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

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, you also demonstrated my point about why it's impossible to move forward at the moment.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How does an association relate to the definition?

Well, Peratt's definition talks about a fast, localized release of stored EM energy. It describes the EFFECT of that process on the plasma. Dungey makes it's clear that such discharge may occur in flare events, but all flare events are of a limited lifespan, unlike "currents" that can continue indefinitely. There's certainly an attempt to associate flares and discharges and such events are fast, limited duration events that fit with Peratt's definition of a discharge but do not NECESSARILY fit with simple "current" that implies no limit on the duration of the event.

 

[dasmiller]

Well, Peratt's definition talks about a fast, localized release of stored EM energy. It describes the EFFECT of that process on the plasma. Dungey makes it's clear that such discharge may occur in flare events, but all flare events are of a limited lifespan, unlike "currents" that can continue indefinitely. There's certainly an attempt to associate flares and discharges and such events are fast, limited duration events that fit with Peratt's definition of a discharge but do not NECESSARILY fit with simple "current" that implies no limit on the duration of the event.

AFAIK, there's nothing implicitly steady-state about a current, so saying that a flare is caused by a discharge but not by a current is . . . like saying that the ocean has a lot of water but no H₂O. (see, H₂O may be in the form of ice, water, or steam, so "water" is a more specific term, but . . . I'm rambling).

 

[Perpetual Student]

Mozina and Zeuzzzzz are back on "ignore" and I am done with this thread. There is such a vast body of real science to pursue and life is too short to waste on crackpots.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, Peratt's definition talks about a fast, localized release of stored EM energy. It describes the EFFECT of that process on the plasma.

Not quite complete: You forgot about the breakdown of the energy transmission medium. That is impossible in a plasma (plasma is already broken down) which is why his examples of electrical discharge are aurora and lightning. And why he does not go onto give examples of or analyze actual electrical discharges within plasma.

He never describes the EFFECT of the release of stored EM energy from electrical discharges on plasma in his book.

But if you mean the first sentence of his 2 sentence definition then he states that the energy release is sudden (i.e. "fast") but does not restrict its range.

Dungey makes it clear that he was using electrical discharge to mean the large current densities caused by magnetic reconnection events. As such they are "of a limited lifespan". The fact that there are always currents in plasma is irrelevant. They are not discharges according to Dungey.

See Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.

It is Alfven that that defines a discharge as a current (but note the word gas ).

Originally Posted by tusenfem
Peratt: 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.

Dungey: The defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density. The electrons must reach at least relativistic energies ...

Alfvén: (Cosm. Eldy.) Traditionally a current through a gas is called a discharge.

 

[DSo]

This is all about someone's hobby of perpetual argument. The goal is the argument, not the truth.

 

[Michael Mozina]

AFAIK, there's nothing implicitly steady-state about a current, so saying that a flare is caused by a discharge but not by a current is . . . like saying that the ocean has a lot of water but no H₂O. (see, H₂O may be in the form of ice, water, or steam, so "water" is a more specific term, but . . . I'm rambling).

Well, in the sense that both involve current flows, I certainly hear you. Then again I'd much rather be hit by raindrops than have an ocean land on my head from the same distance. It's certainly a matter of question of the mass, duration and volume of the particles either way you look at it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is all about someone's hobby of perpetual argument. The goal is the argument, not the truth.

Certainly that isn't the case from my perspective. I can't really adequately describe those spikes in the GOES x-ray data however without you accepting some understanding of the concept of a FAST RELEASE of STORED energy. The definition of a discharge in a plasma precludes the statement "discharges cannot occur in a plasma/conductor" from being true. One or the other statement/definition can be true, but both statements cannot be true. Either discharges can or cannot occur in a plasma. Only one of those possibilities can be "true" in terms of physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Mozina and Zeuzzzzz are back on "ignore" and I am done with this thread. There is such a vast body of real science to pursue and life is too short to waste on crackpots.

Ya, ya, they're evil, evil, evil I say. Live long and prosper.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not quite complete: You forgot about the breakdown of the energy transmission medium.

No, I explained it to The Man (seems like an appropriate handle by the way) in this post:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6783168&postcount=2244

Now of course you would have to read it, understand it, and agree to, but I'm sure there will be a "breakdown" somewhere along the line involving the word "dielectric" perhaps?

 

[Reality Check]

No, I explained it to The Man (seems like an appropriate handle by the way) in this post:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6783168&postcount=2244

Now of course you would have to read it, understand it, and agree to, but I'm sure there will be a "breakdown" somewhere along the line involving the word "dielectric" perhaps?

No - you forgot to mention in the post I quoted which was your reply to dasmiller.
That explanation of Peratt's defintion was not complete:

You forgot about the breakdown of the energy transmission medium. That is impossible in a plasma (plasma is already broken down) which is why his examples of electrical discharge are aurora and lightning. And why he does not go onto give examples of or analyze actual electrical discharges within plasma.
​

And the linked post has nothng to do with Peratt's defintion.

