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

[Tubbythin]

Well, if you read the whole piece maybe you'll understand why. How about you answering my questions HERE and giving some calculations too, if you like.

The Astrophysical Crisis at Red Square

Hmm. Should I conclude that there are no such calculations? Because you're going out of your way to not provide any. I mean that is an article largely about Sn1987a when you were asked to provide calculations about our own Sun.

 

[Haig]

OK, so what's Scott up to then?

It sure looks like wilful obfuscation, deliberate misdirection, etc. Of course, it could also be delusion.

In any case, whatever it is it lacks an essential component, a key feature, of physics.

Is Haig aware of this foundational aspect?

Yes, he is.

Still attacking the messenger rather than the message. That's against the forum guidelines.

It seems, though, that you missed a key aspect.

Well, two ... I think you're posting in the wrong thread

You mean this isn't "The Electric Comet" thread?

- care to explain how this relates to "Electric Sun Theory"?

It explains how the power of an "Electric Sun" can be externally supplied IMHO.

Since this thread is entitled "Electric Sun Theory", the following questions would seem to be very relevant:
By "answers", of course, I mean answers to the questions derived from the "Electric Sun Theory".

And of course the answers must be objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable (i.e. sources cited, and conclusions/results/outputs/etc derivable from stated inputs/assumptions/etc without a need to go ask the authors questions).

So, please, Haig, no more mindless copy-pasting; please check what you've got to see that it fits the bill, before you post.

Hold on DRD:

In Tim Thompson’s post An Electric Sun Q&A HERE he ends with this “I do mean that there is no observed behavior of any star which we can say with confidence cannot be explained by any mainstream physics. So there is no valid justification for seeking an alternative model in the first place.”

I just took him at his word and asked my questions to see the mainstream replies. It appears he was wrong and there are no mainstream answers yet.

And Yes, EU/PC theory does give answers to these questions, they are HERE and HERE also HERE, HERE and HERE ...not exhaustive...

Ah! DRD more ad-hom. If I post a short piece from EU/PC theory its “mindless copy-pasting” you say and if I use my own words “I’m parroting” as others say.

I’ll continue to do what I have time for (not much) and within the forum rules. If you or other don't like it, then just don't read it or put me on ignore, I won't mind.

Why the Lower Corona of the Sun Is Hotter Than the Photosphere

Of all the ideas offered up as being an explanation of the extreme temperature (more than 2 million Kelvin) measured in the lower corona of our Sun, the simplest is that electrically accelerated high velocity positive ions are colliding with relatively static ions and neutral atoms in that location.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100519corona.htm

 

[Haig]

Hmm. Should I conclude that there are no such calculations? Because you're going out of your way to not provide any. I mean that is an article largely about Sn1987a when you were asked to provide calculations about our own Sun.

Sorry, didn't see your post until now. I think my post above makes my position clear.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Still attacking the messenger rather than the message. That's against the forum guidelines.

You're kidding me, right?

[...]
It explains how the power of an "Electric Sun" can be externally supplied IMHO.

I cannot argue with your O, whether it is an HO or not ...

However, since this is the SMMT section of JREF, the topic is well within astronomy/physics/etc (and as these are, at their core, quantitative), it is entirely reasonable to expect that when you use the word "explain" you mean "explain, quantitatively, at least to an order of magnitude or so".

So, please show, to within an order of magnitude or so, that the external source described in some detail in the link you posted can produce ~4 x 10^28 W in the form of electromagnetic radiation when applied to an object with the physical characteristics of the Sun.

[...]

And Yes, EU/PC theory does give answers to these questions, they are HERE

Objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to those questions?

Nope.

and HERE

Objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to those questions?

Nope.

also HERE,

Objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to those questions?

Nope.

HERE

Objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to those questions?

Nope.

and HERE [...]

Objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to those questions?

Nope.

But perhaps I missed all the objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to those questions?

Let's try just one, OK?

Haig: Solar wind is traveling at about 1 million miles an hour by the time it gets close to Earth and goes on past the orbit of Pluto for as far as we have been able to measure. This Solar wind varies with time and has even been observed to stop completely for a period of a day or two. What causes this fluctuation?

An objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answer to this question, if you please Haig.

 

[Tubbythin]

Sorry, didn't see your post until now. I think my post above makes my position clear.

It does?

 

[Tim Thompson]

An Electric Sun Q&A II

An Electric Sun Q&A ... I do mean that there is no observed behavior of any star which we can say with confidence cannot be explained by any mainstream physics. So there is no valid justification for seeking an alternative model in the first place.

Solar wind is traveling at about 1 million miles an hour by the time it gets close to Earth and goes on past the orbit of Pluto for as far as we have been able to measure. This Solar wind varies with time and has even been observed to stop completely for a period of a day or two. What causes this fluctuation?

Why was there a complete shutdown of the solar wind for two days in May 1999?

The solar wind did not shut down at any time. Rather, the Earth was surrounded by a low density plasma cloud (see Vats, et al., 2001). Outside the low density region around the Earth, the solar wind was apparently in its normal state. Ordinary variations in the solar wind are caused by the fact that the solar wind is emitted by the extremely variable environment of the chromosphere/corona, so it comes as no surprise that the solar wind will be as variable as the environment wherein it is spawned.

Sun’s visible light output varies by only tenths of a percent but its energy in UV and X-rays varies by a factor of 20 (much higher according to some). Why?

The visible light output of the sun is dominated by thermal emission from the sun below the photosphere. The variability of that visible light is due to variability in the photosphere (bright spots at the head of convection cells, dark lanes between convection cells, bright plage regions around sunspots, the dark umbral regions of sunspots & etc.). However, the UV & X-ray emission comes mostly from the regions of the chromosphere & corona, not from the photosphere. Those regions are very low in particle and mass density compared to the photosphere and therefore far more dominated by highly variable magnetic fields. UV & X-ray emission comes from the region of the sun that hosts flare & CME activity, where impulsive acceleration of electrons to extremely high energy results in impulsive and highly variable UV & X-ray emission. The physical environment of the regions responsible for UV & X-ray emission is vastly different from the regions responsible for visible light, so it is no surprise that the radiations emitted should be very different from each other.

Generally, why is our Sun such a variable star if it’s energy comes from a steady Nuclear fusion reaction?

At the most extreme, the variability of the Sun in visible light only amounts to about 0.2%, which is miniscule compared to the realm of real variable stars, where brightness is seen the change by factors of 10 or more. Your assumption that the energy output from nuclear reactions deep in the solar core should be steady is incorrect; that energy output cannot not be steady under any circumstances because of pulsations in the size of the fusion regions generated by natural thermal instabilities. However, that effect is indeed very small for the Sun, and for the most part "washed out" by the outer layers of the sun anyway (this is not the case for some classes of variable star where the effect is significant and critical). Still, one must get ones assumptions right in any case. The variability of visible light, UV & X-ray emission I have already explained above. All solar emissions, electromagnetic radiation or solar wind particles, are variable because they are emitted by variable sources.

Why does the equator of the Sun rotate the fastest when it should be slowed by mass loss to the solar wind?

False premise. No, it should not be slowed down by mass loss to the solar wind. The mass loss rate of 2x10¹² gm/sec might look like a lot, but it amounts to 10^-14 solar masses per year, which amounts to less than 0.01% of the total mass over the entire lifetime of the Sun. That tiny mass loss can do nothing to counteract the obvious effect of simple conservation of angular momentum, which will drive the equator of a rotating fluid body to move faster than the poles. But the Sun's differential rotation is somewhat more dramatic than that because of convection. The convection zone is radially symmetrical but the rotation of the sun obviously is not and the two combine to result in differential rotation and a faster rotation at the equator (see, for instance, chapter 7 in the book Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal Wiley-VCH, 2nd revised edition 2004).

Solar cycles are cyclic changes in behavior of the Sun. The 11 Sunspot and 22 year Hale cycles are clear examples in the observations of Solar variations. Why do they AND the others occur?

The best guess is called the Babcock Model (see Babcock, 1961 and the 543 citations thereto). The basic scenario is that the differential rotation of the sun twists the magnetic field and the result is a periodic rearrangement of the topology of the field. There is also a discussion of this model, as well as the underlying dynamo theory in the book Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal (Wiley-VCH, 2nd revised edition 2004), section 11.3 "Dynamics of the Solar Magnetic Cycle", beginning on page 376. Also see the book Stellar Magnetism by Leon Mestel (Oxford University Press, 1999 & 2003), where relevant material is scattered throughout the book.

