement that if you can't undersatnd the math, you lose credability in terms of being able to determine what is a valid theory or not.

Provided that you could provide some justification for the belief that the issue comes back to one's "math skills", I might agree with you. In fact I probably would agree with you. Since Alfven himself is the one that labeled MR theory "pseudoscience", there's no evidence that the problem relates to math, or that it has anything to do with one's math skills. In fact it suggests just the opposite. The mainstream has a *CONCEPTUAL* problem that directly relates to that love/hate relationship they have with MHD theory. The mainstream *LOVES* the B orientation and HATES the E orientation with a passion. How is that my fault, and how is that related to one's "math skills" in the first place?

Alfven simply chose the E orientation for all light moving plasmas. He treated ropes as "circuits" of 'current flow". There's nothing mystical about his approach and it is completely consistent with the fields of electrical engineering and particle physics theory. MR theory is not.

In fact when we look at the "lab experiments" on what you're calling "magnetic reconnection" theory, they *BEGIN WITH CIRCUITS* of pinched plasma which are then "short circuited" together. As the "current flows" reorient themselves, you claim "eureka, magnetic reconnection did it". That's bogus. Current flows simply changed their orientation. Circuits of energy reoriented themselves. No big deal. It's certainly *NOT* magnetic lines disconnecting and reconnecting, but entire "current flows" doing the "reconnecting". Alfven simply dealt with that process as an explosive double layer and again, he did it all via an E orientation of MHD theory. Again, no big deal.

To be upfront with my bias: I'm an electrical engineer by degree and an electromagnetic interference engineer by profession. While I do not solve Maxwell's equations on a daily basis, I had to do so in college to give myself a basis by which I could understand the underlying phemenon. Without that, the subtlities are lost. While this does not totally invalidate your opinion, it does cast it in an unfavorable light. You, as the claimant, will have to work that much harder to convince those of us who have put the time in to learn the admittedly difficult mathematics that the theory you are espousing is the correct one.

As an electrical engineer (like Alfven) you must understand that the E, or what Alfven calls the "particle" or "circuit" orientation of MHD theory is equally valid to any B orientation. Alfven simply preferred the former over the latter in all light moving plasmas.

I will admit that I have not read either Dr. Alfven or Mr. Birkland, mainly due to lack of time and not being able to find a publiclly available copy in a rather cursory search. From what I've read here though, I'm not really seeing much that would inspire me to devote much time to doing so.

If you email me an address, I will be happy to send you *MY* copy of Cosmic Plasma provided you agree to return it when you're done. There are links to Birkeland's free works on my website and I just uploaded another paper he wrote on solar wind/auroral activity. I'll round up that link for you later today. Birkeland's work is free, but unfortunately I think I paid over $125 for Alfven's book, which is why I want it back when you're done.

I assure you of this much: Alfven's E orientation to these events is "natural" to him *because* he was an electrical engineer by trade. He treated those filaments as 'circuits" and describes them in terms of their circuit energy. He talks about explosive double layers from the E and B orientations, and each concept is perfectly valid to a point. When we reach that point of particle intersection, like two freeways running right into each other, it's more logical to look at it from the particle or circuit orientation, and that's how Alfven treats it. He does that consistently.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, physics as a science is almost pure math. (hence why I sucked at it but still found it fascinating) If you can't quantify your hypothesis in a testable and repeatable fashion, then you don't really have one. You have a vauge notion pointing in a direction somewhere over yonder.

First of all it's not *MY* theory, and Alfven himself along with Calvqvist and others (who's links are posted to this thread) already did that for you. *THEIR* work is no more dependent upon *MY* math skills anymore than Einstein's work or Darwin's work are dependent upon my personal math skills.

The sciences have advanced since Birkeland, Alfvien etc. Quite a lot more. And none of it even close to suggests EU theories, let alone provides distinct and umambigious proof of it.

Actually the "lab experiments" that were done to date all clearly demonstrate that two *CIRCUITS* composed of *CURRENT FLOWS* simply reorient themselves over time. That is not evidence that magnetic lines disconnected or reconnected. It's quite clear in fact from such experiments that *PINCHED FILAMENTS* of *CURRENT FLOW* are reorienting themselves over time, *NOT* magnetic lines.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Bottom line, the paper does not objectively support the claim that electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs. Rejected.

Evidently this was actually the only relevant part of your post. You never once mentioned the similarities in terms if iron peaks, etc. You simply "reject" whatever you feel like "rejecting" in a purely subjective manner just like any creationist might 'reject' Darwin's work in a paragraph.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.plasma-universe.com/inde...ectric_Phenomena_in_Solar_Systems_and_Nebulae

FYI kmortis, if you're going to read Birkeland's work, you might want to start with this link first. Check out the images by the way.

