Electric universe theories here.

[Ziggurat]

QM suggests this. Most electrical theory classes are based on a 19th century understanding of EM fields.

Well, no. Most electrodynamics classes include special relativity, which is decidedly 20th century. And quantum mechanics does not suggest that electric or magnetic fields are made of photons. You are confusing the field itself with excitations of the field. I had hoped to suggest to you your mistake when I asked how many photons it took to make a 1 Tesla field, but you simply ignored the question.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, it is possible to think of static classical field configurations as composed of photons. The "static" part isn't a problem - a photon is a single quantum of a mode of the field (or more precisely a wave-packet). But you can take the fourier transform of a static field and see that it's a superposition of counter-propagating waves - a standing wave, if you want.

You can do that, but that doesn't exactly give you photons. You can do a Fourier decomposition even classically. But you need more than picking out a single frequency to get a photon, you need quantization too, which taking the Fourier transform doesn't do for you. One can indeed think about it as if it's a bunch of photons added together, but that's not necessary even in quantum mechanics.

 

[sol invictus]

You can do that, but that doesn't exactly give you photons. You can do a Fourier decomposition even classically. But you need more than picking out a single frequency to get a photon, you need quantization too, which taking the Fourier transform doesn't do for you.

True, but the extra step is simple (unless I'm missing something). I think you can just interpret the amplitude of each mode as a number of photons in that mode - which would answer the question you asked Michael.

One can indeed think about it as if it's a bunch of photons added together, but that's not necessary even in quantum mechanics.

It's certainly not necessary in most cases. But fundamentally in QFT all states are nothing more than some collection of particle creation operators acting on the vacuum. Therefore it must be possible to represent any physical field configuration that way. A classical field configuration will involve some mind-boggling number of creation operators, but I think that number will be finite.

 

[Ziggurat]

True, but the extra step is simple (unless I'm missing something). I think you can just interpret the amplitude of each mode as a number of photons in that mode - which would answer the question you asked Michael.

But what does that mean when the number of modes is infinite, and the amplitudes are varying continuously? One might interpret amplitudes as some sort of probability of having a photon in a mode, but in fact even there, you'd need to do an integral over a range of modes in order to get a nonzero value. But I don't think you can get a single number answer for the total number of photons unless you decide on some sort of average frequency for the photons you're considering.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I can hardly wait.....

http://www.ibex.swri.edu/archive/2009.08.shtml

The first IBEX sky maps are complete and the science team is writing up the results right now. The observations are really extraordinary and they show some very surprising features that aren't in any of the current theories or models, so IBEX is a real mission of discovery, and it is certainly going to require a new paradigm to account for what we are seeing! The results are so good that I have been able to negotiate with Science Magazine - the largest circulation periodical in science - for six coordinated papers, including one with some outside observations. Anyway, we plan on submitting all the papers this month and the IBEX Special Issue should be published, in concert with a big NASA press conference, in October. Until then it's all embargoed, but I promise it will be worth the wait!

I get the feeling that this data is going to blow the lid off standard theory in favor of an electrical discharge solar model that experiences discharges between the solar surface and the heliosphere. I don't think these "discoveries" are going to be "minor" in any way.

 

[Ziggurat]

I get the feeling that this data is going to blow the lid of standard theory in favor of an electrical discharge solar model that experiences discharges between the solar surface and the heliosphere. I don't think these "discoveries" are going to be "minor" in any way.

This might be a big deal within the solar physics community. But I'd be quite willing to bet that they will in no way change the conclusion that the sun is a giant ball of plasma powered by hydrogen fusion, with no solid shell anywhere to be seen.

Hell, I'm pretty damned sure that's what Alfven thought too.

But I am curious about how you'll handle it when the results don't live up to your hopes and dreams.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This might be a big deal within the solar physics community. But I'd be quite willing to bet that they will in no way change the conclusion that the sun is a giant ball of plasma powered by hydrogen fusion, with no solid shell anywhere to be seen.

You're probably right about that, but even an "electric sun" theory would be a step in the right direction.

Hell, I'm pretty damned sure that's what Alfven thought too.

I'm pretty sure that is true for Bruce as well. Both of them applied their "discharge" theories to a standard solar model.

But I am curious about how you'll handle it when the results don't live up to your hopes and dreams.

Which results are those?

IMO the biggest obstacle over the past few years has been just getting you to recognize the electrical aspects of this theory. I'm sure progress will continue, once you folks wake up to the fact the sun is electrically active and discharging itself toward the heliosphere. The rest will fall into place based on the location of the bases of these loops, the heliosiesmology findings, and the satellite images. First however you folks will have to wake up to the electrical activities that produce these solar events. Baby steps.

 

[GeeMack]

But I am curious about how you'll handle it when the results don't live up to your hopes and dreams.

