This is just a completely irrational statement IMO. Of course there is a direct link. In fact Birkeland "created" his aurora by bombarding his terella with a cathode ray. His entire solar theory, solar wind, jets, loops, etc were all created by "current flow" coming from a cathode sun. Now you can *CLAIM* that there is *ANOTHER* way to generate these events, but so far you've not provide any empirical laboratory evidence to support that claim. Let's see you generate aurora without a cathode.
Well, it is clear that you are not up to date with modern day magnetospheric physics. Maybe you should start
with this very nice NASA poster about aurorae (you might like it because they
even mention Birkeland!).
The fact that Birkeland could create the aurora by accelerated electrons directly from the cathode to the anode terrella and create a simulacrum of aurorae is because Birkeland's terrella is a very simplified (although in his time probably top notch) model of the Sun-Earth interaction. The terrella is not embedded in a super Alfvén magnetoplasma flow consisting of both ions and electrons like the solar wind, it does not have a bow shock, it does not have a magnetopause. Therefore, the electrons that Birkeland send to the terrella can immediately hook onto the terrellan magnetic field lines and move to the poles.
At Earth, this IS NOT POSSIBLE, there is NO direct access to the Earth's atmosphere, but for the strongest CMEs that hit the Earth (like on August 3rd of this year). Otherwise, the aurorae are created by electrons
from he Earth's own magnetosphere, the currents are driven by changes in the magnetic field (mainly of the tail) setting up so called
Birkeland currents, that have to move through charge deficient regions in the magnetosphere, which makes that electric fields are created over the auroral regions which accelerate the electron (such as to maintain the current density) and these electrons interact with the atoms/molecules in the atmospheric layers 70 to 400 km above the Earth generating the northern lights (or southern lights if you happen to be down under).
These are the EXACT currents that Birkeland proposed were driving the aurorae and for which he got so much trouble apart from the fact that we now know that they do not come directly from the Sun, but from the magnetotail. There is physical evidence for that aplenty from innumerous space missions.
There is a link between the Sun and the Earth and the aurora, and that is that the Sun sends out the solar wind which is the main driver for ALL magnetospheric activity, it creates the magnetotail for example and can "destroy" the magnetotail, energizing plasma.
No, they are not "magnetic entities", they are *ELECTROmagnetic* entities that are driven, created and produce by "current flow" and they themselves are channels of "current flow". They aren't sterile magnetic lines, they are powerful *DISCHARGES* through plasma. They wouldn't form at all if the sun were not a cathode and were not discharging itself to the heliosphere.
Ah discussing the finer details of semantism, how tiresome.
The magnetic coronal loops that we see are only parts of magnetic fields that are created below the photosphere of the Sun. Through the fact that the field increases, and the loop needs to remain in pressure equilibrium, this means that there will be less plasma in the loop (total pressure being the magnetic pressure plus the plasma pressure). This means that the loop is in mass lighter than it surroundings and will rise up and part of it will break through the surface and show up as a coronal loop with foot points in the photosphere.
Now, the strong magnetic field of the loops is mainly generated below the photosphere, where the magnetic loop originates. But through the motion of the loop and its foot points, there will be magnetic shear and current will also be driven along the field. Now, the current flowing
along the field cannot create the field it is flowing along (for obvious reasons).
Now, because there is plasma and no insulating dielectric on the Sun, there is no democrat at a tea party that these loops can be *discharges* because there is nothing to discharge, because there cannot be large scale electrical charge build up in a highly conducting plasma. And if the loops would be *discharges* between the Sun and the heliosphere (which should be heliopause probably) then why do they have
both footpoints on the Sun?
I and several others have repeatedly explained MM why in his MHD plasma vision there cannot be a discharge in a plasma. Now he will come back with his favourite "plasma ball" (
which I explained fully in this post). Apparently, MM does not understand what the conditions are for Hannes Alfvén's MDH approximation of the plasma physics equations.
There's no point in going through each item because they are all related to "current flow". Once Birkeland turned off the power, the party was over and nothing "worked". You can't duplicate his experiments and his empirical "predictions" in the lab without current flow.
This is a prime example of why you're still living in the dark ages. You can't figure out what the actual "cause" of the acceleration of solar wind even when it's be "lab tested" for you and everything.
Once we will turn off the solar wind (god forbid this will happen, but in an EU universe anything is possible) then there will be no more activity in the Earth's magnetosphere, and thus there will be no more aurorae.
Michael, like I said, it is you who is living in the dark ages, only believing things that have been done at the beginning of the previous century, and insisting on having to use the MDH and circuit
approximations of full plasma physics.
Up to now you have not brought anything of substance to the discussion. The only thing you can do is complain, but when asked for a real scientific discussion or even ask for details on claims you make, you give no answer. You will not quote Birkeland with page number nor quote Alfvén with page number verbatim. That is because you know you cannot find the wrong claims that you make in their work. Heck, you don't even try to touch my "quick and dirty" discussion of Birkeland's scientific work in the thread I created, because that would put your nose in the facts that you factually do not understand his work.
Well, this is going to be a nice discussion of all the same old same old topics again.
!
