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

[W.D.Clinger]

I haven't been through the second two links yet, but the first one does not appear to be related to a *LABORATORY* experiment per se. Some of the others may in fact provide such info. Nevertheless, I have two initial question for you about the first paper.

A) What is an "open" field line?

For this post only, I will pretend you understand the concepts of vector fields and magnetic field lines.

An open field line c(t) is one for which c(t)=c(t') implies t=t'.

B) How is a "magnetic flux tube" not a "Bennett Pinch/Magnetic Rope/Pinched filament/circuit" as Alfven describes them?

From what you have written about the latter, it appears to me that examples of the latter are examples of the former, but not every example of the former is an example of the latter.

ETA: Sorry, I was wrong. According to Wikipedia, a Bennett pinch is a phenomenon, like the other stuff described by Alfvén, and informal. A magnetic flux tube, on the other hand, is a mathematically precise concept (as are magnetic field lines), although astrophysicists may well speak informally of magnetic flux tubes that do not coincide with their mathematical definition.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, not *ONE SINGLE ONE* of those links involved laboratory experiments like Lee's paper (and Birkeland's work). I'd like to see something that actually *WORKS IN THE LAB*. You guys keep talking about all this progress that's been made in this field, but thus far you can't link "magnetic reconnection" to anything in a lab *WITHOUT* using "electrical current" to A) create the plasma and B) sustain the current flow through the plasmas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

From what you have written about the latter, it appears to me that examples of the latter are examples of the former, but not every example of the former is an example of the latter.

Well, since every single one of those papers relies upon that rope/tube/current flow through plasmas, it looks to me like you've pretty much nailed that coffin shut. They are in fact using that same "Bennett Pinch/Flux Tube" to deliver energy to the point of "reconnection".

How much energy is there in the magnetic field at that point anyway?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I must admit I'm a little disappointed in terms of *LABORATORY* examples of this process. Math is great, but I want to see the physics in action. If in fact these "flux tubes" are nothing more than "Bennett Pinches/Z Pinches/Pinches" in current carrying plasma, then Alfven's criticisms apply to your concept of "reconnection". It's not the "magnetic lines" doing the "reconnecting", it's the "physical current flows" doing the "reconnecting" inside that explosive double layer that Alfven describes in the paper you cited earlier.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

has he learned something?

You guys keep talking about all this progress that's been made in this field, but thus far you can't link "magnetic reconnection" to anything in a lab *WITHOUT* using "electrical current" to A) create the plasma and B) sustain the current flow through the plasmas.

It's not the "magnetic lines" doing the "reconnecting", it's the "physical current flows" doing the "reconnecting" inside that explosive double layer that Alfven describes in the paper you cited earlier.

With all due respect to the points you are attempting to make (ignoring them, in other words), your statements appear to accept that magnetic reconnection has been demonstrated and is consistent with Maxwell's equations.

If that is so, then you have actually learned something during these past three months.

Is that true? Are you retracting the claims quoted in the posts cited below?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=3652
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=3672
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=3698

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The very first link above cites an important paper that suggested a link between flares and magnetic reconnection. Your inability to discuss that or any other paper that links flares to magnetic reconnection is explained in some detail by the three JREF posts whose URLs appear above. Because there may still be some readers of this thread who are more interested in reading about the science than in seeing you demonstrate yet again why you cannot, I will ignore the rest of your dodge.

Here are full citations for three scientific papers that have helped to develop the possible link between solar flares and magnetic reconnection:

R.A.Kopp and G.W.Pneuman. Magnetic reconnection in the corona and the loop prominence phenomenon. Solar Physics 50 (1976), 85-98.
http://www.springerlink.com/index/Q64134U3U72Q3664.pdf

P.J.Cargill and E.R.Priest. Slow-shock heating and the Kopp-Pneuman model for `post'-flare loops. Solar Physics 76 (1982), 357-375.
http://www.springerlink.com/index/U6R4R74576430513.pdf

D.S.Spicer, D.Sibeck, B.J.Thompson, and J.M.Davila. A Kopp-Pneuman-like picture of coronal mass ejections. The Astrophysical Journal 643(2), 2006 June 1, 1304-1316.
doi: 10.1086/503274
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/643/2/1304
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/643/2/1304/pdf/0004-637X_643_2_1304.pdf

