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

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm still looking for a PDF of the paper t recommended. Anyone got a link? I'd really like to see how they justify these figures before I comment on this stuff.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1986/JA091iA05p05579.shtml

You'll have to pay for it.

That paper won't help you to answer my multiple choice question. To answer my question, you'd have to be able to read Maxwell's equations. In fact, because there's something odd about the way tusenfem wrote the equation for magnetic diffusion, it's hard to answer my question without rederiving the correct equation for magnetic diffusion from Maxwell's equations and Ohm's Law.

I guess that's a hint. Oops.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I guess that's a hint. Oops.

Not for Mozina.

 

[tusenfem]

Undoubtedly they go with the flow (of the current). Once the current stops, the heat source is gone and it won't remain in that +20 state for long.

And what exactly makes you think it won't remain long in that state?
How fast is the recombination rate of these ions embedded in a hot plasma?
How quickly does the plasma cool down when the current stops and to what temperature?

 

[tusenfem]

Do you happen to have a link to a PDF file of that paper?

yes it was in my post.

 

[tusenfem]

Yep, right up until the circuit erupts and extremely hot plasma (millions of degrees) in the loop get's released into a relatively cool surrounding plasma, along with all that stored magnetic field energy in one giant "discharge" of very highly energetic plasma.

Yeah, because coronal loops are known to be embedded in this very cool coronal plasma .....

 

[Reality Check]

Hell, I'd settle for seeing your side even do it *ONCE*.

That is really ignorant MM:

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/daypre.txt
roduct: 3-day Space Weather Predictions daypre.txt
:Issued: 2010 Dec 11 2200 UTC
#
:Whole_Disk_Flare_Prob:
Class_M 1 1 1
Class_X 1 1 1
Proton 1 1 1
#
# Region Flare Probabilities for 2010 Dec 12
# Region Class C M X P
:Reg_Prob: 2010 Dec 11
1131 10 1 1 0
1133 5 1 0 0

You should remember all the posts about the predictions from NOAA with actual numbers in that thread.

There are quantitative predictions about solar activities every day.

You are probably under the delusion that the other posters in this thread have to come up with our own predictions. That is quite insane given that the work has already been done by experts in the field.

 

[Reality Check]

Duplicate

 

[tusenfem]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

You might take a look at this paper. One of the significant advantage a circuit approach has over "reconnection" is that it allows for a *SINGLE* loop to explode, even *WITHOUT* a reconnection event.

I really should make an excell sheet to keep track of all the papers that I have already discussed here on JREF. This one is amongst them, and I cannot find it. It would be nice tho if MM would show his insight into this paper.

Naturally in a circuit description you don't have to worry about the real physical processes, it is just V, R, L, C, I in serial or parallel and then it can go kaboom.

 

[Reality Check]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

You might take a look at this paper. One of the significant advantage a circuit approach has over "reconnection" is that it allows for a *SINGLE* loop to explode, even *WITHOUT* a reconnection event.

The paper allows for the possibility of magnetic reconnection as I pointed out on 14 January 2010 (a whole year ago )

FYI:

• Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits
  This is an model about large scale electric fields in the flares produced by coronal loops. See Fig 2 for the loop (FYI: all the B's are magnetic fields!) and flare.
  This is the only paper of the four that cites Alfven.
  
  The model is that photospheric plasma motion could lead to the generation of an electric current. That current can follow the magnetic field lines. And then as on page 5:
  "If there is a magnetic connection between two oppositely charged areas through the corona, possibly as a result of magnetic reconnection, an electric current can close the electric circuit (Alfven and Carlqvist 1967, Heyvaerts 1974) through the corona (Fig 2). Then an electric field occurs along the coronal magnetic fields and acts on the electrons within the coronal loop, and accelerates them along the magnetic field up to high energies beyond 100 keV."
  

(emphasis added)
ETA: Note that there has to be some form of "magnetic connection between two oppositely charged areas through the corona" before the author's mechanism can work.

The significant advantage a circuit approach has over MHD (not just magnetic reconnection) is that it is easy to calculate the gross properties of the system, e.g. the total energy release.
The significant disadvantage a circuit approach has over MHD (not just magnetic reconnection) is that it cannot model the details.

 

[tusenfem]

Here is what looks like a very nice review paper by Yamada, Kulsrud and Ji (2010, REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS)

 

[GeeMack]

Maybe quantitatively and objectively explain how solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

Been there done that with Dungey's work. Denial is so darn ugly.

