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

[Michael Mozina]

So I don't CARE if you want to claim that the plasma above your solid surface isn't opaque, it doesn't matter to this argument. You still end up with the solid surface at a temperature of at least 5700 K. Which is, well, not possible.

It absolutely *does* matter to your argument because by your definition a 6K photophere cannot sit below a 20K chromosphere and neither one of them can sit underneath of a million degree corona.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6..135D/0000135.000.html

FYI dasmiller, here was that link to Dungey's paper on electrical discharges in solar flares. I won't overwhelm you with papers, let's just go through them one at a time. If you don't like Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, perhaps this one is more to your liking? Perhaps you're fine with Peratt's definition. Either way, the event can be looked at from the B orientation (magnetic reconnection) or the E orientation (electrical discharge), it really doesn't matter. Both sets of maths work, they just approach it from different orientations. Alfven preferred the "particle' or "circuit" (E) orientation over the B orientation. He systematically rejected the B orientation at "reconnection" points in "current carrying" plasmas in favor of a "circuit" and 'exploding double layer" (aka electrical discharge) orientation. Dungey seems to be the most adept and "going both ways". II think you'll like his work.

 

[Ziggurat]

It absolutely *does* matter to your argument because by your definition a 6K photophere cannot sit below a 20K chromosphere and neither one of them can sit underneath of a million degree corona.

Well, no. The chromosphere and the corona are observably NOT blackbody radiators. So they don't need to be, and are not, opaque. They're not even close to opaque. All of this has been explained to you before. You lose. Again.

 

[dasmiller]

Well, that ionization state (particularly that high), along with gamma and x-rays must be "explained" sooner or later.

If the ionization state is consistent with the temperature, then the ionization state is simply incidental and we should focus on the temperature rather than ionization.

By "simple", don't you mean you can be "certain" occurs "naturally" around multiple large physical objects in this solar system?

Not at all. I mean phenomena that can be understood with my less-than-complete understanding of physics. I have only a vague understanding of plasma physics, so I'm not weighing in on those parts.

It's better in one very obvious way. A "large current flow" (which seems to be where we have dumbed it down to) produces a "pinched filament" that can "light up" the filament in many wavelengths all along the filament, much like you see in an ordinary plasma ball. How does the current model explain *ONE* (singular) coronal loop at a million + degrees? What's the heating mechanism if not a "large current flow/discharge" through a pinched filament?

That's the sort of question I leave to others, and I believe it's been addressed. But if the coronal loop is simply an electric arc between two points on the surface that are somehow sustaining massively different voltages despite the huge current, then why does the loop rise? Are you picturing this as a gigantic Jacob's ladder?

Give me some time today, I've got a lot of "honey do" stuff going on today, but I'll start by rounding up Dungey's paper unless you've already read it, and wish to comment on it.

I've skimmed it, and my takeaway was different from yours, but I'll take another look.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Is there a coherent "electric sun" theory that has been presented since Alfvens ideas were elaborated on by Don Scott in his book "the electric sky", in his rather vague (yet quite novel and plausible) model ?

This was back about 2008 ish.

If not im going to have to be skeptical that the 'electric sun' theory is standing the test of time.

 

[Zeuzzz]

If not im going to have to be skeptical that the 'electric sun' theory is standing the test of time.

Thing is people seem to use the term "electric sun theory" for numerous completely different theories that happen to involve charge separation.

What model is this thread focusing on? link?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Ahh, the good ol' clap to support censoring the thoughts of people who have different belief systems and theories. The good ol' anti freedom of expression and thought argument.

God damn those free thinkers!

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun and the Photosphere II

OK, now a I am confused. What is this saying?

