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

[Haig]

Without a model it is impossible to say.

There IS an electrodynamic model.

An electrodynamic model of the solar wind interaction with the ionospheres of Mars and Venus. P. A. Cloutier and R. E. Daniell, Jr. 1979

Abstract
The electrodynamic model for the solar wind interaction with non-magnetic planets. (Cloutier and Daniell, Planet. Space Sci. 21, 463, 1973; Daniell and Cloutier, Planet. Space Sci. 25, 621, 1977) is modified to include the effects of non-ohmic currents in the upper ionosphere. The model is then used to calculate convection patterns induced by the solar wind in the ionospheres of Mars and Venus. For Mars the observations of the neutral mass spectrometer or Vikings 1 and 2 provided the neutral atmosphere. Model calculations reproduced the retarding potential analyzer data and indicate that the ionosphere above about 200 km is probably controlled by convection rather than chemistry or diffusion. For Venus a model atmosphere based on Dickenson and Ridley, J. Atmos. Sci. 32, 1219 (1975) and Mayr et al., J. geophys. Res. 83, 4411 (1978) was used. The resulting model calculations were compared to radio occultation data from Mariners 5 and 10 and Venera 9 which represent extremes in the variability of the upper Cytherean ionosphere. The model calculations are shown to fall within this variation. These results represent the state of the theory immediately prior to the Pioneer-Venus encounter.

So what's the number they use, if it's not 10 x 39 ? Anyone know?

 

[Tubbythin]

There IS an electrodynamic model.

An electrodynamic model of the solar wind interaction with the ionospheres of Mars and Venus. P. A. Cloutier and R. E. Daniell, Jr. 1979


So what's the number they use, if it's not 10 x 39 ? Anyone know?

Huh? That's an electrodynamic model of the solar wind. As far as I can tell (from the abstract) it makes no reference at all to the Sun'd power coming from electrodynamic processes.

 

[tusenfem]

Your wrong, it was Scott. Just scroll down three posts and you'll see this:


Are you claiming you never knew of Scott's refutation of your calculation?

Well it was not much of a refutation, and no I don't frequent thunderdolts, it is bad for my brain, it might cause a tumor reading all that rubbish. I can't help it if some dolt copies my post on some woo webpage.

Care to address my refutation?
Care to explain why the electric sun is still in its infancy when Juergens wrote down his wild guesses late 70s early 80s of the last century? Did nothing happen since Bruce (in the 60s) or Alfven? Scott has time to write a book but no time to develop a theory? Really, gimme a break!

 

[Michael Mozina]

So it is the magnetic field that is doing all the work in that ““PINCH effect” developing.

Hmmm. Well, yes, but... We do sort of end up at that "which came first" question, the current or the magnetic field. Yes however, the "pinch" is produced by the magnetic field around the current.

How and where is it stored in your “"circuit' that goes though and under the photosphere”? Be specific if you can and if you can’t then just admit that you are not sure.

In terms of the how part, there are two kinds of energy "stored/contained" inside and around the filament, the particle kinetic energy moving through and in the filament, and the magnetic field energy around the filament. Both types of energy are "contained" (probably a better word) within that moving "circuit". The one part of this issue that through me for a loop for a bit was the concept of "moving circuits". The filament acts as a wire, but it's a moving flowing wire that has it's own kinetic energy that has to be accounted for, not simply the magnetic field pinching the filament.

If you don’t know where the energy is stored in your “circuit' then you don’t know that energy is or can be stored in your “circuit'.

I will try to round up Wheatland's paper again for you so we can discuss where the circuits begin, but suffice to say they must begin far under the surface of the photosphere, and must be deeply embedded in the photosphere. They are highly energized as they pierce the surface. If we're going to stick to standard theory, I suppose it's possible they could extend to the core for all I know. I personally don't thing they extend more than 4800KM into the photosphere however.

It still wasn’t an explanation and most Scientists use the term “may” rather than “will” because they can only demonstrate that it “may” but not that it “will”.

Keep in mind that at times I'm simply explaining Alfven's theory in a "matter of fact" manner.

I didn’t expect him to say anything, I expected that what you claimed was an explanation would explain what you claimed it would, was I expecting too much?

Not at all. I happily round you up some other papers to look through later today.

