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

[dasmiller]

Do we know why they have been suspended?

The regular Forum Management notice is short on specifics, but I think it's safe to assume that it was done because some of their posts had gotten uncivil and personal, attacking the arguer rather than the argument. IIRC, they've been suspended before.

They may well have been bickering in other threads, too.

Is there a thread where the reasons are provided, so that we can learn, and ensure that we don't fall into the same problems ourselves?

Sometimes people start threads in FM to discuss the whys and wherefores of a suspension, though I don't expect to see one in this case.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Reconnection, Circuit Paradigm & Frozen Flux

All of Mozina's arguments that magnetic reconnection are "pseudoscience" are themselves exactly that: pure & unadulterated pseudoscience. All he can ever say is "Afven said so", a religious acolyte parroting the ancient script of the demi-god. But you can rest assured that at no time will Mozina ever refer to physics, never demonstrate any physical reason for rejecting magnetic reconnection. He has religion and only religion to fall back on. That and pseudosciece, but never science.

I don't think that is reason to label someone's comments as pseudoscience.

I happen to disagree, I think it is a very good reason. The difference between science & pseudoscience is founded on methodology, not on the final result, so when I label Mozina's comments "pseudoscience" I an leveling a criticism against the manner in which he argues his position. Also note that I did not say that Alfven himself was being pseudoscientific (he was just wrong but not pseudoscientific), only that Mozina was.

When people make a scientific argument, they present facts & reasonable interpretations thereof. Mozina does neither of these, but instead appeals to authority ("All he can ever say is "Afven said so", a religious acolyte parroting the ancient script of the demi-god."). Demi-god is Mozina's attitude towards Alfven (and Birkeland as well). He treats the writings of both in exactly the same way that literalists interpret holy scripture: Divine truth that cannot ever be challenged in any way. That is definitely a religious attitude. But in true science we all understand that even the most brilliant people can be wrong, and often are. Witness Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics. Certainly Einstein was brilliant and certainly he did not engage in pseudoscience. But he certainly was wrong.

Mozina has never once, in all these years, even tried to present anything one might call a "scientific" argument. He avoids mathematics like the plague, which severely cripples his ability to argue anything. He occasionally refers to real data (e.g, SERTS data) but badly misinterprets its physical meaning. He puts a great deal of effort into examining press release images (rarely the science data from which they are derived) and then interpreting the pictures as proof positive that the entire discipline of physics is dead wrong, from one end to the other. And if he is challenged to support his own claims, he appeals the inerrant scripture ("Alfven said so") as proof positive that he cannot possibly be wrong. He tries to mimic science in some crude way, but fails miserably.

No, Mozina's attitude is the very essence of pseudoscience and I stand by my criticism.

This forum is just that, a discussion forum, and not necessarily a scientific platform. Perhaps the better question is why did Alfvén say what he did, where, and what critical responses have (or perhaps not), disputed Alfvén's arguments.

This is a matter that I addressed over a year ago (4 February 2010):

Mozina never responded. Let us be clear on something: it is the physics that Mozina does not understand at any level. It is the physics that Mozina constantly gets wrong. We can never teach Mozina physics because he is immune to learning, already quite convinced that his ignorance is in fact knowledge, he is beyond hope. But that need not apply to others reading this thread. So let me do something I said I would not do, since Mozina will never answer the questions above. Let me explore what Hannes Alfven really says about magnetic reconnection (not surprisingly, Alfven does not say what Mozina claims he says).

The following passages are transcribed from the book Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven; D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1981. All of the emphasis (italics) are Alfven's from the original text, none are mine. First, Alfven addresses boundary conditions.

