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

[tusenfem]

And yet if this 'reconnection' is taking place inside of a current carrying plasma, it's not simply magnetic lines doing the connecting, and Alfven's "particle" (actually not Alfven's orientation, he cited the relevant first authors) or circuit orientation of double layer energy transfers apply. In fact he claimed that the existence of a double layer inside that reconnection region put another nail in the reconnection coffin.

This all comes right back to kinetic energy and kinetic energy transfer between *PARTICLES*. The transfer of photon kinetic energy transfer of the stored magnetic field energy into charged particles is called "induction". The kinetic energy transfer between particles inside the double layer has nothing to do with magnetic lines "disconnecting' or "reconnecting'. If those "lines" are merely current carrying filaments, it's just as valid to treat it as a "circuit", and look at it in terms of "circuit energy".

And when exactly are you going to explain the observations by e.g. Runov et al. (the paper I quoted) with a set of circuits, how is the circuit going to accelerate the plasma in a direction perpendicular to the magnetic field direction, etc etc.

Assume that I am a stupid idiot and need to be explained the basics of this circuit reconnection, because Carlqvist does not describe this it just discusses how twisted magnetic fields can be unwound with a double layer. And then, of course there is the strong doubt by Alfvén that MRx might be true anyway, to quote from his 1973 JGR paper:

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 phenomena, magnetic substorms are explained by current disruption (survey by Boström [1974]).

and indeed, all the observations made these days in-situ show exactly what the mathematical models predicted, and with the upcoming MMS mission, there will be an electron scale view of MRx, which we have not been able to observe in nature.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here is the relevant quote from 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 ."

 

[GeeMack]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

Why? You refuse to acknowledge or deal with anything that has already been presented. Your handwaves will not make the material go away.

It has already been shown that the Lee paper does not support the crackpot notion that electrical discharges are or cause CMEs and solar flares. No such claim was made within the paper and no such conclusion was reached. The flaws were described within the paper. It would be ignorance, stupidity, or a lie to suggest that paper supports the claim.

 

[GeeMack]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

It arrives just fine. I never seems to "register".

As stated above, it would be a ignorance, stupidity, or a lie to suggest that paper objectively supports the claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It has already been shown...

Where? You handwaved at it with less than a single paragraph. In fact all you did was parot Lee's statements and ignore his findings altogether.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

Notice all those iron lines or are you in hard core denial?

 

[Michael Mozina]

And when exactly are you going to explain the observations by e.g. Runov et al. (the paper I quoted) with a set of circuits, how is the circuit going to accelerate the plasma in a direction perpendicular to the magnetic field direction, etc etc.

The only way that is going to happen is if a double layer forms between the two 'circuits'. The double layer acceleration process will ultimately result in a rewiring of the circuits.

 

[dasmiller]

To get the thread back on track it would be good to see some quantitative objective support, none of which has been provided yet, for the claim that electrical discharges are or cause CMEs and solar flares.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

The paper in question was written without the benefit of the huge volume of solar observation data that's been generated over the last 35 years. The closest thing I can find to support for electric-discharge CMEs is in the conclusion (P.479), which includes the line "It is shown that a number of similarities between the two [laboratory discharge and solar flare] exist, and these are believed to be due to the fact that some specific physical processes involved in both cases are of similar origin."

Do you feel that this provides compelling support for the idea that CMEs are electrical discharges?

The paper also said "However, the factors of 10⁹-10¹⁰ difference in the electron density may imply that the two plasmas under consideration belong to completely different regimes . . ." (P. 477-478).

Do you feel that this might undercut the confidence that the paper demonstrates that CMEs are electrical discharges?

 

[Michael Mozina]

As stated above, it would be a ignorance, stupidity, or a lie to suggest that paper objectively supports the claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs.

How is it that you continually get away with unprofessional crap?

It is ignorance, stupidity and/or a lie to claim Lee's work *DOES NOT* support a discharge theory. In fact there are *MANY* similarities noted by Lee which you simply handwaved at. Denial won't make it go away GM.

 

[GeeMack]

Where? You handwaved at it with less than a single paragraph. In fact all you did was parot Lee's statements and ignore his findings altogether.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

Notice all those iron lines or are you in hard core denial?

It has already been shown that the Lee paper does not support the crackpot notion that electrical discharges are or cause CMEs and solar flares. No such claim was made within the paper and no such conclusion was reached. It is, of course, highly conceivable that people wholly unqualified to understand science... or English... or math... might misinterpret it to mean something it does not. That seems to happen a lot with crackpot claims. But no, there is no such objective conclusion to be found in that paper.