Where in the circuit? Again this is the same thing as with “discharge” if you just define the “coronal loop” as your "circuit" the energy of the coronal loop is somewhere in your “circuit”. Again it is simply and trivially true just based on you equating the “coronal loop” with your “circuit”, it has no probative or exploratory value. However where and how that “circuit” stores energy does have probative and exploratory value

Well, again, there is electron particle kinetic energy flowing through the filament, there is ion kinetic energy within the filament, there is heat stored in the filament, and there is a magnetic field pinching the whole thing together that stores energy. The term "circuit" also has exploratory value IMO because it allows us to describe these events in a standard electrical engineering fashion, and that is in fact exactly what Alfven did.

So increasing “particle kinetic energy *AND* the magnetic field energy”, is that where your EM energy is stored?

There's heat as well, but we could just treat that as particle kinetic energy. Keep in mind that as long as the current flows, the magnetic field energy remains 'stored'. The moment the current is disrupted, but whole energy contained in the loop, both particle kinetic energy and magnetic field energy will "explode".

So the resistivity is what changes to result in the breakdown of the current path.

Ultimately, yes.

Current density can increase without increasing the overall current by the way. So the increase in current density as a result of the pinching by the magnetic field may be all that is needed. What happens to that magnetic field and the energy it has stored once the current is interrupted?

It is transferred via induction (explosively) to the surrounding plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So here he is specifically referring to the magnetic field (specifically the “whirl”) as the “generator” and the excessive current density leading to the “exploding DL”. The other case seems to simply refer to the “electromagnetic pressure” producing or giving “rise to a rising prominence”.

Yes, but keep in mind that any transfer of magnetic field energy to particle kinetic energy is explicitly referred to as "induction" when Alfven describes the breakdown of the circuit. Suffice to say it's a rapid transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy, also known as a 'discharge' in the plasma.

 

[Ziggurat]

There IS an electrodynamic model.

For the solar wind. Not for what powers the sun.

There is no electrodynamic model of the sun. The standard model includes electrodynamics, but it is based on core fusion. No serious alternative to the standard model exists. Attempts to create such an alternative have consistently failed, most of them by not even reaching the point where they could be evaluated.

So what's the number they use, if it's not 10 x 39 ? Anyone know?

The notation is 10^39, not 10 x 39. 10 x 39 is simply 390.

And lots of people know. The answer is it depends on your system, as I explained in detail above.

 

[The Man]

The only two individuals I've even see *TRY* to clear up any confusion that were not EU proponents, were The Man (purely inadvertently I suspect), and PS when he started asking direct questions.

Oh, entirely advertently, have no doubts about that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, entirely advertently, have no doubts about that.

In that case, thank you from the bottom of my heart.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

FYI, here's a paper on laboratory experiments with discharges and their effect on iron ionization states. IMO the connection between discharges and high ionization states we observe in SDO 94A (and other wavelength) images has already been established. That's another "key piece of the evidence" IMO.

 

[The Man]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967SoPh....1..220A

FYI, this is probably one of the earliest papers on this topic that was published by Carlqvist and Alfven. It pretty much explains the entire process.

As we cannot expect MM to actually discuss the relevance of this 45 year old paper, let's look at it.

The important part starts at section 4 "Circuit Interruption," where it is mentioned that:



(my bold) Now, it would fall onto MM to explain what a sort of and what certain conditions are.

Then in section 5 "Maximum Current Through a Plasma" has a discussion of the mercury rectifier. The current is flowing through the mercury plasma at 10^-3 Torr and cannot exceed a certain value, as mentioned above. The time scale of the current interruption is the inductive time scale: τ≈LI/V, for the rectifier this is about 10^-5 seconds.

Now, this may or may not be appropriate for solar flares.

Then in section 6 "The Disruption of the Current" is not really informative, and only says that for strong currents the plasma can be considered as a vacuum diode, and the Langmuir limit for current in a vacuum diode is given.

Then we get to section 7 "Instability of a Current in a Completely Ionized Gas." They take a normal plasma with n_e = n_i = n and the current is given by i = -e n v_e, where v_e is the electron velocity. And then they assume a perturbation of the density n (a small dip) and thus the v_e needs to increase to keep the current density i flowing and this gives rise to evacuation of the region, through the creation of an electric field. The ions also are expelled from this region. Actually this can be seen as the creation of a double double layer. From this simple model, one can derive a stability criterion for the plasma, the well known fact that when the drift velocity of the particles in the current exceeds the thermal velocity the plasma becomes unstable.

[latex]v_e^2 > \frac{kT_i}{m_e} \sim v_{th}[/latex]

Section 8 "Application to Solar Conditions" and then it becomes speculative, not surprising, because of the age of this paper. They take a loop above the surface of the Sun and then close it below the surface. No problem there.