He'll ignore it completely. When the STEREO mission was launched in late 2006, Michael was certain it was going to finally prove to the world that the Sun has a solid surface. And if not, Michael was going to admit that his fruitcake fantasy had been falsified. You know, this is it, make or break, if this doesn't prove it right, it will prove it wrong.

Well it's 2009, and the STEREO mission has been sending back data for most of three years. We have yet to see a NASA press release that announces a solid surface on the Sun, as well as Michael's consequent salvation from the depths of crackpottery. We have yet to see the STEREO research team dancing with glee about their newly discovered solid surface on the Sun. We have yet to see papers being submitted to physics journals describing the newfound principles of physics that allow for a previously believed impossible solid surface to exist on the Sun. But more telling than anything, we have yet to see Michael acknowledge that the STEREO mission hasn't proved his crackpot claim, and his subsequent announcement that he's ending the futile quest to find truth in his delusion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not particularly useful most of the time - certainly not for any kind of plasma effect I can think of - but it is possible.

IMO it is particularly useful to demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" and "particle reconnection" are exactly the same physical process. The term "circuit reconnection' is a better term IMO because it immediately conveys the importance of the entire circuit energy of both circuits.

In standard electronics, the motive force that the EM field conveys to charged particles in other circuits is called "induction". An example of this process is an ordinary coil. The transmission of energy to the electrons in the other circuit of the coil due to the magnetic field changes is not called "magnetic reconnection", it is called "induction".

 

[Ziggurat]

IMO it is particularly useful to demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" and "particle reconnection" are exactly the same physical process.

In other words, your objection is a semantic one, and therefore of little interest to anyone.

 

[Michael Mozina]

He'll ignore it completely.

Nah. That's your game not mine. Flying stuff? What flying stuff?

 

[Michael Mozina]

In other words, your objection is a semantic one, and therefore of little interest to anyone.

No, it's more than just a "semantic" issue in the final analysis. Induction is a well understood part of electrical theory. So are circuits. When Alfven described these current sheet events, he described them in terms that were consistent with all other branches of science, including electrical engineering and particle physics.

The term "magnetic reconnection" is inconsistent with with electrical engineering. You'll never hear an electrical engineer talking about "magnetic reconnection" in relationship to a "current flow change" on a "circuit board". Sure, the magnetic field topology on the board may change as the different circuits light up, but those magnetic fields we see around the wires of the circuit board are caused by the flow of current through the wire. The term "magnetic reconnection" is absurd. Magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end. That's something they teach every electrical engineer.

IMO the term "circuit reconnection" is a significantly more appropriate term because it instantly conveys the importance of the circuit energy, and the total circuit energy is going to have the greatest effect on how much energy is released at the point of "reconnection".

Anytime a magnetic field change generates movement of charged particles in solids, we call it "induction".

 

[Tim Thompson]

Fields & Photons

Actually, it is possible to think of static classical field configurations as composed of photons.

Ah, this and the subsequent conversation are aspects of the issue I had not thought of before. Most interesting. But certainly very few people, even very few physicists are likely to automatically think of static fields, or even non-static fields (i.e., waves in a magnetic field or Alfven waves) in terms of photons. I think its use by Mozina needlessly confuses the issue.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it's more than just a "semantic" issue in the final analysis.

No, it isn't. Which is why all you can ever do is object to the term. You cannot point to a single equation that gets used and say, "you made a mistake". You cannot point to any of the quantities that actually get calculated and say, "that value is wrong". You cannot point to any of the experiments that have been performed and say, "you screwed up". You have no real objection other than to the phrase itself.

The term "magnetic reconnection" is inconsistent with with electrical engineering.

Like I said, your objection is purely semantic. And nobody cares. Solar physicists are free to develop their own terminology, there is no reason it needs to match the terminology of electrical engineers. Your disapproval of such terminology is of no consequence.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ah, this and the subsequent conversation are aspects of the issue I had not thought of before. Most interesting. But certainly very few people, even very few physicists are likely to automatically think of static fields, or even non-static fields (i.e., waves in a magnetic field or Alfven waves) in terms of photons. I think its use by Mozina needlessly confuses the issue.

Whereas I would say calling it "magnetic reconnection" is what needlessly confuses the issue. Every electrical engineer knows what a 'short circuit' is. Nobody in electrical engineering knows what 'magnetic reconnection" is.

 

[Tim Thompson]

How to Interpret the Images?

You did us *ALL* a disservice by not doing your homework like I asked.

Well, actually I did my homework exactly as you asked, as you well know. However, I did do it quite carelessly, a bad habit when I try to do things too quickly. Sorry about that.