The full test can be found in the first link (about 90 megs) and the 2nd link is to a presentation he gave on on solar wind and auroral activity and it's close to 60 megs in size.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Birkeland/aurora.pdf

I know there's a link to the first few chapters of Alfven's book and I'll see if I can't round you up that link as I get time today.

 

[kmortis]

Here's where I keep getting caught up. Seeing as I work with EM on a daily basis, I'm not seeing this B-orientation, assuming you mean a focus on the magnetic flux over any electric field (if I have this wrong, please explain what you mean). We normally take them as a set of intertwined pairs; E&H and B&D. While I can see representing any electrical system in a bulk component model to simplify things (we do this quite often with sufficently long transmission lines), but to then say that the sun, for example, is an inductor exclusively is both bad science and an incomplete model. Hell, a capacitor isn't pure capacitance it's a little tank circuit all in itself.

As to your argument that because Alfven was smart (and all evidence is that he was indeed a brilliant person), then he was therefore right is a fallacy. Jonas Saulk was a brilliant researcher who discovered the cure for polio. He was also horribly, horribly wrong when it came to Vitamin C. Alfven could be right about plasma, and terribly wrong about plasma cosmology.

One final piece of advice, partially inspired by my moderator status, do yourself a favor - don't even read people who piss you off. It save you grief and me time. This forum has an ignore function, please make use of it. This really goes for all who cannot handle posting in a manner consistent with the MA.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here's where I keep getting caught up. Seeing as I work with EM on a daily basis, I'm not seeing this B-orientation, assuming you mean a focus on the magnetic flux over any electric field (if I have this wrong, please explain what you mean).

Hmm. I think it might be more prudent to have a member of the audience (one that promotes 'magnetic reconnection") suggest a paper for you to read on the topic of magnetic reconnection in reference to flares. What you'll notice is that it will all be expressed in terms of the MAGNETIC (no E component) field.

Alfven simply chose to look at it from an E orientation when talking about the behaviors of light, mobile, "current carrying" plasmas. He used terms like "circuits" to describe the things (coronal loops) they are referring to as 'magnetic lines".

MHD theory is a wee different from electrical engineering in that is the application of Maxwell's equations to *MOVING* charged particles (aka current flow). Whereas you likely work with solid circuits, a plasma filament fulfills a similar role in MHD theory. It's a "current flow" filament like you find in any ordinary plasma ball. The plasma filament completes a "circuit".

As to your argument that because Alfven was smart (and all evidence is that he was indeed a brilliant person), then he was therefore right is a fallacy. Jonas Saulk was a brilliant researcher who discovered the cure for polio. He was also horribly, horribly wrong when it came to Vitamin C.

Sure, but then we're talking about Alfven's 'specialty', not some other unrelated topic of conversation. The Nobel Prize was for MHD theory. His expertise is in MHD theory. This was Alfven's field of expertise. If he was wrong on this topic, "where's the beef"? Where is the physical evidence that he was wrong about his field of expertise?

I definitely hear you that people can be "gifted" in some areas and a completely "challenged" in other areas of life. On the other hand, this is not like that. We're talking about an opinion that is directly related to his field of expertise.

The "experiments" (they are real experiments by the way) done on "reconnection" to date make it *extremely* clear that they are "reconnecting" two current carrying plasma filaments and referring to this as "magnetic reconnection". It would be like taking two circuits on a circuit board, rewire the board, and calling it "magnetic reconnection".

Alfven could be right about plasma, and terribly wrong about plasma cosmology.

In terms of the "big picture", sure. It's anyone's guess IMO. In terms of how MHD theory is properly applied to *LIGHT MOVING PLASMA* in space, no, he's exactly right IMO.

One final piece of advice, partially inspired by my moderator status, do yourself a favor - don't even read people who piss you off. It save you grief and me time. This forum has an ignore function, please make use of it. This really goes for all who cannot handle posting in a manner consistent with the MA.

I appreciate the advice.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI kmortis, if you're going to read Birkeland's work, you might want to start with this link first. Check out the images by the way.

Of course people have been reading Birkeland's material since the first electric Sun crank crossed the threshold of the Internet oh so many years ago. And not one single professional physicist, or scientist in any related field for that matter, has ever studied it and reached the conclusion that electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs.

 

[Ziggurat]

What would be the point of me attempting to prove otherwise? How are my math skills even relevant?

I already told you: the material we're discussing is quantitative physics. If you try to approach quantitative physics without using any math, then you're basically crippling the discussion. This isn't actually about you proving that you're good at math, this is about you refusing to actually engage in any mathematical discussions. You are choosing to limit the discussion, and because of your chosen restrictions, we cannot actually address the topics in the manner and depth that they deserve. You can try to play the victim here all you want to, but the choice to exclude all math was yours.