Photosphere
The visible surface of the Sun, the photosphere, is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light.[47] Above the photosphere visible sunlight is free to propagate into space, and its energy escapes the Sun entirely. The change in opacity is due to the decreasing amount of H⁻ ions, which absorb visible light easily.[47] Conversely, the visible light we see is produced as electrons react with hydrogen atoms to produce H⁻ ions.[48][49] The photosphere is tens to hundreds of kilometers thick, being slightly less opaque than air on Earth. Because the upper part of the photosphere is cooler than the lower part, an image of the Sun appears brighter in the center than on the edge or limb of the solar disk, in a phenomenon known as limb darkening.[47] Sunlight has approximately a black-body spectrum that indicates its temperature is about 6,000 K, interspersed with atomic absorption lines from the tenuous layers above the photosphere. The photosphere has a particle density of ~10²³ m[/sup]−3[/sup] (this is about 0.37% of the particle number per volume of Earth's atmosphere at sea level; however, photosphere particles are electrons and protons, so the average particle in air is 58 times as heavy).[44]

LINK
On the one hand, it says, "the photosphere, is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light." On the other hand it says, " (it is) slightly less opaque than air on Earth." Less opaque than air means more transparent than air. not so? So, would that not imply we can see features below the photosphere, as Mozina proposes? (I hate myself for saying this!)

I only have a few minutes before I am off to a family reunion so let me just say this: It is the base of the photosphere and not literally the photosphere itself that is opaque. That happens at a depth of about 400 km, and I have posted extensively on this in the past. Mozina says it happens at a depth of about 4800 km, where we will find a "rigid" surface. So the real bone of contention is the difference between 400 and 4800 km (and of course the insane idea of a "rigid" surface that breaks every law of physics you can think of). We can see the photosphere in projection by looking at the limb of the sun and there is no way you can see to a depth of 4800 km, so direct observation falsifies Mozina's claim. All he can do in response is say "I don't believe that" (ignoring all real observations and all real physics in the process) and appealing to a horribly min-interpreted image (movie) that he does not understand at all. You will have to wait until tonight or tomorrow for more from me, but I am sure somebody else can chime in.

Having returned from the family reunion and a visit with my 88 year old aunt, allow me to point out that all of this about the opacity of the photosphere is, as one might expect, a recycled conversation. Been there, done that, with Mozina (and others), to no avail.

From 26 Jun 2009 ...

The huge problem in your idea is that the photosphere is far too thin to be a "black body" in the first place.

That is not true. The "thinness" of the plasma is irrelevant. It's the optical depth which determines whether or not the plasma will radiate as a black body. The solar photosphere plasma has an optical depth of 1.0 where it has a mass density of only 2.78x10^-7 gm/cm³ (but an electron number density 7.7x10¹³/cm³ and a hydrogen atom number density 1.2x10¹⁷/cm³). An optical depth that high guarantees a black body spectral energy distribution.

It is well known that the emission from the solar photosphere is an approximate black body. It is in fact a superposition of multiple black bodies at multiple temperatures, since we can see emission from throughout the depth of the photosphere. The temperature profile shows 6520 Kelvins at optical depth 1, down to a minimum 4400 Kelvins at optical depth 4x10^-4, after which the temperature increases again to 5160 Kelvins at optical depth 5x10^-6. The base of the photosphere, about optical depth 24, has a temperature 9400 Kelvins. The region around optical depth 1 contributes most strongly to the black body shape; lower regions of higher optical depth are more opaque, and higher regions of lower optical depth emit less thermal energy. That's why the best fit single temperature black body for the photosphere is about 6000 Kelvins.

I am using the profile given in Solar Astrophysics by Peter V. Foukal (Wiley-VCH, 2004, 2nd edition), page 153. The inversion technique for building the temperature profile is briefly described in section 5.2.2, but far more detailed descriptions & explanations can be found in any book on atmospheric modeling, where inversions are long standing techniques.

The shape of the photosphere SED is well represented in the diagrams on the Wikipedia page for solar radiation. Foukal's book gives far more detailed information for the curious reader.