Page 28, section II.5.1 - Boundary Conditions
"Consider a volume V of space limited by a surface S. The properties of the plasma inside of S depend on the boundary conditions. Thus by changing the current through S, we can change the behavior of the plasma. As was seen in the preceding paragraph, the properties of the plasma depend on the whole circuit in which the current flows. This means that we can describe the plasma inside of S by parameters inside S only if i = 0 everywhere on S.
Hence, even if we know all plasma parameters (like density, temperature and magnetization) at every point inside S, we can describe the plasma properties theoretically only if there is no electric current crossing the surface. Therefore, the boundary problems have to be analysed very carefully." ​

This is a necessary consequence of Alfven's adoption of the circuit formalism for describing the physics of plasmas. He takes the position that it is not possible to properly describe the physics of plasmas by local variables alone, but that one must include the entire circuit, hence is requirement that no electric current can flow into or out of a given volume, if you want to use only local parameters to describe the plasma. This leads into Alfven's specific statement about magnetic reconnection ...

Page 29, section II.5.3, - 'Magnetic Merging' Theories "What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface. In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface." "All theories of 'magnetic merging' (or 'field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention. This does not mean that all papers in which 'magnetic merging' is used are of no interest, because there exist some good papers (e.g., Hill, 1975) in which the term is merely a synonym for "current sheet acceleration".​

These two paragraphs reveal a serious weakness in Alfven's method, in the context of modern plasma physics, and reveal precisely why Alfven was in fact wrong to reject magnetic reconnection. His statement above was correct, and as far as I know remains correct to this day. He was right to reject magnetic reconnection in the context of the boundary conditions he laid out, but carefully note what Alfven actually says, in Alfven's own words: "All theories of 'magnetic merging' (or 'field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention." Alfven did not categorically reject the idea of magnetic reconnection, he only rejected it in cases where his boundary conditions apply. The problem, of course, is that his boundary conditions can be quite unrealistic and do not apply in most cases to real plasma in space, and this is where Alfven fails: Alfven's boundary condition requirements do not necessarily reflect the physical state of real plasmas, either in space, or in the laboratory. Magnetic reconnection requires oppositely directed magnetic fields. Parallel magnetic fields cannot reconnect. Alfven's boundary conditions establish only parallel magnetic fields and therefore rule out at once all cases where one would expect magnetic reconnection to occur. Hence, Alfven is right to claim that magnetic reconnection will not occur when his boundary conditions are satisfied. But he was wrong to assume that his boundary conditions were physically realistic when applied to real space & astrophysical plasma. He was wrong to require all plasmas to satisfy boundary conditions which automatically rule out magnetic reconnection. Alfven established faulty boundary conditions because he was guided by a faulty paradigm, namely the circuit paradigm for describing the physics of plasmas. That paradigm has serious limitations. It is still used by plasma physicists today, but has limited application. Alfven's reliance on this circuit formalism may have been good enough to establish the basics of plasma physics and the basics of ideal MHD, but was not good enough to handle the advances that have given us modern plasma physics. None of the modern plasma physics text books I have in my library apply the circuit analogy to plasma physics the way Alfven did. It simply does not apply to realistic space plasma physics in most cases, and we can in fact deal with all cases today using the local parameters of the plasma without appealing to Alfven's limiting boundary conditions. Now, let me add the caveat that I am not a specialist in plasma physics (although I actually have coauthored one paper in space plasma physics: Bolton, et al., 1989). But I do have a master's degree in physics, I can read plasma physics text books, and most importantly of all, I know when to ask for help. So I acknowledge hints from tusenfem on interpreting Alfven in this case. I don't think I am making any big mistakes here, but feel free to correct any errors (even the little ones). Finally, once again, I direct the interested reader to the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Application; Priest & Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Section 4.2 describes the Sweet-Parker mechanism, and section 4.3 describes the faster Petschek mechanism, both of which are reconnection mechanisms that take place in plasma environments which are not allowed to exist under Alfven's restrictive boundary conditions.

I have highlighted statements which I think are of key importance. First, Alfven established faulty boundary conditions, as compared to real astrophysical plasmas, and therefore came to conclusions not applicable to real astrophysical plasmas. I think that this stems from his reliance on ideal (non-resistive) magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), in which theoretical paradigm magnetic reconnection indeed is disallowed. However, in non-ideal (resistive) MHD magnetic reconnection is not simply allowed, but actually a necessary consequence.