Like I said before ...

By this I do not mean that we know everything there is to know. I do mean that there is no observed behavior of any star which we can say with confidence cannot be explained by any mainstream physics. So there is no valid justification for seeking an alternative model in the first place.

Note that it is not necessary, and I do not claim, to be able to definitively answer every question that can be asked. It is only necessary to show that physically plausible explanations are available. Standard stellar physics includes plausible answers to every physical question about the sun and stars. Some of those answers are also definitive as well. But even if they are only plausible and not yet definitive, it remains a fact that there is no valid reason for seeking an alternative model to replace the standard models, since in every case, the alleged failures of the standard model do not in reality exist.

 

[tusenfem]

Solar wind is traveling at about 1 million miles an hour by the time it gets close to Earth and goes on past the orbit of Pluto for as far as we have been able to measure. This Solar wind varies with time and has even been observed to stop completely for a period of a day or two. What causes this fluctuation?

Why was there a complete shutdown of the solar wind for two days in May 1999?

Let's first state that the solar wind did not "stop completely", egreed, the density was very low 0.1 per cc and the velocity was less then 350 km/s.

The solar wind is prone to a large variation, depending where the wind is coming from it can be slow wind or fast wind. This has to do with coronal holes and such. Here is an abstract by Janardhan et al. where they discuss where this lull in the wind originated from, and here is the A&A paper they wrote about it. I will not go through the whole analysis (the paper is freely available from A&A), but I will just quote:

A recent, detailed study of the well-known “solar wind disappearance event” of 11 May 1999 traced its origin to a coronal hole (CH) lying adjacent to a large active region (AR), AR8525 in Carrington rotation 1949. The AR was located at central meridian on 05 May 1999 when the flows responsible for this event began. We examine the evolution of the AR-CH complex during 5-6 May 1999 to study the changes that apparently played a key role in causing this disappearance event.

There is a lot of dicussion of these kinds of events by Janardhan.

Sun’s visible light output varies by only tenths of a percent but its energy in UV and X-rays varies by a factor of 20 (much higher according to some). Why?

The Sun emits a black body spectrum with superposed some extra emissions, especially in the X-rays which are e.g. created in flares on the Sun, like written in the link that you yourself put in the post. To quote

Solar X-ray emission is highly variable. Eruptions lead to variations of the X-ray flux on time scales of minutes.

Overall, the Sun's irradiation does not vary much, but as the eruptions on the Sun are not a constant process, but singular events, it is only natural that the X-rays are more variable that the black body spectrum.

Solar cycles are cyclic changes in behavior of the Sun. The 11 Sunspot and 22 year Hale cycles are clear examples in the observations of Solar variations. Why do they AND the others occur?

The creation of the Sun's magnetic field is a chaotic mechanism, a dynamo in the convection layer. However, that this process is chaotic does not mean that there cannot be periodicities. Check out the pages by Glatzmeier, where there are very good explanation of the how and what, from his numerical simulations. As the magnetic field is created by the so-called alpha-omega dynamo, it is only to be expected that periodicities arise.

Why does the equator of the Sun rotate the fastest when it should be slowed by mass loss to the solar wind?

Why do you think that the solar wind is only from the equator of the Sun?

Generally, why is our Sun such a variable star if it’s energy comes from a steady Nuclear fusion reaction?

The variation in the solar output are very very small, from Encyclopedia Brittannica:

Direct measurements of solar irradiance, or solar output, have been available from satellites only since the late 1970s. These measurements show a very small peak-to-peak variation in solar irradiance (roughly 0.1 percent of the 1,366 watts per square metre received at the top of the atmosphere, for approximately 0.12 watt per square metre). However, indirect measures of solar activity are available from historical sunspot measurements dating back through the early 17th century. Attempts have been made to reconstruct graphs of solar irradiance variations from historical sunspot data by calibrating them against the measurements from modern satellites; ...