In the post above, optical depth is defined such that I = I₀ * e^-tau where tau is the optical depth (I have probably misused the word here and it should be opacity instead, but this is the way I have used it so I proceed apace to maintain consistency), I₀ is the radiation intensity at the source and I is the radiation intensity measured by the observer. So at an optical depth of 24, as I have used it, then the observed light intensity is down by a factor of e²⁴ or 2.65x10¹⁰ (that means the observed radiative intensity is 3.78x10^-11 of the intensity at the source). That level is about 100 km below the level where the optical depth (tau) = 1. The optical depth itself increases exponentially, so if you go down another 100 km, the optical depth will be at least an order of magnitude greater. As anyone can see, this certainly counts as "opaque" by any physically reasonable standard. The idea that one could see to a depth of 4800 km through such a medium, via electromagnetic radiation, is physically ridiculous.

Also see my posts from the following days, Atmospheric Profile Inversion Techniques, and Re: Validity of plasma properties & inversion techniques, which give references to the validity of the techniques used to derive atmospheric profiles from the observations. These methods, especially limb sounding, have been heavily validated in our own atmosphere, where in situ measurements are used to verify the inversions. Other relevant posts from the same time frame are Optical Depth, Solid Surface and Photosphere, Solid Surface and Photosphere II, 171 Angstroms & the Solar Transition Region, and 171 Angstroms & the Solar Photosphere & Chromosphere. All of these posts date from the same time period, June & July 2009, about 18 months ago. And here we are going over the same old thing again like it never happened. An endless loop.

We visit the same topic again in the spring of 2010: Photospheric Opacity and Photospheric Opacity and Composition. And from the summer of 2010: Solar Black Body Emission.

Bottom Line: There is no physical justification for the idea that the photosphere is transparent or translucent beyond a depth of approximately 100 km below the level where the optical depth (as I have defined it here) is equal to one.

 

[Zeuzzz]

 

[Tim Thompson]

Solar "Electrical Discharges" I

I'll be happy to exclude/include (depending on how you want to see it) you too Tim if you're willing to accept that discharges happen in plasma and you agree to *SOME* definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma. At least then we'll have a place to begin. I think tusenfem and I can communicate, maybe you and I can do that too. Do you accept either Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma or Dungey's definition?

First, allow me to reference my own previous comments on this point:

As we have seen in the last several pages, and especially the very informative post 1441 from tusenfem, what the words "electric discharge" actually means seem to be user dependent. It would appear that Mozina wishes to limit the meaning to the phrase "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy" ignoring everything else. I have always argued that electrical discharges were impossible in a plasma, but then I always simply assumed that the words meant what everybody would naturally expect them to mean in a colloquial sense, the catastrophic reunion of separated charges across a breakdown potential (lightning, for instance). Only now, after so many years, has Mozina actually defined those words and only now do I (we) realize that the colloquial meaning is not what he had in mind (or at least not what he has in mind now).

It seems to me that whether or not one wishes to call the hot plasma an "electrical discharge" is not really the point. It is certainly a poor choice of words, designed to generate confusion in the absence of a constantly repeated definition. But the real issue is the physics that underlies the words. What physically is really happening is the point. This is where Mozina runs into the brick wall of physics and catastrophically fails the test. He rejects magnetic reconnection in favor of exploding double layers, even though physics rejects the latter in favor of the former. He rejects the frozen flux approximation for magnetic fields in a plasma even though physics requires it. These two points are the most fundamental and critical points in this entire discussion. Everything in the physics of coronal heating, coronal loops, flares & CME's stems from these two critical concepts (with some thermodynamics & radiative transfer thrown in, but they don't yet seem to be points of contention).

As long as Mozina rejects these two critical concepts of physics, magnetic reconnection and the frozen flux approximation, then this discussion and all other similar discussions everywhere are doomed at once to become infinite loops of the same thing over & over & over & over again, ad infinitum, as has become the case for this discussion. Quite simply it's Mozina vs. physics, and I choose physics over Mozina every time.

See tusenfem's post 1441, linked above, where we find tusenfem quoting you quoting Peratt: "An electric 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" and tusenfem comments, "I note the MM just highlights magnetic energy, whereas, as usual, he forgets about the rest of the text."