I do understand the post though. If I ignore

• your rather strange use of quotation.
• the errrors, e.g.
  No energy is contained int the "coronal loop "circuit"". There is no physical circuit in a coronal loop to contain energy. The energy is stored in the magnetic field of the coronal loop.

then it is s simplistic description of Birkeland currents and z-pinches.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Solar "Electrical Discharges" II

And your stand on absurdity is absurd in my opinion. The proper use of terminology is not even an issue.

The hell it's not, especially if you expect me to DEFEND a statement that requires AGREEMENT on a scientific term!

I disagree. No such agreement is necessary. The only thing that is necessary is that you clearly state your definition of whatever the phrase du jour is (in this case "discharge" or perhaps "electrical discharge") and then present a hypothesis that is consistent with your definition. If agreement is lacking, the proper scientific response is to tell the opposition to take a long walk off a short plank, unless of course they can present a valid criticism of the physics that underlies the words. So stop fiddling around with nonsensical distractions and get to the point: What is the physics and how does it involve your definition?

Definitions are always arbitrary and your definition of a "discharge" is both arbitrary and contrary to normal usage.

Bolding mine. I'm sick and tired of your side playing "science by proclamation". Prove it Tim. Provide us with a *PUBLISHED* physics definition of an electrical discharge that shows I'm using the term incorrectly.

I already told you what I think about the words "electrical discharge" ...

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).

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.

What is it about this that you don't understand or can't read?

There is no single published definition of an electrical discharge, such a thing does not exist. Common language does exist, common sense does exist, and common usage does exist; those who study are aware of this phenomenon of language in all fields, those who do not study remain ignorant. Consider this ... "Now suppose that the two plates are connected by a wire, so that, in ordinary language, the condenser is discharged" ("The Mathematical Theory of Electricity and Magnetism" by Sir James Jeans, Cambridge University Press, 1948, 5th edition, page 361, "Discharge of a Condenser"). My definition, such as it is, aligns quite nicely with the "normal language" of Sir James Jeans.

That's as close to a "published" definition as you are going to get from me. So are you ever going to address the real issues, or are we just going to wallow around in the semantic pig-pen some more?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun & Real Plasma Physics

Maxwells equations actually show that magnetic reconnection and current disruption are equivalent (in a very basic sense), ...

I do not know how to understand this comment because, while I have a clear physical understanding of magnetic reconnection, I have no idea what current disruption is supposed to be. What is it?

However current disruption has the advantage of being able to model actual real world particle kinetics from the ions in the currents and thus various other interactions, whereas the metaphysical field lines used to model magnetic reconnection can often lead to confusing models and deductions as people can very easily start to hypostatise their effects. And they seem to do this quite a lot.

I disagree. I think "current disruption" is inferior, for the reasons stated above; I have no idea what "current disruption" is, but I have a clear physical understanding of magnetic reconnection. Furthermore, I disagree with the notion that "metaphysical" field lines (which I also disagree with being called "metaphysical") create any kind of confusion; quite the contrary, they make the physical picture clear and easy to understand.

How would you distinguish between current disruption and magnetic reconnection in solar flares?

Since I have no clue as to what "current disruption" is supposed to be, I have no way to answer the question.

And what difference to current models would the fact that field lines are never actually fully "frozen" in make, in your opinion?

No difference at all, since the assumption that field lines are actually "frozen in" is not made in standard solar models. The approximation is not an all or nothing affair, where the lines are either frozen or they are not. Rather, one must compare the energy density of the plasma to the energy density of the field (the larger usually being dominant) and derive a diffusion timescale for the field in the plasma (or the plasma in the field if you prefer). If the phenomenological timescale is larger than the diffusion timescale, then the approximation is invalid and one must deal directly with diffusion. If the phenomenological timescale is small compared to the diffusion timescale, then obviously no significant diffusion will occur throughout the phenomenon, and one can then (and only then) treat the field as if it were truly frozen in the plasma. It all has to be handled on a strictly case by case and/or phenomenon by phenomenon basis. This is all well described in great detail in the relevant books & papers.

 

[tusenfem]

And therein lies the rub. *HIS* definition isn't a "discharge" it's a "current"! Gah!

As about 15 pages or so ago the whole discussion started to go into the direction of Dungey's definition (from his reply to a comment paper) that it is just a current (as it is in several of Alfvén's definitions), I hoped to stop this ongoing stupid discussion about one word, that obviously changed meaning over the years and among authors and even between papers of one author.

In order to give real science a chance I will agree to use whatever definition you want to use for discharge, however I will refrain myself from using the D-word any further.

Now, can we get some real science discussion?

 

[tusenfem]

I do not know how to understand this comment because, while I have a clear physical understanding of magnetic reconnection, I have no idea what current disruption is supposed to be. What is it?

We have to be careful here, yet again, so this could lead to another whole bunch of paaaaaaaaaaages of discussion.