All three of those papers were published in peer-reviewed journals. I do not pretend to be an expert on solar physics, or a physicist of any description, but it seems to me that those three papers explain why solar physicists have come to regard magnetic reconnection as a key mechanism in solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs). From the introduction to the most recent of those papers:

In short, the current picture falls short of the mathematical rigor we would expect of a full model. (It should be obvious that a hypothetical hobbyist who's stymied by even the most elementary mathematical prerequisites of the current picture is not going to contribute to its further development into a proper model.) In section 3, the authors of that most recent paper summarize their contributions:

Lest some hypothetical hobbyist complain that these scientists are ignoring Alfvén or MHD, note that Alfvén is mentioned 12 times in that paper, and MHD is mentioned 19 times.

As has been said, more than once and by more than one JREF member, the effort that you (and others, such as tusenfem, Tim Thompson, and many more) have put in to examining the claims by MM (etc), and showing that they are totally devoid of any scientific merit is worthy of great praise; thank you.

I know it takes a lot of time, and may appear quite thankless at times, but it's posts like this that give the E in JREF its true meaning.

FWIW, I recall reading some material - in space.com, I think - by someone who was intrigued (if that's the right word) by MM's claims (DrRocket?), and went and read Alfven's book (the one MM keeps citing), cover to cover. His demolition of MM's absurd, pure ignorant-and-I'm-proud-of-it claims was, IIRC, quite a treat to read (unfortunately I can't seem to find it just now).

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection II

I must admit I'm a little disappointed in terms of *LABORATORY* examples of this process. ...

Evidently you have a flawed & highly selective memory. See Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection I and links therein. Specifically, I showed you the laboratory experiments more than once. For instance Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III from last March (that's 9 months ago now). I posted Comments on Magnetic Reconnection on 13 February 2009, nearly 2 years ago, specifically demonstrating confirmed laboratory observations of magnetic reconnection.

Your response has been consistent. Not once have you ever actually looked at or considered any of these laboratory experiments. You reject them without examination out of pure and unadulterated prejudice. So nobody cares about your dishonest wailing about the lack of laboratory experiments; we recognize it for what it really is, a pure sham. You don't care, and never will care about actual laboratory experiments, and you will not ever look at the data or any paper describing laboratory experiments. I have myself pointed out books that describe the state of laboratory experience, and you always have (and always will) ignore them all.

So everything you are so "disappointed" about not seeing has in fact been shown to you for nearly 2 years, and probably longer considering your numerous discussion boards. You are not now, and have never have been interested in anything that any normal person would consider an "honest" discussion, so answering you directly is a waste of effort. The only reason I bother to post at all is that other people actually do care, and maybe somebody will learn something, even if it's never going to be you.

 

[Reality Check]

- in space.com, I think - by someone who was intrigued (if that's the right word) by MM's claims (DrRocket?), and went and read Alfven's book (the one MM keeps citing), cover to cover. His demolition of MM's absurd, pure ignorant-and-I'm-proud-of-it claims was, IIRC, quite a treat to read (unfortunately I can't seem to find it just now).

I think that you mean Report on Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma started by DrRocket.

 

[tusenfem]

than come on MM, present your circuit reconnection model, show us how it works in detail, show us how in this circuit reconnection the observed demanetization of ions and electrons happens, how the topology of the magnetic field changes, how the plasma is accelerated perpendicular to the magnetic field direction .....

I know I will never even get an answer, because you don't have this model, there is no such model, I will just get to hear Alfvén talked about circuits and called MRx pseudoscience. Then my answer is SO WHAT, show me the money! Show me your model.

So dear Michael Mozina, are you going to answer this question for me any time soon?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So dear Michael Mozina, are you going to answer this question for me any time soon?

I don't have a personal model. In fact there is no need of *ANY* additional models. Calqvist (more than Alfven IMO) and Alfven already did that *AGES* ago. In terms of flares, Alfven described them as exploding double layers, much like the ones he studied while working for the power company. What exactly do you need me for? Read any of the materials by Calqvist that I have posted in this thread! Read Alfven's speech (the entire speech) at that conference.