Now, to answer your question, I do not think that the definition you present is Peratt's definition, I think it is your own definition; certainly a variation on Peratt's, but sufficiently restricted to count as your own interpretation and therefore your own definition. I would not use that definition on the grounds that it is overly general, and I reject it. I require a breakdown of a potential barrier to qualify as an electrical discharge. Therefore I continue to maintain that, by my definition, "electrical discharges" are impossible in a plasma. However, I am cognizant of the fact that by your specific definition of "electrical discharge" ("An electric discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.") then "electrical discharges" do occur in a plasma. But I maintain that, whether or not I (or anyone else) "accepts" your definition of "electrical discharge" is in fact not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not you use your own chosen definition in a physically reasonable and self consistent manner. That said I will further maintain that you do not use your own definition in a physically reasonable or self consistent manner, and therefore it is fair to say that you yourself reject what you have come to call "Peratt's definition" (which is in fact your own definition).

You fail to use your own definition in a self consistent manner because, as you say, the release of "magnetic stored energy" counts as an "electrical discharge". While there is a unified science of electromagnetism, this should not be construed to imply that "electrical" and "magnetic" are indistinguishable. The release of magnetic stored energy simply is not electrical so it is not self consistent to call it "electrical". And you do not use your own definition in a physically reasonable way because you want flares to be generated by exploding double layers in a physical environment that is not conducive to the generation of plasma double layers (although I defer to the expertise of tusenfem who's PhD research is on the specific topic of plasma double layers). You also reject magnetic reconnection, which definitely happens in real laboratory plasmas, and which definitely counts as the release of stored magnetic energy, and is therefore an "electrical discharge" by your definition (though not by mine).

Bottom Line: It all really boils down to what I said before and quoted above, that it does not really matter how one wishes to define the words "electrical discharge"; as long as we talk about that we simply avoid the real issue altogether. The real issue is simply this: What is (are) the physical process(es) of energy release that trigger flares & CME's? You (Mozina) say magnetic induction & exploding double layers. Physics, on the other hand, says mostly magnetic reconnection, with some magnetic induction, magnetic buoyancy and rarely (if ever) exploding double layers. As long as this difference lasts, we are at an impasse between Mozina & physics. It's just that simple.

 

[tusenfem]

Give me a break! Of course it does. How did that plasma get so hot anywhere near an "opaque" 6K surface? What could possibly do that *BESIDES* a "discharge" in a *SINGLE* coronal loop, besides current flow that PINCHES the thread and ionizes the elements in the thread?

And as usual the important point just goes right over your head.
The plasma in the loop is already ionized otherwise it would not be a plasma. Further ionization of e.g. Fe to a level of 20+ (from say a level 5+) is not a break down of the medium and inherently the properties do not change, like in the case of a neutral gas, where the medium goes from non-conducting neutral to a state of conducting ionized. That is a break down of the medium.

The currents flowing in the loop, as I told you, are heating up the plasma through the plasma's resistivity (either by particle-particle or particle-wave interactions) and the more current you drive through it the hotter it will become (up to a certain level, naturally).

Now, from your discussion, it is clear that you want to use the very loose definition of discharge, i.e. that it is just a strong current through a gas. I think it is a ridiculous definition for a discharge, but I guess we have to live with that. Then you come up with a pinch (naturally), and that just increases the current density and as the dissipation goes with the magnitude of the current density, then naturally the heating and the further ionization of the plasma (if possible) will be stronger.

So you're claiming they are a million degree *INSIDE* of that "opaque" material?

No, dumbhead, that is not what I wrote. The Fe will be ionized in the Sun proper (otherwise it cannot rise with the magnetic field, because it would not stick, basic plasma physics thank you very much). It will have something like 5+ or so (humble estimate, not necessarily correct) and then through the heating of the plasma by the current be ionized further quite possibly to 20+.