I stand by my previous position that it would be ignorance, stupidity, or a lie to suggest that paper objectively supports the claim that electrical discharges are or cause CMEs and solar flares. No electric Sun proponent I've ever seen had the qualifications necessary to second guess Lee on his own conclusion. Perhaps an independent objective assessment by a professional in the field of plasma or solar physics could put it in a different light. But continuing to post the link and rant about how it does support a crackpot claim is a lot like spamming the forum, it's dishonest, and it certainly isn't productive.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The paper in question was written without the benefit of the huge volume of solar observation data that's been generated over the last 35 years. The closest thing I can find to support for electric-discharge CMEs is in the conclusion (P.479), which includes the line "It is shown that a number of similarities between the two [laboratory discharge and solar flare] exist, and these are believed to be due to the fact that some specific physical processes involved in both cases are of similar origin."

Do you feel that this provides compelling support for the idea that CMEs are electrical discharges?

That depends on how one defines a "discharge" in plasmas.

Peratt, Anthony L .
Physics of the plasma universe/Anthony L . Peratt .
ISBN 0-387-97575-6

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, vi α a transmission line.

The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiatιοη (Figure 1 .2) .On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electr-o-static energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.

The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere .

The paper also said "However, the factors of 10⁹-10¹⁰ difference in the electron density may imply that the two plasmas under consideration belong to completely different regimes . . ." (P. 477-478).


Do you feel that this might undercut the confidence that the paper demonstrates that CMEs are electrical discharges?

Not at all. It's simply a matter of "scaling" and plasma behaviors tend to scale quite well.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It has already been shown...

Where did you "show" anything other than how nicely you handwaved at the paper?

 

[Michael Mozina]

How long did you intend to dodge that circuit question GM?

 

[Reality Check]

It is ignorance, stupidity and/or a lie to claim Lee's work *DOES NOT* support a discharge theory. In fact there are *MANY* similarities noted by Lee which you simply handwaved at.

You still do not understand Lee's paper. It does not mention electrical discharges on the Sun at all.

Solar-flare and laboratory plasma phenomena (1974)
No mention of electrical discharges.
​

Just plasma discharges and the discharge currents used to create the plasma.
The abstract mentions discharges.
The introduction to the paper makes it clear that they are talking about plasma discharges

As reported here, a simple laboratory plasma discharge, which is believed to have a number of phenomenological similarities with solar flares, has been studied in order to demonstrate that some of the physical processes involved could be common to both cases.

FYI MM: a discharge of plasma is called a plasma discharge.


It is quite ignorant to claim that Lee's work *DOES* support an electrical discharge in plasma theory anywhere in the universe when

1. By definition electrical discharges cannot happen in plasmas (they are conductive).
2. The paper does not mention electrical discharges in plasma !

 

[Michael Mozina]

You still do not understand Lee's paper. It does not mention electrical discharges on the Sun at all.

Oy Vey....

Seeing as how Perratt worked for Los Alamos, with plasmas of many types, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what is wrong with Perratt's definition of a electrical discharge through plasma, and what's wrong with this explanation of a flare?

Same book by the way:

2 .6.2 Currents in the Solar Atmosphere

The solar atmosphere consists of a highly conducting plasma in which vertical currents of about 10"-1 0 12 A are common in active regions where solar flares occur. For a current of 1= 3 x 10 " A flowing in a filament of radius a 106 m, /z = 0 .1 Α m2. The length of the filament is l =108m and passes mainly thrοugh the lower corona in a looρconnecting twο foot-prints in the photosphere. The coronal plasma density and temperature is taken to be n, = 10 16 m3and T=100 eV (1 06 K) (Table 1 .3) and uniformly distrίbuted across the filament so that differential kinetic pressure term Δ W k (a) is negligible. Hence,

I(a) is roughly = 3 X 10^11 A
N(a) is rough = 6 X 10^28m^-1

...

He does the equations too, but frankly I'm going to let you suffer because it didn't translate well from PDF to html, it will make you want to read the book and maybe you should read it for yourself. I'll warn you it's probably *REALLY* expensive these days since it's now out of print.

 

[GeeMack]

Seeing as how Perratt worked for Los Alamos, with plasmas of many types, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what is wrong with Perratt's definition of a electrical discharge through plasma, and what's wrong with this explanation of a flare?

Same book by the way:

2 .6.2 Currents in the Solar Atmosphere

The solar atmosphere consists of a highly conducting plasma in which vertical currents of about 10"-1 0 12 A are common in active regions where solar flares occur. For a current of 1= 3 x 10 " A flowing in a filament of radius a 106 m, /z = 0 .1 ? m2. The length of the filament is l =108m and passes mainly thr?ugh the lower corona in a loo?connecting tw? foot-prints in the photosphere. The coronal plasma density and temperature is taken to be n, = 10 16 m3and T=100 eV (1 06 K) (Table 1 .3) and uniformly distr?buted across the filament so that differential kinetic pressure term ? W k (a) is negligible. Hence,

I(a) is roughly = 3 X 10^11 A
N(a) is rough = 6 X 10^28m^-1

...