He makes it quite clear that any condition where a double layer exists (or any other current flow condition), "merging" automatically becomes "pseudoscience". Any scenario where there is current flow *THROUGH* the "double" layer, or plasma region, "reconnection" is directly related to *CURRENT FLOW*, not "magnetic lines". The lines are along for the the ride, pinching the "current stream" into a cohesive filament. It's no different than what happens inside of an ordinary plasma ball were you to run two "circuits" of plasma threads together. Eventually the CURRENT FLOWS would rearrange themselves and the topology of the *ELECTROmagetic* stream would change. No big deal. No "magnetic lines" are 'reconnecting', just 'current flows'.

 

[tusenfem]

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.

What exactly does a plasma make "light"?? That is one of these Mozina definitions, that has no explanation. It it that the ions are light (e.g. only H and He) or that the density is small (so that the ball of plasma would float on water) or maybe that the plasma is made out light? Who knows? MM has been using this term for years now, and still has not deigned to explain to us what he means with it.

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

No idea what the first link is supposed to show apart from the name of a book I have.

The second link on frozen in fields and reconnection is interesting. Indeed, Alfvén was right to complain about the frozen in concept, because in the early years when he published that people just ran with it, without even thinking about whether it applies or not. Now a few decades later, we find that in e.g. the Earth magnetotail and in the solar wind, the frozen in condition is very well fulfilled and having to look for situations in which this condition is broken is hard, but they can sporatidally be found. Here is a paper by Tony Lui about the breakdown of the frozen in condition in the magnetotail and here is a paper by Rikard Lundin about the breakdown near magnetospheric boundaries.

Now, about reconnection in that paper Alfvén writes:

In case the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near neutral points may change in such a way that it is legitimate to speak of a 'field-line reconnection.' We cannot exclude the possibility that some of the field-line reconnection formalism may be applicable, but this remains to be proved. In fact, of the most conspicuous nonstationary phenomenon, magnetic
substorms are explained by current disruption (survey by Boström [1974]).

Now, these comments are highly remarkable by such a staunch adversary of the pseudoscience of magnetic reconnection. First of all, current disruption (at least as it is known today) is one of two models for substorm onset (highly debated by two groups, which make themselves ridiculous by maintaining that it is an either/or question). For the rest, there is little or no evidence that MRx is indeed a pseudoscience from this Alfvén paper, definitely not considering the remarks above. He gives a gedanken experiment which does not say much. He goes a long way about the identity of field lines, which is only a valid concept when the plasma is magnetized and the field frozen in (see the excellent book by [http://www.amazon.com/Conversations...f=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291567764&sr=8-1]Eugene Parker "conversations on electric and magnetic fields ..."[/url]. And he says that the Maxwellian interpretation of a field line should be changed when plasma is present.

However, he shows a model of the magnetosphere and the tail, with open and closed field lines. He does not say how the open lines get closed, a problem that was well known already in 1976, but he just ignores that in his paper.

So, no, this Alfven paper does not shoot magnetic reconnection down. Also, Alfven did not know about the excellent observations that we got with Cluster on this process. He would be amazed at how we measure the magnetic and electric fields and deduce the currents and get the plasma densities. He would have loved it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Alfven from Cosmic Plasma:

113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES
What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface . In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface.
All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention . This does not mean that all papers in which `magnetic merging' is used are of no interest, because there exist some good papers (e .g., Hill, 1975) in which the term is merely a synonym for "current sheet acceleration ."

1I .6 .3. ENERGY RELEASE IN DOUBLE LAYERS
If a double layer has been formed by a current I, energy at a rate is released in the double layer . This energy is mainly used for accelerating charged particles. A small fraction is usually dissipated as noise . Of course, the accelerated particles interact with the plasma and produce a number of secondary effects so that the released energy finally is dissipated as heating and radiation . Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of Magnetic merging' or of magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration (II.33, II.53). In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).

All these conditions must be met.

 

[GeeMack]

Alfven from Cosmic Plasma:

It has been shown that Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma does not objectively, quantitatively, and scientifically support the claim that electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs.

 

[Michael Mozina]

With all due respect to the points you are attempting to make (ignoring them, in other words), your statements appear to accept that magnetic reconnection has been demonstrated and is consistent with Maxwell's equations.

Actually I'm convinced from reading enough papers on this topic that the mathematics are correct, just as they were correct in Alfven's time. Just like Alfven said however, what you're calling "magnetic reconnection" is synonymous with two "pinches" of "current flow" interacting through a double layer. There's no *NEED* of any sort of exotic explanation, since Calqvist and Alfven already explained all this stuff *AGES* (well, ok, decades) ago.

