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

[Michael Mozina]

I am almost certain now that electrical discharge means something completely different to EU proponents than it does to everyone else.

No, Peratt defined it elegantly and simply. That's the basic definition in plasmas. It's the same definition that Dungey uses. It's an *EXTREMELY* easy definition to understand. How can you possibly be confused by that *DEFINITION*? I searched high and low for it so we'd all be on the same page. Dungey and Peratt seem to be on the same page.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But you said (bolding mine) and that implies that there are no other options.

If we dial back from "+20 state demonstrates that there is an arc discharge" to "+20 is consistent with an arc discharge" then I think we can put this bit behind us.



To the extent that "SIMPLE" means 'in few words', then "plasma discharge" has a slight advantage over "really, really hot."

Well, its not quite that simple. A "discharge" through a medium will excite that medium. That happens in the atmospheres of large bodies with an atmosphere and a magnetic field. The sun has both. To the extent that a "discharge" can and regularly does heat plasma to very high temperatures in our own atmosphere, it's a "simple", and "natural" explanation for OOM types of heating that we observe in flares.

But saying "plasma discharge" raises the questions of how such enormous charge separation could occur within a conducting plasma, why the sun doesn't simply fly apart, why the discharges don't seem to link the heliosphere with the photosphere, etc, etc.

Every electric sun theory seems to answer those questions a bit differently, but suffice to say almost of them do address those issues. Alfven's basic approach was to begin at the surface of the photosphere, draw an arc above the surface, a line below it (to finish the connection) and he referred to it as a circuit. He basically used the motion of the photosphere around sunspots to create those separation events. Birkeland's approach was different. He started with a "discharge" from a cathode surface toward an anode "space" or what we might today call a heliosphere. I prefer the latter approach personally.

Of course, simply saying "parts of the solar atmosphere are really, really hot" also raises the question of why (and that's definitely an interesting question), but that doesn't make the discharge hypothesis correct.

It shows that the event "walks like a duck".

Sooner or later an Occum's (feel free to spell it anyway you like) razor argument is going to apply. If we already have established that a 'discharge' can explain these types of events in a 'simple' and 'natural' way that occurs here on Earth and in the lab, why do we need to look for "additional" options when we know for a fact (from lab experiments) that those so called other options require "current flow" to make them work?

 

[Tubbythin]

Sooner or later an Occum's (feel free to spell it anyway you like) razor argument is going to apply.

Nope. Occham's razor is a guideline for situation where two (or more) different but self-consistent theories that obey the laws of physics both reproduce the observations. It, therefore, can never be relevant when one of the theories invokes the dielectric breakdown of a conducting medium. Or when theory involves a magical cathode Sun.

If we already have established that a 'discharge' can explain these types of events in a 'simple' and 'natural' way that occurs here on Earth and in the lab, why do we need to look for "additional" options when we know for a fact (from lab experiments) that those so called other options require "current flow" to make them work?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/mazeguyemotions/boggled.gif[/qimg]

Lab experiments are largely irrelevant. What is relevant is if the properties of the Sun applied by the theory match the properties of the Sun that are observed. This is unequivocally not the case in electric sun models.

 

[tusenfem]

The real "reconnection" is happening between two particle CURRENT STREAMS, not just (only) magnetic lines. You're essentially "dumbing down" the entire physical process to a "magnetic" event when in fact it is an *ELECTROmagnetic* event.

And here it is again, this mysitical circuit reconnection, that I still do not get explained even though I asked for it every day for a week now.

Oppositely directed magnetic fields, like in the Earth's current sheet do not have two paricle current streams, the two field directions are separated by one current sheet, with the current flowing perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field. The field is in the +X direction in the northern hemisphere, the field is in the -X direction in the southern hemisphere and the current flows in the +Y direction.

If you would actually read the Runov et al paper then you would know that a large part is described just by magnetic topology, however, knowing that the magnetic field is not straight but bent we know from Maxwell that currents flow. We even have observed the magnetic signatures of the Hall currents that are flowing (the magnetic signatures being easier to measure than direct current measurements, which would ask for high resolution plasma instruments, that, although present on Cluster, cannot give as detailed a view as the magnetometer, magnetometers ROCK baby!!). These Hall currents mean that the ions are no longer magnetized and are now moving perpendicular to the magnetic field, where they then will close as field aligned currents away from the neutral X-line.

But please please, give me the electric version of it, and the circuit description to go with it, thank you!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Magnetic energy (the energy stored in a magnetic field)

Yes, and anytime you convert that stored field energy into charged particle kinetic energy, it's called an 'electrical discharge'.

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.

It does not matter that a plasma is a conductive medium, in fact a discharge can only happen *THROUGH* a conductive medium. Conductivity is a *REQUIREMENT*, not a problem. An "electical discharge" can occur in a a plasma anytime that (additional) stored magnetic field energy is converted to particle kinetic energy, even if "magnetic reconnection did it"!

