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

[Michael Mozina]

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.

No, it has been alleged many times. I'm still waiting for one of the hotshots to explain when, where, why and how it applies to Carlqvist's paper.

 

[tusenfem]

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.

No there is no typo in my equation.

And I think Carlqvist was discussed by me in post 1144 and probably in more, and in post 1149, and then ofcourse Alfven and Carlqvist in post 2263.

Now, I have not ever seen a discussion of a paper like that done by MM, probably because he does not want to expose himself, that he does not really understand what Carlqvist and Alfven write in their papers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

When did you find a flaw in it t? When did you explain how your alleged speed problem applies to it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No there is no typo in my equation.

Ya, I figured that out on my own. I still have yet to see you apply it to Carlqvist's paper. Show us how and where it applies and how it falsifies Carlqvist's work.

 

[tusenfem]

Ya, I figured that out on my own. I still have yet to see you apply it to Carlqvist's paper. Show us how and where it applies and how it falsifies Carlqvist's work.

Why for goodness sake would the diffusion equation (which can be ignored most of the time) be falsifying Carlqvist's work? This whole comment does not make any sense Mikey. The diffusion equation always works in any magnetized plasma. However, the diffusion time scale is usually (especially in the Sun) HUGE, the model of Carlqvist has the induction time scale L/R, the limitaion of the current that he calculates has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetic diffusion.

You are just using words and terms and think it is profound, whereas you comments clearly show you have not got the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. YOU say reconnection is induction or diffusion. Then you asked a someone to define the terms that you wrote down. Now it seems you think that diffusion "used on Carlqvist" willl falsify his model of (either current limitation of the unwinding of the magnetic field through the creation of a DL, I am not sure which of the two papers you are actually talking about).

You keep on asking for definitions, for other people to "discuss this paper or that paper", whereas you yourself will never touch any paper apart from mentioning "it's in this or that paper" and then we just have to figure out what you mean.

And so we go around and around and around and get nowhere.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

You surprised no one.

Michael Mozina needs to retract the following accusation:

I'm not missing and sort of quantification, YOUR side keeps ignoring all the pretty maths.

Here is the equation for magnetic diffusion as stated by tusenfem:

[latex]
(\sigma \mu)^{-1} \nabla^2 {\bf B} = - \frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t}
[/latex]

Here's the multiple choice question Michael Mozina couldn't answer:

Here's a simple test to see who's been ignoring the math here: What does the ∇² mean in tusenfem's first equation?

If that's too hard for you, we can turn it into a multiple choice question:

A. It stands for the Lagrangian operator.
B. It stands for the Laplacian operator.
C. It stands for the curl of a curl.
D. It stands for the gradient of a gradient.
E. It stands for the divergence of a gradient.

Here's a derivation of the equation from Maxwell's equations and Ohm's Law:

[latex]
\begin{center}
\begin{align}
\nabla \times \hbox{{\bf B}} &= \mu \hbox{{\bf J}}
+ \mu \epsilon \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf E}}}{\partial t} \\
&\approx \mu \hbox{{\bf J}} \\
\nabla \times \nabla \times \hbox{{\bf B}} &\approx
\nabla \times (\mu \hbox{{\bf J}}) \\
&= \nabla \times (\mu \sigma \hbox{{\bf E}}) \\
&= \mu \sigma (\nabla \times \hbox{{\bf E}}) \\
&= \mu \sigma (- \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf B}}}{\partial t}) \\
\nabla \times \nabla \times \hbox{{\bf B}} &\approx
\mu \sigma (- \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf B}}}{\partial t}) \\
(\mu \sigma)^{-1} (\nabla \times \nabla \times \hbox{{\bf B}}) &\approx
- \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf B}}}{\partial t}
\end{align}
\end{center}
[/latex]

where

• (1) is Ampère's law with Maxwell's correction, which is one of the four equations commonly known as Maxwell's equations
• (2) drops Maxwell's correction, which is equivalent to assuming the electric field isn't changing very fast
• (3) takes the curl of both sides
• (4) uses Ohm's Law: J=σE
• (5) moves the scalar constants outside the curl
• (6) uses the Maxwell-Faraday equation, which is another of Maxwell's equations
• (7) restates (3) through (6)
• (8) divides both sides by the scalar constants