So, those "tiny explosions" on the Sun, don't do that much, the Sun is actually very very stable.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Haig, notice something quite interesting, even remarkable, about the responses by Tim Thompson and tusenfem, to your questions?

They provided objective, quantitative (far better than order-of-magnitude!), and independently verifiable answers to those questions!

Further, if you have further questions on their answers - or you did not find that they were objective, quantitative, and independently verifiable answers to those questions - you have only to ask, and they (and/or someone else) will be only too happy to provide them.

Have you found any objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to the questions I asked you, in amongst the material you provided links to?

I eagerly await your answer ...

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun and Coronal Heating I

Why the Lower Corona of the Sun Is Hotter Than the Photosphere

Of all the ideas offered up as being an explanation of the extreme temperature (more than 2 million Kelvin) measured in the lower corona of our Sun, the simplest is that electrically accelerated high velocity positive ions are colliding with relatively static ions and neutral atoms in that location.

This is by no means the simplest idea, if by "simple" one means something like "simple in terms of basic physics". In fact, it's a lousy explanation. The lightest ions, the protons, are 1836 times more massive than electrons, but carry exactly the same electric charge. So, from an energetic standpoint, since the force is simply the product of the electric field and the charge (the Lorentz force equation, where the magnetic field is zero), the electric field required to accelerate a proton to any given speed is 1836 times the electric field required to accelerate an electron to the same given speed. The solar wind comes out of the corona with both electrons and protons moving at the same speed. Therefore, on simple energetics alone, this process cannot describe the heating of the corona at all, unless they come up with a way of slowing down protons or electrons, without slowing down the electrons or protons, so they can exit the corona at the same speed.

Also from the same website:

Notice that no mention has been made in this process of magnetic reconnection or, in fact, of any magnetic mechanism whatsoever. Strictly electric forces that occur within the double charge layer above the Sun’s surface cause the observed phenomenon

By their own admission they completely ignore any magnetic field effects. But go back and look at that Lorentz force equation and ask yourself, what's that VxB thing, anyway? It's a vector cross product of the particle velocity (V) and the magnetic field (B). The fact that the sun has a magnetic field has been known to us since 1908 (Hale, 1908a; Hale, 1908b; for a modern treatment of stellar magnetic fields in general, see the book Stellar Magnetism by Leon Mestel, Oxford University Press 1999 & 2003). So even though everyone knows there is a highly variable magnetic field throughout the solar photosphere, and everywhere above it, the Thunderbolts people think they can construct a proper, viable theory of the corona & chromosphere by ignoring that magnetic field altogether? That certainly inspires a lot of confidence.

Also from the same website:

The re-thermalization takes place in a region analogous to the turbulent white water that boils up at the bottom of a smooth laminar water slide. In the fusion model no such (water slide) phenomenon exists – and therefore neither does any simple explanation of the observed temperature discontinuity.

This is a fallacious description of the "fusion model". In fact, the process which we are told does not exist in the "fusion model" most certainly does exist in the "fusion model", and the "fusion model" explanation for the heating of the corona is both simpler than the electric sun model, and much more consistent with observation. But most importantly, whether or not nuclear fusion is the ultimate source of solar energy is irrelevant. Any internal source of energy will produce the same observed properties of the photosphere and above, given the same physical properties as observed in the Sun. The standard model does not so cavalierly dismiss the obvious magnetic field, but rather takes advantage of it. The acceleration is magnetic and not electrostatic in origin (magnetic fields are observed in great detail, while electrostatic fields are by observation far less ubiquitous; one must remember Faradays Law and the Maxwell Faraday equation, which show that a time variable magnetic field creates an electric field). A combination of magnetic and acoustic energy is quite capable of explaining the heating of the corona. While all the details are not known and many questions remain, the basic idea is well within the realm of standard physics. See, for instance, the book Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal (Wiley-VCH, 2004), chapter 9 "The Chromosphere and Corona"; the books Stellar Magnetism by Leon Mestel (Oxford University Press 1999 & 2003) and Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Practice by Priest & Forbes (Cambridge University Press 2000), both of which have chapters on coronal heating. Or see papers such as De Pontieu, et al., 2009; Cranmer, 2008; Cranmer, van Ballegooijen & Edgar, 2007; Schrijver, et al., 2004; Walsh & Ireland, 2003 and Schrijver, et al., 1997 with references therein & citations thereto.