 

[tusenfem]

Well, its not quite that simple. A "discharge" through a medium will excite that medium. That happens in the atmospheres of large bodies with an atmosphere and a magnetic field. The sun has both. To the extent that a "discharge" can and regularly does heat plasma to very high temperatures in our own atmosphere, it's a "simple", and "natural" explanation for OOM types of heating that we observe in flares.

A magnetic field has absolutely nothing to do with a discharge happening or not.

Every electric sun theory seems to answer those questions a bit differently, but suffice to say almost of them do address those issues. Alfven's basic approach was to begin at the surface of the photosphere, draw an arc above the surface, a line below it (to finish the connection) and he referred to it as a circuit. He basically used the motion of the photosphere around sunspots to create those separation events. Birkeland's approach was different. He started with a "discharge" from a cathode surface toward an anode "space" or what we might today call a heliosphere. I prefer the latter approach personally.

A bit differently? Most ES "theories" can't even support the necessary current flow in the solar wind through the bezillion of data we have available from umpteen missions.

Circuit, okay, but what "separation events" are you talking about? Do you mean to say that throught the differential motion of the footpoints a magnetic shear appears, which drives an EMF, and sets up a current in the loop?

Birkeland had a discharge to an anode, there is no such discharge from our Sun to the heliosphere. Like I said before (and others) if there were a discharge, would the electrons and the ions of the solar wind (which is neutral on scales greater than the Debye sphere) move in the same direction? I think not, but you can try to explain it to us.

 

[dasmiller]

Every electric sun theory seems to answer those questions a bit differently, but suffice to say almost of them do address those issues. Alfven's basic approach was to begin at the surface of the photosphere, draw an arc above the surface, a line below it (to finish the connection) and he referred to it as a circuit. He basically used the motion of the photosphere around sunspots to create those separation events. Birkeland's approach was different. He started with a "discharge" from a cathode surface toward an anode "space" or what we might today call a heliosphere. I prefer the latter approach personally.

I'm not understanding you here. If the huge charge separation is photosphere:heliosphere, then why do prominences look like loops?

It shows that the event "walks like a duck".

To stretch the metaphor, I'd say that it merely shows that the event "walks." The features that you're citing don't seem particularly ducklike to me.

Sooner or later an Occum's (feel free to spell it anyway you like) razor argument is going to apply. If we already have established that a 'discharge' can explain these types of events in a 'simple' and 'natural' way that occurs here on Earth and in the lab, why do we need to look for "additional" options when we know for a fact (from lab experiments) that those so called other options require "current flow" to make them work?

Oc's razor (I'm not going into the spelling controversy, either) says that we shouldn't multiply entities unnecessarily. Coming up with a mechanism to create and maintain these huge charge separations within a conductive plasma (yes, that's redundant) requires adding exactly the sorts of entities that Oc warns us about.

 

[tusenfem]

Yes, and anytime you convert that stored field energy into charged particle kinetic energy, it's called an 'electrical discharge'.

No, why would it be a discharge? Accelerating plasma through the release of magnetic tension is not a discharge. The fact that some people want to redefine an increase in current a discharge is weird to me, a discharge is something dramatic, on small time scales like lightning, not just a solar prominence that increases the current that flows just because the footpoints are sheared further.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope. Occham's razor is a guideline for situation where two (or more) different but self-consistent theories that obey the laws of physics both reproduce the observations.

Yes, but so far your side hasn't even empirically (in the lab) demonstrated that "magnetic reconnection" can emit gamma rays, ionize iron, free neutrons, sustain high temperatures for hours on end *WITHOUT* current flow, etc. So far it's not even a horse race and Alfven called your horse dead on arrival in the presence of "current flows", and oh by the way the whole solar system experiences such a thing (according to Alfven). Your theory hasn't even been able to reproduce the highest energy events involved in flares. You're therefore right, the argument doesn't even apply (at least not yet anyway).

It, therefore, can never be relevant when one of the theories invokes the dielectric breakdown of a conducting medium.

When we discuss plasmas, we're talking about *IONIZATION STATES*. Iron is *NOT* at a +20 ionization state at 5700k at photosphere surface pressures.

Or when theory involves a magical cathode Sun.

That's like calling a cathode "magic", or calling electricity "magic". Your computer isn't "magic', it just requires "current flow".

Lab experiments are largely irrelevant.

It's probably true that lab experiments are largely irrelevant *TO ASTRONOMERS* as a whole. That's certainly not a true statement to any other branch of tangible (profitable) science.

What is relevant is if the properties of the Sun applied by the theory match the properties of the Sun that are observed. This is unequivocally not the case in electric sun models.