Really. I am trying hard to keep this a pleasant conversation, but if you don't even read accurately what I write down, than it is getting real hard to keep this pleasant. So, read carefully what I write, think about it, look it up in your books or on the web and then maybe answer me.

Notice that lightning/electrical discharges emit gamma rays in the Earth atmosphere, so it's likely that "discharges" are also responsible for gamma rays from flares too.

Yes and tha annihilation of matter-antimatter can create gamma rays too. Just because on thing happens at one place immediately means that it also happens in another place.

Question: from what region do the gamma rays originate in solar flared?

Yes it does. It changes the TEMPERATURE of that "gas" to very high temperatures as the z-machine has demonstrated on MANY occasions.

Have I ever claimed anything else? yadayadayada

It doesn't matter to me which definition you prefer, I"m fine, as long as we can all agree on what a "discharge" in a plasma is.

Oh bejeweled blizz, you hop from one definition to another, one time you want to have a current as a discharge and then you want a one line cut out from Peratt as a discharge.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Having returned from the family reunion and a visit with my 88 year old aunt, allow me to point out that all of this about the opacity of the photosphere is, as one might expect, a recycled conversation. Been there, done that, with Mozina (and others), to no avail.

From 26 Jun 2009 ...


In the post above, optical depth is defined such that I = I₀ * e^-tau where tau is the optical depth (I have probably misused the word here and it should be opacity instead, but this is the way I have used it so I proceed apace to maintain consistency), I₀ is the radiation intensity at the source and I is the radiation intensity measured by the observer. So at an optical depth of 24, as I have used it, then the observed light intensity is down by a factor of e²⁴ or 2.65x10¹⁰ (that means the observed radiative intensity is 3.78x10^-11 of the intensity at the source). That level is about 100 km below the level where the optical depth (tau) = 1. The optical depth itself increases exponentially, so if you go down another 100 km, the optical depth will be at least an order of magnitude greater. As anyone can see, this certainly counts as "opaque" by any physically reasonable standard. The idea that one could see to a depth of 4800 km through such a medium, via electromagnetic radiation, is physically ridiculous.

Also see my posts from the following days, Atmospheric Profile Inversion Techniques, and Re: Validity of plasma properties & inversion techniques, which give references to the validity of the techniques used to derive atmospheric profiles from the observations. These methods, especially limb sounding, have been heavily validated in our own atmosphere, where in situ measurements are used to verify the inversions. Other relevant posts from the same time frame are Optical Depth, Solid Surface and Photosphere, Solid Surface and Photosphere II, 171 Angstroms & the Solar Transition Region, and 171 Angstroms & the Solar Photosphere & Chromosphere. All of these posts date from the same time period, June & July 2009, about 18 months ago. And here we are going over the same old thing again like it never happened. An endless loop.

We visit the same topic again in the spring of 2010: Photospheric Opacity and Photospheric Opacity and Composition. And from the summer of 2010: Solar Black Body Emission.

Bottom Line: There is no physical justification for the idea that the photosphere is transparent or translucent beyond a depth of approximately 100 km below the level where the optical depth (as I have defined it here) is equal to one.

Thank you.

 

[Reality Check]

No, actually I know for a fact he told me the truth in that quote because we both agreed on that point actually. The discussion then became about what held those mass flows in such persistent angular shapes, and there was no resolution to that difference of opinion.

This is what he stated:

In a recent email from Dr. Kosovichev, he explained these features in the following quote:
"The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4."

There can be no difference of opionion about the cause of the "mass flows" as I have emphasised.
If you think that there are solid nickel structures in the images then you are wrong.

Ya. How is it relevant in terms of what we see in the image?

Because your debunked idea about an iron surface/crust is not a debunked idea about a nickel surface/crust.

 

[Reality Check]

Where are Peratt's many pages on electrical discharges within plasma

I understand how it's "defined", I just don't agree with it, much like RC and GM seem to DENY the definition provided by Peratt of a discharge in a plasma.