So what we have is you linking to a website that promotes a seriously flawed model of its own while falsely criticizing the standard model. And the mistakes made are not subtle mistakes that even an expert might make, but big fat mistakes like ignoring the magnetic field altogether or assuming that there is some connection between nuclear fusion in the core and the heating of the corona. You need to do better than that.

 

[Haig]

Haig, notice something quite interesting, even remarkable, about the responses by Tim Thompson and tusenfem, to your questions?

They provided objective, quantitative (far better than order-of-magnitude!), and independently verifiable answers to those questions!

Further, if you have further questions on their answers - or you did not find that they were objective, quantitative, and independently verifiable answers to those questions - you have only to ask, and they (and/or someone else) will be only too happy to provide them.

Have you found any objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to the questions I asked you, in amongst the material you provided links to?

I eagerly await your answer ...

Yes, the answers given to my questions byTim Thompson and tusenfem are very interesting. My sincere thanks to both of them.

Most of the answers are similar to what I have read before from mainstream, some not so, and lot of reading for me there too, when I find the time.

Sure, they provided objective, quantitative and independently verifiable answers. However, i'm also sure EU/PC theorists would also provide the same objective, quantitative and independently verifiable answers to support their views IF they had the public funding mainstream has, or even a fraction of it.

In my view, the hostility shown to the “electromagnetic” heretic’s of the 1950's by the mainstream has turned out to be counterproductive as mainstream entered the space age only to find confirmation after confirmation of the heretic’s insights.

 

[Haig]

The Electric Sun Hypothesis

Conclusion
This has been the briefest of introductions to Juergens' Electric Sun model - the realization that our Sun functions electrically - that it is a huge electrically charged, relatively quiescent, sphere of ionized gas that supports an electric plasma arc discharge on its surface and is powered by subtle currents that move throughout the now well known tenuous plasma that fills our galaxy. A more detailed description of the ES hypothesis as well as the deficiencies of the standard solar fusion model are presented in The Electric Sky.

Today's orthodox thermonuclear models fail to explain many observed solar phenomena. The Electric Sun model is inherently predictive of all these observed phenomena. It is relatively simple. It is self consistent. And it does not require the existence of mysterious entities such as the unseen solar 'dynamo' genie that lurks somewhere beneath the surface of the fusion model. The Electric Sun model does not violate Maxwell's equations as the fusion model does.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

 

[Haig]

On the Sun’s Electric-Field

Conclusion
The application of Maxwell’s equations to the correct spherical geometry of the Sun’s environment suggests a set of self-consistent, non-zero-valued electric-field functions and space-charge distributions that EU theorists have long felt existed, but have not previously been described quantitatively. These variations in the electric field suggest a possible explanatory mechanism for the here-to-fore ‘inexplicable, anomalous behavior’ of space probes in the vicinity of the heliopause.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/SunsEfield92210.pdf

 

[Haig]

Let's try just one, OK?

Haig: Solar wind is traveling at about 1 million miles an hour by the time it gets close to Earth and goes on past the orbit of Pluto for as far as we have been able to measure. This Solar wind varies with time and has even been observed to stop completely for a period of a day or two. What causes this fluctuation?

An objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answer to this question, if you please Haig.

I asked first DRD and the answers given, so far, by mainstream just pass the problem upstream, in my view.

This, by Donald E. Scott can help us understand a bit better:-

Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos

Abstract—A majority of baryons in the cosmos are in the plasma state. However, fundamental disagreements about the properties and behavior of electromagnetic fields in these plasmas exist between the science of modern astronomy/astrophysics and the experimentally verified laws of electrical engineering and plasma physics. Many helioastronomers claim that magnetic fields can be open ended. Astrophysicists have claimed that galactic magnetic fields begin and end on molecular clouds. Most electrical engineers, physicists, and pioneers in the electromagnetic field theory disagree, i.e., magnetic fields have no beginning or end. Many astrophysicists still claim that magnetic fields are “frozen into” electric plasma. The “magnetic merging” (reconnection) mechanism is also falsified by both theoretical and experimental investigations.