Equation (8) above is the same as tusenfem's equation, except tusenfem wrote ∇² for the curl of a curl. That's weird, confusing, and probably not what tusenfem intended. I think tusenfem intended to use the following vector identity:

[latex]
\begin{center}
\begin{align}
\nabla \times \nabla \times \hbox{{\bf B}} &=
\nabla (\nabla \cdot \hbox{{\bf B}}) - \nabla^2 \hbox{{\bf B}} \\
&= \nabla (0) - \nabla^2 \hbox{{\bf B}} \\
&= - \nabla^2 \hbox{{\bf B}} \\
(\mu \sigma)^{-1} (- \nabla^2 \hbox{{\bf B}}) &\approx
- \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf B}}}{\partial t} \\
(\mu \sigma)^{-1} \nabla^2 \hbox{{\bf B}} &\approx
\frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf B}}}{\partial t}
\end{align}
\end{center}
[/latex]

where

• (1) holds for any vector field
• (2) follows from Gauss's law for magnetism, which is one of Maxwell's equations
• (3) holds because the gradient of a constant field is zero
• (4) uses (1) through (3) to replace the curl of the curl of B in the equation for magnetic diffusion with the negative of the vector Laplacian of B
• (5) multiplies both sides by -1

I think that last equation is what tusenfem intended to write, and that the minus sign on the right hand side of his equation was just a typo.

So which answer was correct?

Laplacian of a scalar field is defined as the divergence of the gradient

That can't be what tusenfem meant, because his equation applies the operator to a vector field.

If the minus sign on the right hand side of tusenfem's equation was a typo, then ∇² is the vector Laplacian.

While I was typing the above, tusenfem wrote this:

No there is no typo in my equation.

If there was no typo in tusenfem's equation, then he was using ∇² to mean the curl of a curl, which is a confusing notation with which I am not familiar. I await tusenfem's explanation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why for goodness sake would the diffusion equation (which can be ignored most of the time) be falsifying Carlqvist's work? This whole comment does not make any sense Mikey.

Beats me tootsie. That's what YOU folks keep claiming.

 

[Reality Check]

Beats me tootsie. That's what YOU folks keep claiming.

Still wrong tootsie: No one (except you) is claiming that the diffusion equation is falsifying Carlqvist's work. As tusenfem states Carlqvist's model uses induction not magnetic diffusion.
ETA: If you read tusenfem's posts (in post 1144 and in post 2263) on Carlqvist's work then you will see that Carlqvist's work is not false for the knowldege of the time. It is now simplistic and out of date.


The diffusion equation is falsifying any assertion by anyone that source of the energy in solar flares is magnetic diffusion.
The induction equation is falsifying any assertion by anyone that source of the energy in solar flares is induction.
In both cases the equations show that the energy would take huge amounts of time (millions of years) to produce the energy that is observed to be released in minutes.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by 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.

 

[tensordyne]

I am curious about something RC wrote above, lightning is not a plasma? From what I have read (please do not ask me for sources because I am at a loss to remember where)plasmas have three modes each with their own characteristic voltage versus resistance characteristics that are highly nonlinear: dark, glow and arc (aka, like lightning I would suppose), or are these modes just made up parts of some EU/PC thing according to RC, or is their another relevant but perhaps subtle point I am missing?

Which I imagine also brings up another point, if the matter inside of a lightning bolt is not in a plasma state, what is the name of the state it is in if it has a name? Just curious.

 

[GeeMack]

You keep on asking for definitions, for other people to "discuss this paper or that paper", whereas you yourself will never touch any paper apart from mentioning "it's in this or that paper" and then we just have to figure out what you mean.

Indeed. That's the gist of this comment...

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.