You cannot disagree with a defintion. The defintion of the photosphere is the layer where light escapes from a star. By defintion no light can come from under a photosphere.

What you are takiing about is the "mozisphere" which is the physically impossible layer where light magically gets through 4800 kilometers of plasma.

You are in denial that Peratt defines electrical dischargesw using 2 sentences. These together are the usual defintion that involves the breakdown os a dielectric medium.

You remain ignorant that in section 1.5 Peratt never discusses electrical discharges within plasmas.

1.5. Electrical 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.

The page never mentions electrical discharges inside plasmas. The closest to that is the section title above. It does mention

• the generation of particle beams, X-rays and microwaves
• lightning is noted as "the discharge mechanism at work"!
• aurora

Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-fermi-large-area-telescope-flares.html

Hey look! It turns out that flares/discharges happen around neutron stars too.

You are wrong !
Try reading the article and understanding the science.
The flares in the news article are gamma ray bursts generated by some unknown mechanism.
They are not solar flares They are not discharges.

 

[Reality Check]

Well screw my nipple nuts and send me to Alaska.

My PhD supervisor already calculated this in 1990, Flaring interactions between accretion disk and neutron star magnetosphere, Aly, J. J.; Kuijpers, J., Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 227, no. 2, Jan. 1990, p. 473-482. This paper was the basis for my paper on flares near black holes.

Wow - that is close to my first thought when I read the news article: neutron star -> strong magnetic field -> lots of energy available for magnetic reconnection -> really energetic electrons and positrons emitted from the star. Add in the magnetic field of the nebula and you get gamma ray bursts.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And as usual the important point just goes right over your head.
The plasma in the loop is already ionized otherwise it would not be a plasma.

Yes, I understand that. It's a question of HOW MUCH current flow, and how HIGHLY ionized the plasma then becomes due to that current flow. The whole definition of an electrical discharge BEGINS in a plasma.

Further ionization of e.g. Fe to a level of 20+ (from say a level 5+) is not a break down of the medium and inherently the properties do not change, like in the case of a neutral gas, where the medium goes from non-conducting neutral to a state of conducting ionized. That is a break down of the medium.

Ya, but we are not discussing discharges through a GAS, now are we? Some "greater" concentration of "current flow' is going to be required in order to explain multi-million degree plasmas anywhere near an "opaque" 6K surface.

The currents flowing in the loop, as I told you, are heating up the plasma through the plasma's resistivity (either by particle-particle or particle-wave interactions) and the more current you drive through it the hotter it will become (up to a certain level, naturally).

Great. We are in total agreement on that point. It's all a function of the pinch and current flowing through the pinched filament.

Now, from your discussion, it is clear that you want to use the very loose definition of discharge, i.e. that it is just a strong current through a gas.

No, I'm looking for *ANY* definition of an "electrical discharge" in a "plasma" (already ionized gasses) so we can discuss Dungey's paper, and get on with it. If you insist on deviating from a relatively 'standard" definition from the realm of plasma physics, well, I guess I'll have to live with it, so long as we can *MOVE ON* in the conversation.

I think it is a ridiculous definition for a discharge, but I guess we have to live with that.

I think it's utterly ridiculous you're arguing with a plasma physicist too, but then you reject Alfven's work too I suppose, or at least some of it. Even still, this is simply a "definition" of a discharge in a plasma. Unless one believe it's impossible to release EM energy into a plasma, it's must occur.

Then you come up with a pinch (naturally), and that just increases the current density and as the dissipation goes with the magnitude of the current density, then naturally the heating and the further ionization of the plasma (if possible) will be stronger.

I am pleased that we seem to be in fundamental agreement on that point. It will help the conversation move along.

No, dumbhead, that is not what I wrote.

I love how you guys get a free pass to attack the individual, whereas I get whole week off for calling someone a "crackpot". That's really amusing actually. Do you really think comments like that are going to help us communicate logically, or do you figure that is likely to elicit a more "emotional" response?