... and what critical responses have (or perhaps not), disputed Alfvén's arguments.

It's not so much a direct response to Alfven as it is that, as the discipline of plasma physics has made the transition from ideal to non-ideal MHD, Alfven's prohibitions against magnetic reconnection have simply been ignored and replaced by proper physics. I have repeatedly referenced standard works on plasma physics which illustrate the physical validity & details of magnetic reconnection. From 20 January 2010:

So, how about a show of hands from Michael Mozina: Have you read Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Practice by Priest & Forbes? Have you read Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics by Deiter Biskamp? Have you read Fundamentals of Plasma Physics by Paul Bellan? Have you read The Physics of Plasmas by T.J.M. Boyd & J.J. Sanderson? Have you read Plasma Physics for Astrophysics by Russell Kulsrud? Have you read Plasma Astrophysics by Toshiki Tajima & Kazunari Shibata? Have you read Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos by Eugene Parker?

Those comments were directed at Mozina in response to his constant demands that others read at least hundreds of pages from Alfven & Birkeland. However, the list of titles is a good list of resources on the proper physics of magnetic reconnection. Also, see my post Magnetic Reconnection Redux XI (21 April 2010) for a discussion of magnetic reconnection in controlled laboratory plasma experiments.

So that Alfvén's name is not merely repeated, a peer reviewed paper on Alfvén's views can be found in Heikkila, W. J., "Elementary ideas behind plasma physics" in Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 144, no. 1-2, May 1988. (Online in full).

I think I have already dealt with magnetic reconnection in sufficient detail. But see the comment on the circuit paradigm from the abstract of Heikkila's paper: "Circuit analysis is not a full description of the physics, being a scalar relationships. However, it is suitable for dealing with energy relationships and cause and effect, ..." This is undoubtedly correct, and is exactly what I and others (notably tusenfem) have argued all along. However, Mozina does not see it that way. He thinks that, contrary to Heikkila, the circuit paradigm is a complete description of the full physics. Now, above I said, "Alfven established faulty boundary conditions because he was guided by a faulty paradigm, namely the circuit paradigm for describing the physics of plasmas." So why did I call the circuit paradigm "faulty"? Note Alfven's own words: "Hence, even if we know all plasma parameters (like density, temperature and magnetization) at every point inside S, we can describe the plasma properties theoretically only if there is no electric current crossing the surface". I think that sentence is not only wrong, but so wrong I can't believe that Alfven actually means what he says, and that this is a communication (language) problem rather than a physics problem. I will maintain that it is always possible, no exceptions, to know exactly what is going on in any physical system, with sufficient knowledge of local variables, even without knowledge of the boundary conditions. However, to know why something is happening in that system, then a knowledge of the boundary conditions is crucial. It simply cannot be true that the flow of current into a plasma will prevent you from knowing what is happening. However, since the current represents an energy source from outside the volume of plasma under study, one must know about the current at the boundary, or else one will reach very wrong conclusions about energy sources inside the volume. The wording of Alfven's statement is why I called the circuit paradigm "faulty". As long as we are restricted by the common sense notion put forth by Heikkila, then the circuit paradigm is clearly not faulty. However, if we try to pretend that the circuit paradigm is a complete description of the full physics, or if we try to pretend that we cannot know what is happening inside a volume of plasma unless we know the whole circuit, then the circuit paradigm is being used in a faulty manner. Finally, as for the frozen flux approximation, understanding of this has also changed since Alfven's time. I refer you to the list of plasma physics books above. Generally speaking, the plasma is "frozen" to the magnetic field if the energy density of the magnetic field is higher than the energy density of the plasma, and vice-versa. In both cases, this is an approximation only and neither is ever really "frozen" to the other in a literal sense. It all depends on the diffusion time scale of the magnetic field in the plasma. If the diffusion time scale is long compared to the time scale of the phenomena in question, then one can treat the magnetic field as frozen to the plasma over that time. However, if the diffusion time scale is not long compared to the phenomenological time scale, then one cannot make that approximation and must deal explicitly with the diffusion of the plasma and magnetic field with respect to each other.