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

 

[Haig]

Abstract

The existence of the radial component of the electric current flowing toward the Sun is revealed in numerical simulation. The total strength of the radial current is ~ 3x 109 A. The only way to fulfil the electric current continuity is to close the radial electric current by means of field- aligned currents at the polar region of the Sun. Thus, the surface density of the closure current flowing along the solar surface can be estimated as ~ 4 A/m, and the magnetic field produced by this current is B ~ 5x 10-6 T, i.e. several percent of the intrinsic magnetic field of the Sun. This seems to mean that any treatment of the solar magnetic field generation should take into account the heliospheric current circuit as well as the currents flowing inside the Sun.

 

[Reality Check]

Abstract

MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric current sheet

The existence of the radial component of the electric current flowing toward the Sun is revealed in numerical simulation. The total strength of the radial current is ~ 3x 109 A. The only way to fulfil the electric current continuity is to close the radial electric current by means of field- aligned currents at the polar region of the Sun. Thus, the surface density of the closure current flowing along the solar surface can be estimated as ~ 4 A/m, and the magnetic field produced by this current is B ~ 5x 10-6 T, i.e. several percent of the intrinsic magnetic field of the Sun. This seems to mean that any treatment of the solar magnetic field generation should take into account the heliospheric current circuit as well as the currents flowing inside the Sun.

And what do you think this has to do with the electric sun theory?

Why don't you plug the numbers into the electric sun model and see what the total energy output from the Sun would be.

 

[tusenfem]

The Electric Sun Hypothesis
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

I once did a calculation about this model, and after searching I finally found it on BAUT.Let's save it for posterity.

So here goes nothing:

Okay, this has already been written once in several mails, now it is collected in one concise message. Is the sun a ball of hot gas with fusion in the centre or is it a discharge according to Juergens? Well, let’s see what mainstream physics has to say about it.

Total Energy produced by the Sun in 1 second:

From the general mainstream model the fusion in the core of the sun produces 4.3 million tonnes (4.3 10⁹ kg) equivalent of energy per second so with the well known equation E = MC² (Thanks Albert !, E is energy, M is the totall mass and C is the velocity of light 3 10⁸ m/s) we can find the total power P:

P = 4.3 10⁹ x (3 10⁸)² / 1 second = 3.9 10²⁶ Joules/s

With an arbitrary voltage of a billion volts from the Sun and exterior space, according to Juergens in a “double layer” above the suns surface and P = UI (where U is the total potential drop in Volts and I is the total current in Amperes), we can calculate a current

I = P / U = 3.9 10²⁶ / 10⁹ = 3.9 10¹⁷ A.

So, now we come to the circuit around the sun, inflowing current in the equatorial plane and outflowing current along the poles of the sun, this all in accordance with Alfvén’s circuit model (see Cosmic Plasma, page 55, Figure III.7).

Learning from the Earth where the current sheet thickness is on the order of the Earth’s radius, therefore we will assume that the current flowing to the sun has a thickness on the order of the suns radius.

Now we look at what may be observed near Earth if indeed this current flows in the circuit, driving the energy output of the sun as in Juergens’ model.

For a plane current sheet we can estimate the magnetic field by using Maxwell's equations. One equation, Ampere's Law, says that the variation of the magnetic field produced by a current is given by:

curl B = mu₀ (J + epsilon₀ dE/dt),

here curl is an operator that basically takes the derivative of the magnetic field in all three cartesian coordinates. In the case when we have a sheet of current, we can simplify this equation. We assume time stationarity (the sun shines at basically the same rate without major variations so that is no real problem) which means that any time derivative, like dE/dt will be 0. Assuming an infinite sheet in the x and y direction there is only variation in z and the equation simplifies to:

dB/dz = mu₀ J,

and here we can make an estimate of the variation of the magnetic field from one side of the current sheet to the other by changing this differential into a difference dB/dz -> delta B / delta z. The delta B we do not know but the delta z is the thickness of the current sheet, so we find:

Delta B / L = mu₀ J,

where we know L, the radius of the sun (7 10⁸ m), and we can calculate J from the total current I (above) and saying that it flows through a “ribbon” of L wide and a circumference of 2 pi R_Earth-sun (1 AU = 1.5 10¹¹ m),