If that is so, then you have actually learned something during these past three months.

Actually the debates at Space.com convinced me of that years ago, but yes, I did come to accept the mathematical accuracy of the concept, although balked a few too and cited the error (assumption of magnetic monopoles).

What I'm ultimately saying is that you're attempting to suggest "reconnection happens" inside of a "current carrying (million mile per hour)" plasma. Alfven refers any current carrying scenario as an epic fail for reconnection theory. That's a big problem for you with Alfven since *ALL* electric sun theories (Alfven's too) involve "current flow" from the photosphere to the heliosphere. It's problem for you observationally too because the solar wind whips by at over a million miles per hour and those 'current flows' of charged particles light up the aurora.

 

[GeeMack]

I think that you mean Report on Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma started by DrRocket.

Thanks for the link, Reality Check. Interesting to note the responses to the article. The arguments of the primary detractor seem to be a lot of lies, accusations that pretty much everyone including all the world of professional physicists don't understand something that apparently he alone does, dishonest attempts to shift the burden of proof, and intentional efforts to treat people like crap. From the related discussions here on the JREF, it seems par for the course.

 

[cev08241971]

Alfven's tools misused

How on Earth could one have a dense non current carrying plasma in the middle of e.g. the Earth's magnetotial where there are oppositely directed magnetic fields, which ........ require a current to flow!

He said other people took an abstract tool that only applied to "non-current-carrying" plasmas and tried to apply it in practical calculations, leading to erroneous results, not that Alfven applied this tool improperly, but that other people did. He also said "IMO", which I take to mean "in my opinion".

 

[cev08241971]

experiment verifies CME's are electrically driven

That is, of course, not true.

It is true. I've read the paper in question, and from my previous knowledge, I and many others have concluded (quite correctly) that electric discharge can and does produce the exact phenomena we observe in CME's and "solar flares".

And even if it were, evidence that something is capable of doing something is not evidence that it does.

Yeah, actually, that's how science works. You verify a phenomenon by recreating it under controlled conditions that mirror the observed conditions and seek to exclude other possible explanations. Until somebody else produces this phenomenon using other methods, this phenomenon is successfully explained by electric discharge. In other words, it is VERIFIED that CME's and "solar flares" are electric discharge phenomena.

The claim is that electrical discharges are or are the cause of CMEs and solar flares. No objective quantitative evidence has been offered yet to substantiate that claim.

The above statement is only true if you define "objective quantitative evidence" as "evidence that is known to and accepted by everyone". There is abundant evidence that CME's and "solar flares" are electrically driven. You refuse to accept it, partly due to your willful ignorance and partly due to your misplaced sense of pride in your supposed "knowledge" to the contrary.

The paper certainly does not conclude in any objective quantitative way that electrical discharges cause CMEs and solar flares.

The paper does conclude that CME's can be phenomenologically generated using electric discharge. What this means is that electric discharge reproduces the phenomenon. No, it doesn't "prove" that electric discharge "causes" CME's, but to date it's the only known way to reproduce the phenomenon. In science, this is known as verification of a hypothesis. That electric discharge can accurately reproduce this phenomenon (while no other method can) verifies the hypothesized electrical nature of CME's (until a competing explanation is offered with experimental verification equal to what we already have for electric discharge).

Only an idiot would bring this up again as if it weren't addressed. Only a liar would claim it hasn't been addressed. Only a dyed-in-the-wool crackpot would so severely and dishonestly misrepresent Lee's work to claim it supports the electric Sun lunacy.

I won't even get into the number of presuppositions contained in these few lines you tacked on the end here. Suffice it to say the assumptions implicit in your statements are readily falsified. If you're not convinced, let me know, I'll dismantle it a word at a time for you in a lengthy post devoted just to you.

 

[tusenfem]

I don't have a personal model. In fact there is no need of *ANY* additional models. Calqvist (more than Alfven IMO) and Alfven already did that *AGES* ago. In terms of flares, Alfven described them as exploding double layers, much like the ones he studied while working for the power company. What exactly do you need me for? Read any of the materials by Calqvist that I have posted in this thread! Read Alfven's speech (the entire speech) at that conference.