I remain unconvinced that A) my personal math skills are in any way related to this topic, and that B) trying to demonstrate otherwise would have any positive effect on anything.

Your personal math skills, or more specifically your refusal to allow math to enter the discussion, are central to the fact that the discussion can never become quantitative. You are choosing to include the very things that would allow us to distinguish accurate theories from inaccurate theories. That is very relevant.

Assuming I eventually make some mathematical error, which I've seen many individuals do over the years, you guys would just try to use that simple mistake as some basis for tossing out an entire physics theory that has nothing whatsoever to do with yours truly.

No, Michael. If you make a math mistake, we will correct it, and the discussion will proceed with the corrected results, whatever they are.

As for what has been seen many times over the years, you know what I've seen a lot of? Crackpots who spout nonsense and refuse to actually calculate anything with their ideas. That's not physics, and it's not even science. How do you seriously expect to differentiate yourself from the crackpots if you won't do the most basic, elementary things that actually scientists do, make quantitative predictions based on your ideas? Hell, Michael, we'll even help you.

I cannot help but conclude that it isn't our opinion of you that you're worried about suffering if you don't do any math (after all, isn't it plenty low already?), but that you won't even be able to believe it yourself if you go through the calculations and find out you're wrong. That's scary, isn't it? To learn that you wasted so much of your life pursuing nonsense. It's much easier to never confront the possibility.

*IF* you could demonstrate that the *ENTIRE* basis for my misunderstanding was mathematical in nature, you might have a point.

The basis of your misunderstanding is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not you are, in fact, misunderstanding things. If your ideas make accurate quantitative predictions, then it's hard for me (or anyone) to claim that you're misunderstanding anything. If your ideas make wildly inaccurate quantitative predictions, then you are misunderstanding something, regardless of what the misunderstanding is. In order to distinguish the two cases, you need to actually make quantitative predictions. But you refuse to do that. I can only conclude that you are not interested in actually testing the validity of your ideas.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Regardless of what you think of me, Alfven was not "incomplete" in these areas and he rejected MR theory his whole career.

Alfvén also rejected black holes and general relativity. He wasn't always right.

Furthermore, I don't have any reason to trust your repeated assertions that Alfvén "rejected MR theory his whole career." That's entirely possible, but my Google searches on Alfvén+"magnetic reconnection"+"pseudo-science" turn up a bunch of crackpot sites I trust no more than you. As a matter of fact, Google reports your posts at Google JREF as the second-most-trustworthy source of your allegations, which suggests rather strongly that you may be misrepresenting Alfvén's position. Can you give a more authoritative reference than the crank sites you're parroting?

The problem is that you don't know what a "pinch' is. It's a whole lot more than a simple "magnetic line" in math formula.

I have not mentioned the word "pinch". You, however, have been repeating "magnetic line" for several days now. If you are now admitting, albeit disingenuously, that "magnetic line" does not mean whatever it is you think you've been talking about these past few days, then I heartily agree that your talk of "magnetic lines" has been nonsensical.

Do you really think such a limitation also applied to Alfven?

Again, does that also apply to Alfven who claimed MR theory was 'pseudoscience'?

Alfven denied it's scientific legitimacy till the day that he died....

Since Alfven also rejected your pet theory,

As explained above, I have absolutely no reason to take your word for what Alfvén knew, claimed, denied, or rejected. You have demonstrated your inability to comprehend such elementary matters as the distinction between charge and current, so your understanding of Alfvén's thoughts, claims, denials, or rejections cannot be trusted.

When you claim that direct consequences of Maxwell's equations are nonsense, as you have been doing here for several months (if not years!), you can't hope to defend yourself by attributing your views to Alfvén. He won a Nobel Prize for MHD. He can't have been quite so incompetent as you pretend.

 

[kmortis]

Hmm. I think it might be more prudent to have a member of the audience (one that promotes 'magnetic reconnection") suggest a paper for you to read on the topic of magnetic reconnection in reference to flares. What you'll notice is that it will all be expressed in terms of the MAGNETIC (no E component) field.

Alfven simply chose to look at it from an E orientation when talking about the behaviors of light, mobile, "current carrying" plasmas. He used terms like "circuits" to describe the things (coronal loops) they are referring to as 'magnetic lines".

MHD theory is a wee different from electrical engineering in that is the application of Maxwell's equations to *MOVING* charged particles (aka current flow). Whereas you likely work with solid circuits, a plasma filament fulfills a similar role in MHD theory. It's a "current flow" filament like you find in any ordinary plasma ball. The plasma filament completes a "circuit".