Then they discuss some generalities about the complicated structure of the fields and the currents inferred from the Zeeman effect etc. Then assuming that there is a pinch effect they say:



However, the question is if this is reached and what actually happens, as there are many flow driven instabilities. For one, there is the Buneman instability (1958, 1959) which tends to increase the velocity spread in v_th, i.e. heating the plasma so that the ratio v_e/v_th decreases, stabilizing the plasma again. (For a full overview of instabilities see Melrose: Instabilities in Space and Laboratory Plasmas, an excellent book, if you're not afraid of equations.)

So, although this is a very nice and straightforward idea by A&C, it is probably too simple to actually work on the Sun. This is not criticism on A&C per se, as at the time that this model was developed the field of plasma physics was not so well developed yet. And indeed, the energy estimated and the time scale at which it is released seems to agree roughly with what is observed, and that is to be expected, but if the trigger mechanism is as they describe is to be questioned (IMHO).

Thanks tusenfem. I was going to ask Michael to demonstrate his understanding of this paper by explaining it in his own words.

Sorry everyone, I’ve been quite busy the last few days and over the last week. So it will take me some time to catch back up.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969SoPh....7..377C

Here's another circuit orientated explanation by Carlqvist. Personally I think he does a better job of explaining the mathematics than Alfven. Peratt's book is also excellent IMO, but it's out of print and therefore extremely expensive. Carlqvist's descriptions are pretty straight forward, and includes the maths where applicable.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1988Ap&SS.144...73C

Here's another good paper by Carlqvist.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r51v538631610x8j/

This was another related paper I posted earlier in the thread.

 

[The Man]

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.

I think that’s an important stumbling block for some Tim. The assumption of an “all or nothing affair”, as opposed to it being simply a viable and useful approximation given the stability of the field (in relation to the plasma) for the time being considered.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ASTRA...3...29S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..841S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PhyS...65..185F
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...532..616W

IMO the last paper by Wheatland is the most interesting because it shows that the loops are highly energized as they exit the surface of the photosphere. The rest are links to other references that I have used/referred to earlier in this thread.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6658074&postcount=933

This was the relevant quote from Wheatland about the energy state of the loops at the surface of the photosphere. The implication is that the currents are flowing DEEP in the photosphere, not just at/near the surface as most flare models assume (including Alfven by the way). I should note that Alfven doesn't actually make any prediction as to the depth of the circuit, but I got the 'impression' he expected it to be a relatively shallow event. That impression is really my own impression however. That may not be entirely accurate.

 

[dasmiller]

IMO the connection between discharges and high ionization states we observe in SDO 94A (and other wavelength) images has already been established. That's another "key piece of the evidence" IMO.

Has it been established that the observed ionization states are inconsistent with the observed temperatures in the corona? If not, then the ionization data does not lend supporting evidence to Electric Sun.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun: Reconnection vs Induction

Yes, but keep in mind that any transfer of magnetic field energy to particle kinetic energy is explicitly referred to as "induction" when Alfven describes the breakdown of the circuit. Suffice to say it's a rapid transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy, also known as a 'discharge' in the plasma.

Consider this ...

Reference the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Magnetic reconnection is not induction. ...

"In space physics the distinction between ideal and non-ideal processes is important because simple estimates imply that magnetic dissipation acts on a time-scale which is many orders of magnitude slower than the observed time-scale of dynamic phenomena. For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 10⁵ km is of the order of 10⁶ yrs."
Priest & Forbes, page 6
​

You specifically refer to induction as a "rapid transfer of energy" but give no timescale for what constitutes "rapid". My source, quoted above, clearly indicates that the timescale of induction is too slow to be consistent with the observed rapidity of energy release in solar coronal events. Do you or Alfven have evidence to show that induction will in fact work on such short timescales, over such large distances, contrary to my source quoted above?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Alfven Predicts

I also posted a paper from Wheatland in this thread that demonstrates that Alfven was correct about the currents beginning far under the photosphere in a very highly energized state.

The implication is that the currents are flowing DEEP in the photosphere, not just at/near the surface as most flare models assume (including Alfven by the way). I should note that Alfven doesn't actually make any prediction as to the depth of the circuit, but I got the 'impression' he expected it to be a relatively shallow event. That impression is really my own impression however. That may not be entirely accurate.

So which Mozina interprets Alfven correctly? Was the prediction that Alfven did not make nevertheless correct?

 

[GeeMack]

So which Mozina interprets Alfven correctly? Was the prediction that Alfven did not make nevertheless correct?

So not only do we have no quantitative objective support for the electric Sun conjecture, but there isn't even any consistency in the attempts to support it.