 

[iantresman]

Many thanks Tim for taking the time to respond to my post. I'm going to reply in two posts, because I think we cover two separate areas (1) on pseudoscience (2) on Alfvén's work. This second part of your post will take me a little more time to digest and go through, so I'm going to limit my comments to the pseudoscience issue.

I happen to disagree, I think it is a very good reason. The difference between science & pseudoscience is founded on methodology, not on the final result, so when I label Mozina's comments "pseudoscience" I an leveling a criticism against the manner in which he argues his position. Also note that I did not say that Alfven himself was being pseudoscientific (he was just wrong but not pseudoscientific), only that Mozina was.

When people make a scientific argument, they present facts & reasonable interpretations thereof. Mozina does neither of these, but instead appeals to authority ("All he can ever say is "Afven said so", a religious acolyte parroting the ancient script of the demi-god."). Demi-god is Mozina's attitude towards Alfven (and Birkeland as well). He treats the writings of both in exactly the same way that literalists interpret holy scripture: Divine truth that cannot ever be challenged in any way. That is definitely a religious attitude. But in true science we all understand that even the most brilliant people can be wrong, and often are. Witness Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics. Certainly Einstein was brilliant and certainly he did not engage in pseudoscience. But he certainly was wrong.

Mozina has never once, in all these years, even tried to present anything one might call a "scientific" argument. He avoids mathematics like the plague, which severely cripples his ability to argue anything. He occasionally refers to real data (e.g, SERTS data) but badly misinterprets its physical meaning. He puts a great deal of effort into examining press release images (rarely the science data from which they are derived) and then interpreting the pictures as proof positive that the entire discipline of physics is dead wrong, from one end to the other. And if he is challenged to support his own claims, he appeals the inerrant scripture ("Alfven said so") as proof positive that he cannot possibly be wrong. He tries to mimic science in some crude way, but fails miserably.

No, Mozina's attitude is the very essence of pseudoscience and I stand by my criticism.

I respect your point of view, but I would humbly suggest that it too is not scientific: There is no scientifically agreed definition of "pseudoscience". So on the one hand, you are quite a liberty to suggest why the scientific arguments fall short of your standards, and you could define this as pseudoscience. Others may disagree, because there is no standard "pseudoscience".

For example, my son "does science" at school. He does experiments, and often appeals to authority. He knows of Newton's Laws, and correctly states them, but I would bet he couldn't provide a mathematical description. If he was participating in these discussions, he could inadvertently be accused of pseudoscience, because his knowledge is not sufficient. Sadly, I know his knowledge will never exceed a certain level, but he still has his certificate in science.

So my point is really that your arguments are good and reasoned, but the pseudoscience label, because it is somewhat subjective, and some might say pejorative, is perhaps not very helpful, or illuminating.

Maths is always going to be an issue, but I think we'd lose 95% of the participants on JREF if it was requirement for discussions here. But I believe that it is not essential for the level of discussions on JREF. For example, you mentioned boundary conditions with respect to Alfvén's work. I've not come across this criticism before, and will need to do some more research on the implications, but it has taken the discussion forward without maths.

 

[Reality Check]

I believe that this is an over-generalization, and while plasmas are generally highly conducting, and high conductivity is generally assumed, this is not always the case. Alfvén calls such plasmas "pseudo-plasmas". He writes:

As a result of new factual knowledge, the "first approach" has been proven to describe only the properties of the "pseudo-plasma," a fictitious medium, which has rather little to do with real plasma. Hence we must now take a "second approach" (Alfvén, 1968). The basic difference between the first and second approaches is to some extent illustrated by the terms ionized gas and plasma which, although in reality synonymous, convey different general notions" (Ref: Sec.15.3.2)
​

iantresman, I see that your quote from Alfvén

1. Is from 1968!
2. Says nothing about electrical discharges in plasmas

Can you provide a quote from him where he explicitly states this?