Cherry picking to redefine terms isn't quantitatively and objectively explaining. It's lying. Moving goalposts isn't explaining. It's lying. Waving around links to other people's work and plucking out a word here and a sentence there without understanding the material isn't explaining. It's playing let's-pretend by assembling sciency sounding words and phrases. The result is gibberish. It's not science. It's not quantitative and objective. And it's dishonest.

It's the electric Sun adherents' claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. Dungey didn't say that or anything that might be reasonably interpreted as that. To suggest he did is a lie. So my reply to the question...

What's it going to take to get your attention anyway?

... is this: An explanation, quantitative and objective, explaining how solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball might be a good place to start. We've had quantitative and objective explanations from folks like Tim Thompson, W.D.Clinger, Reality Check, tusenfem, and others showing that solar flares and CMEs are not, and can't be electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. But no quantitative objective support for the claim has come yet from the electric Sun adherents.

The rest of my quoted post directly addresses the arguments made which have failed to support the electric Sun conjecture...

It has already been mentioned many times that linking to other people's work without demonstrating even a rudimentary understanding of that work is not an explanation. It's a dishonest attempt to pass the buck, to avoid explaining the claims. The unqualified guessing, arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, deflecting the burden of proof, and lying we've seen so far are not explanations, no matter how desperately the electric Sun adherents might like them to be.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Cherry picking to redefine terms isn't quantitatively and objectively explaining. It's lying.

Then lying is all you ever do.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6779664&postcount=2193

http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/...GH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf


Are you ever going to comment on Carlqvist's work?

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1986/JA091iA05p05579.shtml

You'll have to pay for it.

Pfft. In that case how about demonstrating how and where this issues applies to *CARLQVISTS* paper since it's *FREE*!

 

[Michael Mozina]

No hints, please.

I will say this, however: My question wasn't quite as trivial as it looks. Either tusenfem's equation contains a typo,

So *WITHOUT* looking at the paper (which I evidently have to purchase now), and *AFTER* specifically asking for help understanding the difference between the words being used, I"m supposed to figure out if his answer includes a typo? Sorry, I don't do that clairvoyant physicist routine, that's evidently something only haters seem to engage in. I'll need to at least see a paper before I'll comment on anything. In fact however, I think it is your onus of responsibility to demonstrate that your argument even *APPLIES* to Carlqvist's uses of circuits. Since the paper is free, and there's been very little discussion of the paper to this point in time, go for it. Show me where Carlqvist made his mistake.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, I certainly see no math error in t response that I can spot, but I admit I'm clueless about the first part of the equation for diffusion or how it applies to this issue. I need to see it used it a paper if you expect me to comment on it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Naturally in a circuit description you don't have to worry about the real physical processes, it is just V, R, L, C, I in serial or parallel and then it can go kaboom.

And that is probably the single most important advantage circuit theory has over standard theory IMO.

 

[Reality Check]

Well, I certainly see no math error in t response that I can spot, but I admit I'm clueless about the first part of the equation for diffusion or how it applies to this issue. I need to see it used it a paper if you expect me to comment on it.

If you are refering to the magnetic diffusion equation then it is a standard derivation from Maxwell's equations.

How it applies to "this issue" has been pointed out to you many times.

• The equation contains a time scale for the diffusion.
• Put in the numbers for coronal loops and that time scale is a million years for a length scale of of 100,000 km.
• This magnetic diffusion cannot supply the energy for solar flares which occur with a time scale of 100 seconds.

You have been given an example of it being used in a textbook.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Ignoring Physics

Naturally in a circuit description you don't have to worry about the real physical processes, it is just V, R, L, C, I in serial or parallel and then it can go kaboom.

And that is probably the single most important advantage circuit theory has over standard theory IMO.

So, in the World According to Mozina (WAM), our theories of physical phenomena are improved by increasing the amount of physics we can ignore? OK, I am suitably impressed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, in the World According to Mozina (WAM), our theories of physical phenomena are improved by increasing the amount of physics we can ignore? OK, I am suitably impressed.

Ok, I probably deserved that comment based on my flippant response. The point is that the circuit acts as a single unit in virtually all cases. There's no need to look at the microscopic (particle) level until we talk about "short circuits" when two of them "connect". When a coronal loop erupts, it can and typically does erupt as a single unit, and no "reconnection" event to any other loop is necessary for that energy release to occur. It can in fact be well modeled by a circuit oriented approach.

 

[tusenfem]

Pfft. In that case how about demonstrating how and where this issues applies to *CARLQVISTS* paper since it's *FREE*!

I already have discussed Carlqvist's paper, search back in this thread, you really need to pay attention to what is discussed in this thread, Mikey.

Yeah, sometimes you have to pay for stuff. Naturally I have access to that paper, as i pay for a subscription, but anywhoooooooo.