Of course nothing in that mentions an electrical discharge.

Oh, and that phrase "electrical discharge through plasma" only gets a single Google hit in English. And that looks to be from some electric Sun nutter babbling on the Space.com forum. Maybe Perratt's "definition" is being dishonestly misinterpreted by the crackpots. Maybe he actually knew that an electrical discharge requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium, and that an electrical discharge by definition wouldn't be going through plasma since plasma is a conductor.

 

[Reality Check]

Can you state the difference between a electrical current and a discharge

Oy Vey....

Indeed Oy Vey....
As I stated you are wrong about Lees paper - no electrical discharges are mentioned. I take it that you agree now since you have gone onto showing that you cannot understand Perratt.

You have a quote from Perratt that also does not mention electrical discharges !

2 .6.2 Currents in the Solar Atmosphere

The solar atmosphere consists of a highly conducting plasma in which vertical currents of about 10"-1 0 12 A are common in active regions where solar flares occur. For a current of 1= 3 x 10 " A flowing in a filament of radius a 106 m, /z = 0 .1 Α m2. The length of the filament is l =108m and passes mainly thrοugh the lower corona in a looρconnecting twο foot-prints in the photosphere. The coronal plasma density and temperature is taken to be n, = 10 16 m3and T=100 eV (1 06 K) (Table 1 .3) and uniformly distrίbuted across the filament so that differential kinetic pressure term Δ W k (a) is negligible. Hence,

I(a) is roughly = 3 X 10^11 A
N(a) is rough = 6 X 10^28m^-1

(my emphasis added)


In summary:

• A plasma discharge (Lees paper) is not an electrical discharge. It is a discharge of plasma.
• An electrical discharge is a current allowed by the breakdown of a dielectric media. Without a dielectric media that breaks down you cannot have an electric discharge.
• A current through a plasma is an electrical current.

A serious question for you MM:
First asked 7 December 2010
Can you state the difference between a electrical current and a discharge?

Have a think about why are there electrical currents in the wires in your computer and not electrical discharges.
(a small hint: try researching what an electrical discharge is and what it requires)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Of course nothing in that mentions an electrical discharge.

Did you miss the quote I posted earlier by Peratt, or are you just in denial of what he said?

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent processes such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microwανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.

The discharge region, or load, encompasses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1 .2). On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electrostatic energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.

Do you see the words "electrical" and "discharge" in there anywhere in yellow?

 

[Reality Check]

Did you miss the quote I posted earlier by Perratt, or are you just in denial of what he said?

That is the first time that you quoted section 1.5
Did you miss that Perratt simplifies the term "electrical discharge"?

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.

The standard definition is
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy between two objects at different electrical potentials allowed by a the breakdown of a separating dielecric media to a conductive phase.
Did you also notice:

The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space

So are solar flares are now a few centimeters in volume?

Did you also notice

On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electr-o-static energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3.

Lightning is definitely not electrical discharge in a plasma. It is an electrical discharge that creates plasma.

Could this paragraph be about how electrical discharges create plasma?
MM: Quote where Perratt actuall states that cosmic plasma has electrical discharges within it. The physics and mathematics related to it would also be nice.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh for crying out loud....

I found you a direct quote that by *DEFINITION* makes a solar flare an "electrical discharge", from a guy that works with plasmas at Los Alamos, and the two of you *STILL* want to argue?!?

 

[GeeMack]

Did you miss the quote I posted earlier by Perratt, or are you just in denial of what he said?

I said nothing in that previous quote mentioned an electrical discharge, and it didn't, the persistent uncivil and dishonest and inference that I'm denying something notwithstanding.

Do you see the words "electrical" and "discharge" in there anywhere in yellow?

I see the words "electrical" and "discharge". I also see an explanation of a discharge, but it appears that Peratt may be a crappy communicator and mangled the title of the comment, because nothing in the quote specifies that any electrical discharges are going through any plasma. I'm certainly not responsible for Peratt's deficient language skills and/or the apparent inability of the electric Sun wackos to understand what they read. I'm not responsible for the oversights, the ignorance, the misinterpretations, or the dishonest quote mining that crackpots might do to try to support their otherwise unsupportable claims. The burden of proof is on the folks making the ridiculous claims, and when they fail at that responsibility, the arguments have failed.