However, it is now done. I have seen the flares in white light & EUV, and I have seen all the frames. I have seen all of the images you wanted me to see, and all the frames, so far as I know. I disagree with your interpretation of the images. Indeed, I will say that your reliance on the images is your primary weakness. It is as I said before, you have to rely on a subjective interpretation of the images to make your point. There is nothing in the images, not in any frame, which is sufficient to differentiate between your hypothesis and that of mainstream physics, and that is the real, single, biggest point to make. It is not enough simply to promote an alternative hypothesis. You must provide a means to simultaneously verify your hypothesis and falsify the competition (in this case, the mainstream physics). I see nothing that does this.

And let me say that I am highly intrigued by this:

It doesn't. The WL images show the photosphere.

You have argued strenuously all along that the EUV images show the photosphere, and it has been one of the major points of contention all along. But now you simply brush all of the aside and admit that the EUV images do not show the photosphere? If you are going to say that, is there anything left to talk about? I though that was the point you were trying to make, it is certainly the point you told me you were trying to make.

In any case, that the magnetic loop crosses through the photosphere has never been a point of contention; it is well known that they do, and that the loops extend well below the photosphere. The real point of contention is "where does the flare start?" Is it below, in, or above the photosphere? Given only the videos & frames you have specified, all 3 alternatives are clearly possible. We need more information, aside from the images, to make a conclusion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, it isn't. Which is why all you can ever do is object to the term. You cannot point to a single equation that gets used and say, "you made a mistake". You cannot point to any of the quantities that actually get calculated and say, "that value is wrong". You cannot point to any of the experiments that have been performed and say, "you screwed up". You have no real objection other than to the phrase itself.

Well, it's not my fault that the math is fine, and it's not my fault that you have "current flow" inside those 'magnetic lines". After reading Birn's presentation of this process, the only "beef" I had was with the term he used to describe this process.

Like I said, your objection is purely semantic.

Not actually. Magnetic lines do not actually "reconnect". Only particles and circuits "reconnect". The EM field can transfer kinetic energy to charged particles, but that already has a proper name - induction.

And nobody cares.

Most EU enthusiasts would beg to differ.

Solar physicists are free to develop their own terminology, there is no reason it needs to match the terminology of electrical engineers. Your disapproval of such terminology is of no consequence.

Why would you *INTENTIONALLY* deviate from standard terminology when it is absolutely unnecessary? A simple change of terms to be consistent with other branches of science would eliminate the need to "Translate" your personal terminology to one that is actually consistent with other branches of science. Whereas you all now seem to accept they are interchangeable terms, that is almost never the case at the outset of these conversations and I end up having to spend days, week and even months convincing people that the translation to electrical engineering term is valid. There is usually a giant fight at first, followed by a long discussion on induction and particle aspects of MHD theory required and most folks don't even begin to understand MHD theory. It would be *SO* much more logical to simply call it "circuit reconfiguration" or "circuit reconnection" or something that every electrical engineer is immediately able to relate to and comprehend without the need for "translation".

 

[Tim Thompson]

Nobody in electrical engineering knows what "magnetic reconnection" is.

That's because they have never experienced the Heavenly Glory of being physicists instead

 

[GeeMack]

Nah. That's your game not mine. Flying stuff? What flying stuff?

I addressed your stupid mistake about believing there is flying stuff in a running difference graph or animation produced from a series of these graphs. Others have addressed it, too, and their assessment agrees perfectly with mine. I explained your stupid mistake several years ago the same way I explained your stupid mistake earlier in this thread. But then you've proven that lying and ignorance come easy for you, so it's no surprise each time you lie about no explanations being given and ignore them when they are. Pitiful, but no surprise.

And again you'll notice I raised an actual issue of concern, yet instead of dealing with the issue you pussied out and threw another tantrum. Are you sure you're not a little girl pretending to be a grown up? It's hard to believe a functioning adult could be stupid enough to believe she could offer any proof for that whacked-out conjecture by doing no more than hollering and whining about it.

It might do you some good to expend some of that energy you use to piss and moan, and actually put it towards producing something quantitative, intelligent, and rational to support your insane fantasy, you know, if you actually believe it and you're not just a troll. So far it seems nearly (if not fully) 100% of your substantiation amounts to, "It looks like a bunny," and, "It's true because I say it's true." (If anyone else has noted any of Michael's contributions that might actually be considered compelling, objective, and legitimately scientific support for the possibility that the Sun has a solid surface, please remind me, because I don't recall seeing any.) Yes, pitiful.

(Again I predict not a single finger will be lifted to offer objective evidence supporting the half baked surface of the Sun crap. Ignorance, lying, and/or bitching will follow. Woohoo! I've been right every time so far with these predictions. Can I apply for the JREF million, or is this too easy? )

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, it's not my fault that the math is fine, and it's not my fault that you have "current flow" inside those 'magnetic lines". After reading Birn's presentation of this process, the only "beef" I had was with the term he used to describe this process.

In other words, your objection is purely semantic. Which is what I said. You are now explicitly acknowledging what you just denied. Quite impressive.