The Fe will be ionized in the Sun proper (otherwise it cannot rise with the magnetic field, because it would not stick, basic plasma physics thank you very much). It will have something like 5+ or so (humble estimate, not necessarily correct) and then through the heating of the plasma by the current be ionized further quite possibly to 20+.

But then fundamentally we are talking about the "intersection" of two "discharges" at the point of "reconnection". It's not simply a "magnetic" process, it's an *ELECTRO*magnetic reconnection process.

Really. I am trying hard to keep this a pleasant conversation,

Like the dumbhead comment?

but if you don't even read accurately what I write down, than it is getting real hard to keep this pleasant. So, read carefully what I write, think about it, look it up in your books or on the web and then maybe answer me.

You need to chill out a bit. FYI, I'm typically responding to these posts between tech calls at work, I'm responding to LOTS of individuals and sometimes I do in fact misread things from time to time because (drum roll please) "I'm human".

Yes and tha annihilation of matter-antimatter can create gamma rays too. Just because on thing happens at one place immediately means that it also happens in another place.

Ya, but we already know that "discharges" produce them. We know "discharges" occur around every large body in the solar system with an atmosphere and a magnetic field and the sun has both. Why do we need to go looking for anything particularly exotic when we already KNOW a "natural' source of such photons in our *OWN* atmosphere?

Question: from what region do the gamma rays originate in solar flared?

No doubt at the "base' of the loops where the "discharge" process heats plasma to millions of degrees.

Oh bejeweled blizz, you hop from one definition to another, one time you want to have a current as a discharge and then you want a one line cut out from Peratt as a discharge.

Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma is clear, it's concise, and it's perfectly congruent with Dungey's use of the term. Why do we need to deny a perfectly good definition of a discharge in a plasma again? Oh ya, to protect *IGNORANCE* spewed by a couple of clueless individuals.

You and I seem to be able to communicate. Let's just focus on moving forward and I'll just ignore the ignorant for awhile, ok?

Alfven referred to these "pinched" filaments as "circuits", so what would be an appropriate term for two 'circuits" reconnecting and some change in topology between those two circuits?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow - that is close to my first thought when I read the news article: neutron star -> strong magnetic field -> lots of energy available for magnetic reconnection -> really energetic electrons and positrons emitted from the star. Add in the magnetic field of the nebula and you get gamma ray bursts.

I think Oliver wouldn't mind me posting his recent email comments on that neutron star since he sent that particular email to a list, not just to me personally:

Dear friends,

Dr. Al Church of the MITRE Federally Funded Research and Development Centers kindly send this copy of a new paper in Science Express: "Gamma-Ray Flares from the Crab Nebula"

The one hundred and sixty-eight (168) authors are listed alphabetically, beginning with A. A. Abdo, a National Research Council Research Associate, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC 20001, resident at Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375, USA.

The 168 authors represent NAS and fifty-four (54) other top-flight research institutions world-wide.

The new paper concludes, "The Crab Nebula is powered by the central neutron star which acts as a DC unipolar inductor and a source of an AC striped wind".

Proponents of the Electric Universe may be pleased. Neutron repulsion was overlooked.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

PS - We now have authoritative, government, consensus opinions on global warming, oscillating solar neutrinos, and energetic neutron stars!

 

[D'rok]

Michael, Peratt's definition requires a breakdown of a medium. In plasma, what is the medium and how does it breakdown?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Now, to answer your question, I do not think that the definition you present is Peratt's definition,

I've quoted the him from his book, and I've cited the WHOLE definition several times. If you don't like the one his gave, how about you personally provide one that you can live with, and that is consistent with Dungey's use of the term, so we can discuss those "discharges" he describes in flares and we can discuss those gamma rays.

I'm open in terms of tweaking the overall definition if you feel it's necessary for some reason, but IMO Peratt's definition is excellent and I see no reason not to use it. What exactly *IS* your objection, *ACCEPTING* the fact that we are already describing "plasma" in and around "flares".