What about a quote from a modern textbook on plasma physics containing all of the plasma physics that has been developwed since Alfvén 's death?

This is a problem with Micheal Mozina's knowledge of plasma physics. He relies on 30 year old books from a couple of authors rather than finding out what the current status of the science is. Ignoring progress in science is a fatal mistake.

While the Sun's interior (a high density homogeneous plasma) could be considered to be a highly conductive medium with infinite conductivity, it would not apply to most other space plasmas such as the Sun's atmosphere, and interplanetary and interstellar space.

The fact that these plasmas conduct to a high degree means that there can be no electrical discharges within them in general.

The Sun's atmosphere is not considered to be an actual plasma with infinite conductivity. It is treated as using ideal MHD because there are physical reasons to do so.
Magnetohydrodynamics:

In an imperfectly conducting fluid the magnetic field can generally move through the fluid following a diffusion law with the resistivity of the plasma serving as a diffusion constant. This means that solutions to the ideal MHD equations are only applicable for a limited time for a region of a given size before diffusion becomes too important to ignore. One can estimate the diffusion time across a solar active region (from collisional resistivity) to be hundreds to thousands of years, much longer than the actual lifetime of a sunspot—so it would seem reasonable to ignore the resistivity. By contrast, a meter-sized volume of seawater has a magnetic diffusion time measured in milliseconds.

On the other hand the magnetic reconnection that causes solar flares, involves rapid magnetic diffusion so ideal MHD does not work. Resistive MHD is better but has problems.

 

[DeathDart]

So you are not describing a magnetic field line which stops and starts.

You seem to be describing how magnetic plasma cells separate and join.

Two cells approach each other with opposite flows at their point of contact, and then the magnetic fields reconnect around both.

Is that close?

 

[Reality Check]

I respect your point of view, but I would humbly suggest that it too is not scientific: There is no scientifically agreed definition of "pseudoscience"

Pseudoscience is an English word and defined (variously) in dictionaries.
The WikiPedia atricle is clear enough: Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

Comparing Micheal Mozina and your son is not quite fair. Your son is a student gaining his first knoweldge of sceince and not claiming that a theory like the Electric Sun idea (or MM's pet fantasy the Iron Sun) is correct. I would expect him to continue to learn.

MM is an adult. He has shown a striking inability to learn any new things about science. His ideas about science are primitive, e.g. his insistence that everything must be detected in a lab so that dark matter, dark energy and stars do not exist (Does Michael Mozina believe that stars exist?)!

However ...
Your son would not be accused of pseudoscience in this forum. We would do exactly what we first attempted with Micheal Mozina when he showed insufficient knowledge - explain to him the science and give citations to further reading.

The pseudoscience would come if your son stated that Newton's Laws were wrong, gave no credible scientific evidence, cited outdated texts (the ancient Greeks?), ignored the explanations and did not read the citations given to him ... and still insisted that Newton's Laws were wrong!
That is Micheal Mozina's activity that lead to the pseudoscience description of his MO.

 

[dasmiller]

Maths is always going to be an issue, but I think we'd lose 95% of the participants on JREF if it was requirement for discussions here. But I believe that it is not essential for the level of discussions on JREF.

I think that whether math is necessary depends on the topic. In a lot of cases, you can get by without it. However, in this thread, we've come up with many examples of fairly basic analyses that show fundamental flaws in the proposed 'model,' but since Michael won't "bark math on command," the analyses are neither challenged nor accepted.

This can make for some very frustrating discussions:

"Analysis X shows that your revolutionary model makes obviously false predictions."
"Your analysis of X is wrong."
"Here are my assumptions, methodology, and computations. What's wrong with it?"
"Oh, I don't do math. That will come later. So I don't know what you did wrong, but I know that you're wrong. Thus, once again, you've failed for invalidate my revolutionary model."