Your "magnetic reconnection" theory is in fact an example of an "electrical discharge" in a plasma, which of course makes you a closet electric sun proponent, even though you don't understand that yet.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, why would it be a discharge?

Besides that fact that it's *DISCHARGING* charged particles at high velocity? It's the *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge in a plasma.

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.

 

[Tubbythin]

Yes, but so far your side hasn't even empirically (in the lab) demonstrated that "magnetic reconnection" can emit gamma rays, ionize iron, free neutrons, sustain high temperatures for hours on end *WITHOUT* current flow, etc.

I don't have a side.

So far it's not even a horse race

I know. The Standard model can quantitatively explain the energy output of the Sun, the neutrino output, helioseismology data and countless other bits of data. The Electric Sun handwaving cannot. I couldn't agree more when you say it isn't a horse race.

and Alfven called your horse dead on arrival in the presence of "current flows", and oh by the way the whole solar system experiences such a thing (according to Alfven).

When will you learn Michael? I couldn't give a flying footstoll what Alfven said and I care even less about what you said he said. I'm a scientist. All I care about is how well the quantitative predictions match the quantitative observations. In that respect the SSM is extremely good and electric sun models are abysmal failures.

Your theory hasn't even been able to reproduce the highest energy events involved in flares. You're therefore right, the argument doesn't even apply (at least not yet anyway).

Err... your "theory" can't produce the large scale properties of the Sun whatsoever. When you've got that sorted, then we can move on to flares and other trivia.

When we discuss plasmas, we're talking about *IONIZATION STATES*. Iron is *NOT* at a +20 ionization state at 5700k at photosphere surface pressures.

What does this have to do with my comment?

That's like calling a cathode "magic", or calling electricity "magic". Your computer isn't "magic', it just requires "current flow".

No, its nothing like calling any old cathode magic or electricity magic. Normal cathodes don't emit equal amounts of positive and negatively charged particles. Only magic cathodes do that.

It's probably true that lab experiments are largely irrelevant *TO ASTRONOMERS* as a whole. That's certainly not a true statement to any other branch of tangible (profitable) science.

Lab experiments involving human constructed machinery that have little relation to natural occurring phenomena in astronomy are irrelevant. The tangible products produced by astronomers are of no signifcance whatsoever to the scientific validity of the work.

Your "magnetic reconnection" theory is in fact an example of an "electrical discharge" in a plasma, which of course makes you a closet electric sun proponent, even though you don't understand that yet.

Err, no. Since an electrical discharge occurs when a dielectric medium breaks down and is thus impossible in good conductors (let alone excellent ones like plasmas) and since MR is most certainly possible it is 100% certain that MR is not an electrical discharge in a plasma.

 

[dasmiller]

Yes, but so far your side hasn't even empirically (in the lab) demonstrated that "magnetic reconnection" can emit gamma rays, ionize iron, free neutrons, sustain high temperatures for hours on end *WITHOUT* current flow, etc. So far it's not even a horse race...

And are there examples of laboratory experiments showing how electric discharges do all these things without a large external current source?

For that matter, are there laboratory examples that show that a particular electric discharge can simultaneously provide the levels of gamma rays, ionized iron, free neutrons, and plasma temperatures that we observe for a particular flare? Or are you merely speculating that someone could come up with such a discharge model, and then asserting that the yet-to-be-defined model is far superior to conventional solar physics models?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't have a side.


I know. The Standard model can quantitatively explain the energy output of the Sun, the neutrino output, helioseismology data and countless other bits of data. The Electric Sun handwaving cannot. I couldn't agree more when you say it isn't a horse race.

We're talking past one another at this point because I'm focused on the electrical aspects of flares, whereas you're focused on whole solar "models".

When will you learn Michael? I couldn't give a flying footstoll what Alfven said and I care even less about what you said he said. I'm a scientist. All I care about is how well the quantitative predictions match the quantitative observations. In that respect the SSM is extremely good and electric sun models are abysmal failures.

Not when it comes to flares and CME's. Electric theories work in the lab *AND* the EU orientation of a flare has been modeled to death mathematically starting with Birkeland, and it looks like again in the late 40 and early 50's, and a third time in the 70's. When you talk about "failures", you're definitely not talking about "lab failures".

Err... your "theory" can't produce the large scale properties of the Sun whatsoever. When you've got that sorted, then we can move on to flares and other trivia.

In other words, you don't want to look at *any* SINGLE issue, until EVERY detail is hammered out? That would have been like me rejecting standard theory because you (originally) could not explain the low neutrino count. You can't expect someone to have *EVERYTHING* quantified instantly for you, and an EU solar theory is a MUCH more complicated model mathematically speaking.

No, its nothing like calling any old cathode magic or electricity magic. Normal cathodes don't emit equal amounts of positive and negatively charged particles. Only magic cathodes do that.