... and as good a reason as any why I avoid indulging the dishonest attempts to shift the burden of proof that are so often passed off as arguments by electric Sun adherents.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Still wrong tootsie: No one (except you) is claiming that the diffusion equation is falsifying Carlqvist's work.

Eh?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6795900&postcount=2398

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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Still wrong tootsie: No one (except you) is claiming that the diffusion equation is falsifying Carlqvist's work.

Eh?

In both cases the equations show that the energy would take huge amounts of time (millions of years) to produce the energy that is observed to be released in minutes.

Where in his paper did Carlqvist make that claim about induction RC?

 

[Reality Check]

I am curious about something RC wrote above, lightning is not a plasma? From what I have read (please do not ask me for sources because I am at a loss to remember where)plasmas have three modes each with their own characteristic voltage versus resistance characteristics that are highly nonlinear: dark, glow and arc (aka, like lightning I would suppose), or are these modes just made up parts of some EU/PC thing according to RC, or is their another relevant but perhaps subtle point I am missing?

What you are missing is that "dark, glow and arc" has nothing to do with plasma. They are all types of electrical discharges.

 

[Reality Check]

Eh?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6795900&postcount=2398

Eh?
Try reading the post - no mention of Carlqvist's work.
It is in reply to a comment about Alfven and cites the book that you are still ignoring:

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
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
​

​

This is about magnetic dissipation but as tusenfem has pointed out the same problem happens with induction.

 

[Reality Check]

Where in his paper did Carlqvist make that claim about induction RC?

What claim about induction, MM?

 

[tusenfem]

If there was no typo in tusenfem's equation, then he was using ∇² to mean the curl of a curl, which is a confusing notation with which I am not familiar. I await tusenfem's explanation.

No ∇² is just the Laplacian Δ = ∇·∇, which is the divergence of a gradient, which indeed follows from the vector identity that you wrote out.Nobody leaves a double curl in an equation, when one knows that div(B) = 0. I just skipped the trivial math, that MM can do on a rainy sunday afternoon.

ETA: Okay, I see it now, the minus sign, ah, what's in a minus, one of my big problems at university, I could always lose a -.

 

[tusenfem]

Beats me tootsie. That's what YOU folks keep claiming.

REALLY???????????????
Please quote me exactly where, in which post, I claim that magnetic diffusion falsifies Carlqvist paper(s).

 

[tusenfem]

Eh?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6795900&postcount=2398

Oh clueless again Mikey? You apparently don't even understand even the basics of solar plasma physics.

this is getting so tiresome, trying to explain stuff to you, I think I will skip this one, maybe Tim Thompson still has the energy to explain this stuff to you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh clueless again Mikey? You apparently don't even understand even the basics of solar plasma physics.

Right. For *MONTHS* you and the gang here *REFUSED* to accept that discharges occur in plasmas, and a discharge is not the same as a simple "current". You also simply let stuff like this slide, without a single word to correct him with all that knowledge you claim to posses about plasma physics and astrophysics:

What claim about induction, MM?

Oy Vey. "Discharges in plasma? What discharges? Circuits? What circuits? Induction? What induction?" This place is simply absurd. None of the critics are interested in an honest conversation about plasma physics. It's all about attacking the individual, and not a single one of you is interested in "science". The Man has made the last few days enjoyable for me for a change, but alas, I'm so bored here I could scream. My life is *WAY* to busy to waste my breath arguing about stupid things like a missing - sign.

this is getting so tiresome, trying to explain stuff to you,

What is tiresome is that you *REFUSE* to explain ANYTHING to your cohorts, or correct them when they make any mistakes. Instead you engage in the exact same personal attack nonsense as the rest of them, and ignore every stupid statement made by your side for MONTHS.

I think I will skip this one, maybe Tim Thompson still has the energy to explain this stuff to you.

I think by now Tim has figured out that this whole conversation has been a red herring, and it's probably related to the fact that none of you have really read the paper, or I wouldn't be hearing ridiculous statements like "Induction? What induction?".