Just as a guess, but a rather educated one, that if you were to look at the math, you'd find that there is both a B and an E component and that one dominates. From what I recall of my reading in astronomy, the magnetic field dominates. Makes sense really, flares have a loop structure, which to me looks like a loop antenna. (Note: To EMI guys EVERYTHING looks like some kind of antenna, so just get used to that analogy)

Well, the basic equations are set up in such a way that solid state is a simplified subset of the base equations. Since all I'm really used to dealing with is time-varying fields, other than amplitude I'm not seeing much difference here. My normal range of expertese goes from DC out to around 40 GHz, rarely to 60 GHz. I highly doubt that we're talking much above a few hundred kiloherz here.

Sure, but then we're talking about Alfven's 'specialty', not some other unrelated topic of conversation. The Nobel Prize was for MHD theory. His expertise is in MHD theory. This was Alfven's field of expertise. If he was wrong on this topic, "where's the beef"? Where is the physical evidence that he was wrong about his field of expertise?

I definitely hear you that people can be "gifted" in some areas and a completely "challenged" in other areas of life. On the other hand, this is not like that. We're talking about an opinion that is directly related to his field of expertise.

The "experiments" (they are real experiments by the way) done on "reconnection" to date make it *extremely* clear that they are "reconnecting" two current carrying plasma filaments and referring to this as "magnetic reconnection". It would be like taking two circuits on a circuit board, rewire the board, and calling it "magnetic reconnection".

I will have to look into Alfven more. From the brief blur I found on wiki he seems like and intersting gent.

In terms of the "big picture", sure. It's anyone's guess IMO. In terms of how MHD theory is properly applied to *LIGHT MOVING PLASMA* in space, no, he's exactly right IMO.



I appreciate the advice.

If he's right about plasma cosmology then how does the cosmic background radiation fit in? From what I've read so far, that has not been addressed. Even if I were to accept that the sun was E-field dominant, there's still that 800 pound gorrilla in the room glaring at us. And lemme tell you, he's got some stinky breath.

 

[GeeMack]

If he's right about plasma cosmology then how does the cosmic background radiation fit in? From what I've read so far, that has not been addressed. Even if I were to accept that the sun was E-field dominant, there's still that 800 pound gorrilla in the room glaring at us. And lemme tell you, he's got some stinky breath.

The plasma cosmology thread is thataway --->. This is the electric Sun thread. Please try to avoid derailing it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just as a guess, but a rather educated one, that if you were to look at the math, you'd find that there is both a B and an E component and that one dominates.

From Alfven's perspective that was the E component, particularly in light (atmospheric) plasmas. Here's a link to the first few chapters of Alfven's book by the way, along with a link to his opinions on this topic.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zj...onepage&q=Hannes Alfven Cosmic Plasma&f=false

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14160914/...-Field-Lines-and-Field-Line-Reconnection-1976

From what I recall of my reading in astronomy, the magnetic field dominates. Makes sense really, flares have a loop structure, which to me looks like a loop antenna. (Note: To EMI guys EVERYTHING looks like some kind of antenna, so just get used to that analogy)

Well in that case your "antenna" is a spinning, current carrying plasma filament like you might find in an ordinary plasma ball, but scaled to size of course.

If he's right about plasma cosmology then how does the cosmic background radiation fit in? From what I've read so far, that has not been addressed. Even if I were to accept that the sun was E-field dominant, there's still that 800 pound gorrilla in the room glaring at us. And lemme tell you, he's got some stinky breath.

I doubt I'd do his answer justice, but if you like the first few chapters of Alfven's book, PM me and I'll send you my copy so you can finish reading it for yourself.

 

[Michael Mozina]

From Alfven's conference speech:

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science

Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfvén, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozenin magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in 1.3, 11.3, and 11.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.

A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

In those parts of solar physics which do not deal with the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region (fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid), the state is even worse. It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made necessary (see Section VIII).

I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.

Note the date. Note the date of his death.

Double Layers
in Astrophysics
Edited by
Alton C. Williams and Tauna W. Moorehead
NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama
Proceedings of a workshop sponsored by
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Washington, D.C., and the Universities Space Research
Association, Washington, D.C., and held at
George C. Marshall Space Right Center
Huntsville, Alabama
March 17-19, 1986

 

[dasmiller]

(Note: To EMI guys EVERYTHING looks like some kind of antenna, so just get used to that analogy)

That's partly because the variety of antenna shapes is so huge that you can find an antenna that vaguely resembles almost anything.

I know that EMI guys have their own 'special' relationship with antennas, but even I have found myself debating whether my Christmas tree is shaped more like a conical spiral or a log-periodic . . .