J = 3.9 10¹⁷ / (2 pi 1.5 10¹¹ 7 10⁸ = 6 10^-4 Amp/m²
and thus with mu₀ = 4 pi 10^-7 we find for the magnetic field near the Earth produced by that current system:

delta B = mu₀ J L = 0.5 Tesla

Now, what magnetic field strengt his measured near the Earth? We measure field in the nano-Tesla range (see e.g. data from the Cluster spacecraft in the solar wind (the middle part in the linked plot), so that means that this model is roughly 1 billion (American) 10⁹ times too strong, give or take a factor of 3!

And then other observations, e.g. by the Ulysses spacecraft over the poles of the sun (here is a plot of the magnetic field strength measured by the mission from start to date), have not shown any signature AFAIK of strong toroidal magnetic fields associated with the outflowing currents.

I guess that basically puts the lid on Juergens’ model.

 

[Tubbythin]

This, by Donald E. Scott can help us understand a bit better:-

That he can. He can help us understand by showing that he hasn't even the slightest idea what he is talking about.

 

[tusenfem]

On the Sun’s Electric-Field

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/SunsEfield92210.pdf

Well that is a nice 'what if' paper, not hampered at all by any real observations about the sun's surroundings and any "charge layers" that should exist around the Sun. But for students a nice exercise in electrodynamics. YAWN!

 

[tusenfem]

I asked first DRD and the answers given, so far, by mainstream just pass the problem upstream, in my view.

This, by Donald E. Scott can help us understand a bit better:-

Abstract—A majority of baryons in the cosmos are in the plasma state. However, fundamental disagreements about the properties and behavior of electromagnetic fields in these plasmas exist between the science of modern astronomy/astrophysics and the experimentally verified laws of electrical engineering and plasma physics. Many helioastronomers claim that magnetic fields can be open ended. Astrophysicists have claimed that galactic magnetic fields begin and end on molecular clouds. Most electrical engineers, physicists, and pioneers in the electromagnetic field theory disagree, i.e., magnetic fields have no beginning or end. Many astrophysicists still claim that magnetic fields are “frozen into” electric plasma. The “magnetic merging” (reconnection) mechanism is also falsified by both theoretical and experimental investigations.

Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

Well, apparently Scotty does not understand mainstream nomenclature. No "helioastronomer" (I guess solar physicist would be a better name) will ever claim that there are "open ended" magnetic field lines, because they do not exist. The fact that they talk about "open field lines" is because these are field lines that do not return to the Sun or to the Earth.

Ah again, the frozen in condition. That has been discussed to death here already and the fact that many a EU/ES/EC proponent does not understand what mainstream says. Even in non-ideal MHD, i.e. in the case that the plasma has a resistivity (which is certainly almost always has) the frozen in concept is still valid over time scales that are small compared to the magnetic diffusion time (which is proportional to the conductivity of the plasma). The fact that, when frozen in was first proposed it was taken for granted was an early mistake (as with so many things in science happen) however, you will not find a good plasma physics book where it is not stated that frozen in is only valid over a certain limited time span.

And the magnetic merging or reconnection is proven every time you see aurora in the sky.

Scott is about 20 years behind in modern plasma and space physics.

 

[tusenfem]

Abstract

It is well known that there is a heliospheric current sheet, which needs to be there, because the Sun's magnetic field is still dipolar and stretched out and therefore, just like in the Earth's magnetotail there is a current flowing perpendicular to the solar wind magnetic field which facilitates the turning of the field from away from the Sun in one hemisphere to towards the Sun in the other hemisphere. This is basic Maxwell theory.

Combine this with the fact that, over loooooooong periods averaged there is a Parker spiral in the solar wind magnetic field (if you measure the solar wind properties you never find a Parker spiral, it is a statistical product) then naturally, the flowing of the heliospheric current sheet current will have a radial component. However, this has nothing to do with the notion that the Sun would be an anode and the heliosphere a cathode. This is just basic magnetodynamics and will only work in the idealized version (i.e. a Parker spiral) that Israelivich et al. (2001) put into their solar wind model. Interestingly, they have not even tried to stave their results with solar wind observations.