In magnetospheric physics there is the reconnection model for substorms, in which far down the tail (starting at say 19 Re down) the stretched magnetic field lines reconnect, and etc. etc.

Now, there is the question of how this process of a substorm happens (it is not one process, it is several things that are going on, which together are put under the roof of "substorm", and next to that it is called substorm because in early days of space physics it was though that magnetic storms were caused by a collection of substorms, which was proven to be a mistake, however the term substorm kept hanging on).

There are two schools, the outside-in and the inside-out about what the order of events is in a substorm.

Outside-in says: reconnection, accelerated flows to the Earth, braking of the flow setting up field aligned Birkeland currents, aurora
Inside-out says: the cross tail current is perturbed and a "current disruption" is created (i.e. part of the cross tail current goes into the Birkeland currents), that sets a signal down the tail, aurora, reconnection sets on.

(A full discussion about aurora can be found here at Graz In Space, go to presentationen, Dr. Martin Volwerk, download presentation. It's in pdf and not in ppt, so you will not see the nice animations, sounds and movies, but I can send the ppt on request.)

So, the term "current disruption" used in relation to reconnection is nowadays something very specific, a process happening in in the near-Earth tail.

However, Maxwell's equations do not equate reconnection with any kind of current disruption. There is no current disrupted in the process, there are extra currents flowing (Hall currents, field aligned currents) but there is no disruption. I would love Zeuzzz to show how he envisions this.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Mozina and Zeuzzzzz are back on "ignore" and I am done with this thread. There is such a vast body of real science to pursue and life is too short to waste on crackpots.

How amazingly ironic, the definition of a crackpot is someone who refuses to listen or accept opposing views and refutations and instead they will keep preaching their own disproved pet beliefs.

You are now officially a crackpot yourself as you just chose to ignore the people who are arguing against your opinions.

(btw I never usually call anyone a crackpot, I only said this as you, for no apparent reason, stereotyped me as it first)

 

[Zeuzzz]

I do not know how to understand this comment because, while I have a clear physical understanding of magnetic reconnection, I have no idea what current disruption is supposed to be. What is it?

Here may help:

I) Whether the Ej approach has any advantages over the Bu approach, and the differences between them in explaining the phenomenon called magnetic reconnection (current disruption in the former, and magnetic reconnection in the latter). Also which is primary of the two approaches may be a good idea, as this seems to be in dispute as well, but I'm fairly sure it has been shown that they are not equivalent in all respects, despite being derived from equivalent versions of maxwells equations. Which can be somewhat confusing.

a clear physical understanding of magnetic reconnection.

What is your understanding on the physical effects of magnetic reconnection? (not field lines, topologies, magnetic energy, etc. Although these are fine models to attempt to explain properties of the field what testable real world effects does it produce and with what reconnection rate?)

Since I have no clue as to what "current disruption" is supposed to be, I have no way to answer the question.

May I suggest the publications in this symposium for a good overview.

Proceedings of the Magnetic Reconnection Meeting

Starting on page 23.

Relevant are the:

"Digression on the E,J paradigm"

(refutations to his "circuit ideas do not replace plasma physics" I can get on request)

and the following one

"Magnetic Reconnection and Physical Concepts"

Also relevant:

This topic has far too many ambiguous questions for simple answers. Some have ascertained that it makes no sense to ask some of these questions, and even top experts in this field find it very hard to agree on some of these issues. (See also Lui, EOS, Vol. 83, No. 41, 8 October 2002)

This is all well described in great detail in the relevant books & papers.

Did you have your critical thinking cap on when you read such books? Its quite funny reading some astrophysics books from just a few decades ago, oh how amazingly wrong some of their work has turned out. Thats the problem with astrophysics, often too many theories to choose from. Even a few old university curricula have been largely falsified over the last few decades (well when I say falsified they usually end up modifying the old curriculum to accommodate for both theories, or if the theory fails miserably then they just get rid of it)

I'd be interested to see such books. And if the more modern experiments are based on the same theories put forth in those books. Would like to see if the data collected is also explained by the topology change of the contour lines (oops, magnetic field lines) that we put in to aid modelling, or if the EJ and current disruption paradigm can also account for the data.

[sorry for spelling and sense, very tired]

 

[Zeuzzz]

Sorry I've started off at a slight tangent now to the op ...

 

[tusenfem]

Naturally, I have the book that Zeuzzz refers to, in which Tony Lui writes about Section 5: Distinction between current disruption and magnetic reconnection.

I have not time at the moment to discuss this section by Tony, but the main point to understand is that these are two completely different processes.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I have not time at the moment to discuss this section by Tony, but the main point to understand is that these are two completely different processes.

I read that paper too. The differences are minuscule and hard to test. (thats a very basic quick overview before I try to elaborate and fail miserably from lack of sleep)

"completely different processes" is a gross exaggeration. And you know it.

Both arise from practically identical x points topologies where the lines/currents short circuit at the central point.