That is simply not a true statement. Look up the term "sputtering" sometime.

Lab experiments involving human constructed machinery that have little relation to natural occurring phenomena in astronomy are irrelevant.

How can you know if they are relevant or not BEFORE trying it?

The tangible products produced by astronomers are of no signifcance whatsoever to the scientific validity of the work.

I think most would beg to differ. HST changed astronomy forever IMO. Your tangible goods are the only thing I respect. I certainly don't buy the dogma.

Err, no. Since an electrical discharge occurs when a dielectric medium breaks down

That doesn't apply to plasma were SOME (certainly not all) elements are ionized.

and is thus impossible in good conductors (let alone excellent ones like plasmas)

This is another false belief actually. A "discharge' can only occur THROUGH a "conductor". Without a conduction, no "current flow" can occur. The notion that conductor can't experience a "discharge' is absurd as that 'pinched" copper pipe demonstrates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)

and since MR is most certainly possible it is 100% certain that MR is not an electrical discharge in a plasma.

Any massive transfer of stored electric or magnetic field energy into plasma is an "electrical discharge" by *DEFINITION*.

 

[Tubbythin]

Yes, and anytime you convert that stored field energy into charged particle kinetic energy, it's called an 'electrical discharge'.

Nope. At least that's not the definition I learnt. This one is much closer to what I think is normally meant:

"An electrical discharge is the passage of electrical current through a material which normally does not conduct electricity."
http://www.eng.tau.ac.il/research/laboratories/edp_lab/main_files/main.htm

It does not matter that a plasma is a conductive medium, in fact a discharge can only happen *THROUGH* a conductive medium. Conductivity is a *REQUIREMENT*, not a problem. An "electical discharge" can occur in a a plasma anytime that (additional) stored magnetic field energy is converted to particle kinetic energy, even if "magnetic reconnection did it"!

This is all clearly utter nonsense given the above (usual) definition.

 

[Arthur Mann]

"An electrical discharge is the passage of electrical current through a material which normally does not conduct electricity."
http://www.eng.tau.ac.il/research/laboratories/edp_lab/main_files/main.htm

I find your use of this peculiar definition to be the result of cherry-picking. Plasmas are routinely exploited in the study of electric discharge phenomena. The author of this definition quite obviously has no familiarity with the actual behavior and properties of plasmas. Also, we routinely discharge electricity through normally conductive material, such as the wires leading into your house. Are you saying when you use electricity from your power outlets that the electricity is not "discharging" into your electrical devices? I find this position untenable.

This is all clearly utter nonsense given the above (usual) definition.

To say the above definition is the "usual" definition is a bit of a stretch. Hell, it's an enormous stretch to suggest you can only have a discharge through a "normally" nonconductive medium.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you haven't seen a model it's because you're willfully ignoring it. Your claim that these ideas don't offer a cogent explanation for (at the very least) CME's and solar flares seems to be based solely on your own imagination in the absence of facts. Your repeated insistence that electricity in space behaves in some way that violates the known laws of physics is ridiculous.

Forget flares. Not once in all these threads has any defender of such ideas addressed the most fundamental property of the sun that any solar model should address: the total power output. How does the sun output 3.85x10²⁶ Watts? Nobody in the Electric Sun side ever seems to have any idea of how their model can produce that number. Instead you want to fiddle around the edges with solar flares, which don't contribute any significant fraction to this total.

 

[Arthur Mann]

And are there examples of laboratory experiments showing how electric discharges do all these things without a large external current source?

This is a straw man. Nobody suggested you could have electric discharges without a source of electricity. The real clown is the one who suggests all this electrical discharge energy is generated inside the sun, not the one who (quite reasonably) suggests the sun is powered externally.

For that matter, are there laboratory examples that show that a particular electric discharge can simultaneously provide the levels of gamma rays, ionized iron, free neutrons, and plasma temperatures that we observe for a particular flare?

Yes, there are. Do a bit more research and you'll discover this is the case. Plasma phenomena offer a reasonable explanation for nearly everything we see in space, without ad hoc insertions of novel physics and new imaginary beasts like "black hole" or "dark energy".

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you haven't seen a model it's because you're willfully ignoring it.

Yes, the human self defense mechanism of denial is a really difficult challenge.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Forget flares.

No.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Forget flares. Not once in all these threads has any defender of such ideas addressed the most fundamental property of the sun that any solar model should address: the total power output. How does the sun output 3.85x10²⁶ Watts? Nobody in the Electric Sun side ever seems to have any idea of how their model can produce that number. Instead you want to fiddle around the edges with solar flares, which don't contribute any significant fraction to this total.

Um, just out of curiosity, why does any "electric sun" proponent "automatically" have to deviate from "standard solar theory" in terms of energy source and energy output?