How does one validate a physics model without using it to make predictions and then seeing if those predictions fit with the observations? And how many physics models make predictions without any math? (that last was intended as a rhetorical question).

 

[Almo]

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.

~ Leo Tolstoy

 

[Tim Thompson]

Terrestrial Gamma Ray Flashes

I believe that lightning (a form of pinch in our planetary atmosphere, highlighted in bead lightning, ref.) ...

Lightning is not a pinch, it is a channel of electric current. Like any current channel with that geometry, it can pinch due to its own solenoidal magnetic field. But the pinch in this case does not accelerate particles, but rather results in kink & sausage instability in the current channel, resulting in the observed phenomenon of bead lightning (Ludwig & Saba, 2005), which is exactly what your own much earlier reference suggested (Uman, 1962). Bead lightning is quite rare, so the vast majority of lightning current channels are stable against pinch instabilities.

... may emitted gamma rays. See for example "Thunderstorm Gamma Rays Linked to Lightning", National Geographic News, October 11, 2007 (not peer reviewed, but see q.v. in Geophys. Res. 2004).

That's Dwyer, et al., 2004 (I generally don't like linking directly to PDF files because not all browsers will easily open & display them, and the ADS link allows people to access references in papers and citations to them for further study). I am familiar with his work, he has written several papers on gamma ray & X-ray emission associated with thunderstorms.

I think it is not the lightning per se that generates the gamma rays, but rather the processes that generate lightning also generate gamma rays; see the last sentence of the abstract from Dwyer, et al., 2004: "The burst of gamma-rays had very different characteristics from the x-ray emission frequently seen in association with the dart leader/return stroke sequences of triggered lightning and may represent a new kind of event, likely originating from cloud processes thousands of meters overhead.". And see Smith, et al., 2011 which argues against direct lightning production of terrestrial gamma ray flashes (TGF). Although Carlson, Lehtinen & Inan, 2010 provide an argument to the contrary, their simulations require unbranched current flow and higher values of current & potential, and must lose weight when compared with the strong observational constraints found in Smith, et al., 2011. Finally, Splitt, et al., 2009 indicates that TGFs are rare despite the large number of thunderstorms that should be capable of generating TGFs, which in my mind argues against simple lightning being the culprit.

It seems unlikely to me that pinches are involved here either, partly because TGFs are too slow and partly because they are too spatially broad, where a pinch should be spatially quite small & temporally quite fast (e.g., Lu, et al., 2011 & Tavani, et al., 2011).

That is not to contradict you, as I also believe that you are quite correct that pinches accelerate charged particles as you described, resulting in the emission of radiation at various wavelengths.

Pinches certainly can accelerate particles to high enough energies, but will not necessarily do so. For instance, there is no evidence I know of that the kink instabilities responsible for bead lightning generate gamma rays or X-rays through particle acceleration.

I put this answer here because this is where the question originally came up. However, it is quite off-topic for a thread about the sun. So I suggest that if you (or anyone else) want to continue on this topic, a new thread on TGFs would be most appropriate.

 

[iantresman]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

This is a matter that I addressed over a year ago (4 February 2010):

I've had a look at your original post from (4 February 2010). I've already commented and whether we should label people/ideas as "pseudoscience", so I won't comment further on whether Mozina is learning any physics.

Regarding magnetic reconnection, I think we're all interpreting differently, sometimes over-generalizing and sometimes not. As you noted yourself, "Alfven did not categorically reject the idea of magnetic reconnection, he only rejected it in cases where his boundary conditions apply". You may be right that his boundary conditions are sometimes mis-applied.