He makes it quite clear that any condition where a double layer exists (or any other current flow condition), "merging" automatically becomes "pseudoscience". Any scenario where there is current flow *THROUGH* the "double" layer, or plasma region, "reconnection" is directly related to *CURRENT FLOW*, not "magnetic lines". The lines are along for the the ride, pinching the "current stream" into a cohesive filament. It's no different than what happens inside of an ordinary plasma ball were you to run two "circuits" of plasma threads together. Eventually the CURRENT FLOWS would rearrange themselves and the topology of the *ELECTROmagetic* stream would change. No big deal. No "magnetic lines" are 'reconnecting', just 'current flows'.

Just what I expected, you have nothing, and just throw important sounding words around.
There is no reconnection in a plasma ball, there hardly is any plasma in a ball.
If you would only put in like 10% of the effort to describe the "circuit reconnection" model that I have put in trying to explain to you the physics and math related to double layers, reconnection, Birkeland's writings, then you may find even some admiration from your greates critics here on the board, but no, you just point to Carlqvist (who, if I remember correctly, uses a DL to unwind a twisted magnetic field, nothing explodes) or you say double layers explode in Alfven's books (but then an exploding DL has never been observed) etc. etc.

 

[Reality Check]

Looks like we have a new electric sun proponent so I will answer:

Feel free to explain about what Alfven was wrong.

Not that it has anything to do with this thread but Alfven was wrong about Plasma cosmology

MM seems more than qualified to discuss this issue and to understand and relate Alfven's work.
...

You have probably missed the posts in other threads where MM displays his lack of knowledge of science, e.g. the week or so that it took him to find the definition of pressure. You are probably unaware of his idea that the sun has an iron crust.

However his inability to understand the impossibility of electrical discharges on the Sun alone should be enough to show that he would have problems understanding Alfvens work.

It may or may not be correct that Alfven never directly proposed the electric star model, but it's implicit in much of his research, for example:

"Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven, although not aware of the Juergens Electric Sun model, advanced his own theory (3) of how prominences and solar flares are formed electrically. It is completely consistent with the Juergens model. It too is electrical."

That quote lies. Allven modeled solar flares with an electric circuit approach to MHD, e.g. representing magnetic fields with inductors. It was electromagnetic.

P.S. Birkeland (the subjust of the statement) was not Alfven.

This is abjectly false.
...

Birkeland (the subject of the statement) was not Alfven.

See directly above where this nonsense is refuted.

Birkeland (the subject of the statement) was not Alfven.

As noted above, and as could just as easily be noted in the case of Birkeland, and several others, these "dead guys" are universally regarded (except by you, apparently) as the founders of these branches of research, as geniuses, as pioneers, pick your favorite appellation.

Umm - yes: That list includes Birkeland and Alfven.
It does not include the inane theories that cranks attach to Birkeland's name.
It does not include the invalid theories that Alfven cam up in his later work.

This comment is absolute gibberish. These scientists to which you obliquely refer owe their professions to the men you keep calling "dead guys", and for the most part they all know it. Notice none of them are here joining you in your crusade against known science.

You are wrong. There are seveal scientists here. I was one for a couple of years. Tim Thompson is a retired (I think) scientist. tusenfem worked with Alfven.
None of us are joining GeeMack in your crusade against known science.
We are all joining GeeMack in your crusade against known psudo-science such as the electric sun.

This is demonstrably false. The sun is powered by this electric discharge, ...

This is demonstrably false. The sun is powered by fusion.

We don't have to re-write physics to understand plasma and electric discharge. We pretty much have a firm grasp on both, both firmly rooted in experimental verification and practical technologies.

We understand the definition of electrical discharge (it needs the breakdown of a dielectric media).
We understand plasma and that it is not a dielectric media.
To get electric discharges with plasma, the electric sun fans need to rewrite physics.

 

[cev08241971]

math is a tool one needs to learn to use

One would have to actually possess the qualifications to understand the math involved to make a substantiated statement to this effect. There hasn't been any evidence that any of the electric Sun cranks posses the qualifications to understand math at all, period, much less the level of math necessary to understand and discuss the relevant physics in a competent, meaningful way.

I can make a competing claim that is equally valid:
There hasn't been any evidence that the electric sun model is falsified by any experiment.

It seems to be your contention that people who realize the electrical nature of the sun are incompetent at math. Do you have some support for this blanket generalization?

Do you have any support for the notion that you understand the math involved?