Regarding whether "the circuit paradigm is a complete description of the full physics", Alfvén certainly did not believe this, as he described in his articles concerning the "dualism of plasma". All he says is that:

.. in magnetohydrodynamic theories, it is convenient to eliminate the current and to represent the electric current density by curl B. This method is acceptable in the treatment of a number of phenomena which are related to plasma anisotropy and waves in plasmas.
However, there are also a number of phenomena which cannot be treated in this way, but which require an approach in which the electric current is taken account of explicitly (emphasis in the original, ref)

 

[iantresman]

Pseudoscience is an English word and defined (variously) in dictionaries.

My point is that it doesn't have a scientific definition. So calling something "pseudoscience" tells us little about its problems. There a dozens of reasons various people have put forward as to why something might be pseudoscience, including that an idea is just disliked.

To my mind, using the label "pseudoscience" is similar to a non-scientist using the incorrect term for something. If scientists strive to be accurate, they should criticize accurately, rather than using what amounts to a pejorative umbrella label, whether it is deserved, or not.

 

[iantresman]

Lightning is not a pinch, it is a channel of electric current.

Are you sure? If a lightning bolt was not "pinching" then the channel would blow apart. The magnetic pinch balances the outward pressure, so while there is no distinctive "hourglass" pinch, the cylindrical channel is maintained. Maybe I'm just being lax with my terminology.

 

[ben m]

Are you sure? If a lightning bolt was not "pinching" then the channel would blow apart. The magnetic pinch balances the outward pressure, so while there is no distinctive "hourglass" pinch, the cylindrical channel is maintained. Maybe I'm just being lax with my terminology.

Lightning bolts do blow apart. For a dimensional-analysis version of this, a lightning bolt 1" in diameter carrying 100kA has a peak magnetic field of ~2T, thus a magnetic pressure of ~1 Mpa (10 atmospheres). Due to its temperature of 20,000C, the gas pressure is ~70 atmospheres. Thus the channel blows apart no matter what the B field is doing. The (brief) survival of the channel is an example of inertial confinement, not pinching.

 

[iantresman]

The (brief) survival of the channel is an example of inertial confinement, not pinching.

I've not heard of inertial confinement with respect to lightning, and couldn't find anything on the Internet. Can you help with a paper so I can learn more about this.

 

[ben m]

I've not heard of inertial confinement with respect to lightning, and couldn't find anything on the Internet. Can you help with a paper so I can learn more about this.

You can do your own research; I just did the calculation. Based on the energy scales involved, a lightning channel looks like it's going to blow itself to pieces; it ought to stay together only because it takes nonzero time for pressure forces to actually move stuff out of the way. If there is an error in my energy-scale calculation or interpretation of it, please correct me.

That's the definition of inertial confinement, so that's what I called it. (what force do you think holds an NIF fusion target together? None, it just blows itself apart, but the pressure blowing it apart is large enough to cause fusion briefly.) I have no idea if anyone else calls it that.

 

[Reality Check]

My point is that it doesn't have a scientific definition.

My point is that pseudoscience ("a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific ") has a dictionary defintion. This defintnion tells us a lot about the problems of a pseudoscience..

To my mind, using the label "pseudoscience" is exactly what the label tells us - that a theory that claims to be scientific is not actually scientific.

The Electric Sun theory is pseudoscience for many reasons, starting with that it is not even really defined! The usual defintion of it (the Sun is basically a giant lightbulb powered by invisible electric currents) is obviously incorrect:

• We detect the neutrinos from enough fusion to power the Sun.
• We do not detect the gamma rays from the fusion.
• Thus that fusion must be happening in the core of the Sun and we have the conventional solar model that actually works.

 

[Reality Check]

Regarding whether "the circuit paradigm is a complete description of the full physics", Alfvén certainly did not believe this, as he described in his articles concerning the "dualism of plasma". All he says is that:

The "circuit paradigm" is not really the "dualism of plasma".
The dualism of plasma is whether you use magnetic fields or electric fields. Both methods as equivalent in the non-relativistic limit. Astronomers tend to use the magnetic field approach because they are easier to detect then electric fields.

The use of a circuit model ("circuit paradigm") is the replacement of the details of a physical process with large scale properties. A circuit model includes electrical fields (resistors) and magnetic fields (inductors).

ETA
Alfvén's paper has circuits in his "dualism of plasma" section but these are actual currents, not a circuit model as in his solar flare paper.

ETA2
What you have cited is a 1982 conference presentation: Paradigm transition in cosmic plasma physics (PDF)

His conclusions have turned out to be wrong:

• No signs of equal quantities of matter and antimatter in the observable universe (or our galaxy!).
• The evidence for big bang cosmology has grown enormously.
• The existence of black holes is mostly confirmed (all that is missing is the direct observation of an event horizon which is likely in the next decade or so).
• The energy of quasars is definitely not annihilation of matter and antimatter.
• The Hubble expansion has nothing to do with annihilation of matter and antimatter (his Plasma Cosmology has been invalidated)

 

[DeathDart]

You may be correct on how imprecise the "Electric Sun Theory" is as something for discussion. I assumed it was in reference to a method of answering the high Coronal Heating anomaly. Anything that assumes a non-fusion source for the suns energy would be very difficult to argue.

I would also suggest that it might be related to the electric galaxy in which gravity is not the dominate force in (some) galaxies. This is a speculative area.

If we restrict Electric Sun to surface effects it would be a reasonable and challenging area to argue.

And I argue that Terrestrial Gamma Flashes could be a related phenomena to coronal heating.

Or we could start an entirely different thread, based on identifying mechanisms in Nature that allows methods of particle acceleration, which were previously thought to be possible in only man made accelerators.

 

[Reality Check]

You may be correct on how imprecise the "Electric Sun Theory" is as something for discussion. I assumed it was in reference to a method of answering the high Coronal Heating anomaly. Anything that assumes a non-fusion source for the suns energy would be very difficult to argue.

The Electric Sun does not address the Coronal Heating anomaly because it proposes unphysical mechanisms (like lightning) or unobserved phenomena such as pinches in the solar atmosphere.

Real science is getting close to an answer, e.g. Alfvénic waves are now a good candidate for coronal heating (Elusive Sun waves come into focus).

I would also suggest that it might be related to the electric galaxy in which gravity is not the dominate force in (some) galaxies. This is a speculative area.

It is a completely bunkum area.

If we restrict Electric Sun to surface effects it would be a reasonable and challenging area to argue.

There is little to argue: If you restrict Electric Sun to surface effects then you either get standard solar physics or crackpottery.

And I argue that Terrestrial Gamma Flashes could be a related phenomena to coronal heating.

And you would be wrong. Read Terrestrial Gamma Ray Flashes - they are most likely created by the same mechanism that creates lightning so you would need clouds (water vapor) on the Sun.

Unless by 'related" you mean anything that causes gamma rays. Then you need to present your evidence the there is enough of whatever this is to

• produce the observed gamma rays
• heat the corona the required amount.

Or we could start an entirely different thread, based on identifying mechanisms in Nature that allows methods of particle acceleration, which were previously thought to be possible in only man made accelerators.

Feel free to do so.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

My point is that it doesn't have a scientific definition. So calling something "pseudoscience" tells us little about its problems. There a dozens of reasons various people have put forward as to why something might be pseudoscience, including that an idea is just disliked.

To my mind, using the label "pseudoscience" is similar to a non-scientist using the incorrect term for something. If scientists strive to be accurate, they should criticize accurately, rather than using what amounts to a pejorative umbrella label, whether it is deserved, or not.

It would seem, based on this, that you feel the word (pseudoscience) cannot be used, meaningfully, in this section of JREF. Is that so?

Are there any circumstances/situations in which you feel this word can be used, in a meaningful exchange of words?

Taking you at your word ("using the label "pseudoscience" is similar to a non-scientist using the incorrect term for something"), does MM's persistent, multitudinous use of incorrect terms (for standard things in physics, like 'pressure') mean that he's a non-scientist?