Something new under the sun

[iantresman]

OK, it's time to take a break.

I've tried to answer questions where I can, and while I've never claimed to be an expert on the subject, calling people woos and cranks, and suggesting deliberate misrepresenting, is not very helpful.

It would have been nice to have a more constructive dialog, but it feels more accusatory. Kudos to those who have taken the time to read same papers, and those who are making an positive effort.

Unfortunately there is not enough time in the day.

 

[Dancing David]

.
Plasmas consist of charged particles by definition. Anyone interested in quantifying electromagnetic and gravitational forces can check the details with the references I have provided. Here's a direct quote from Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammer on the general importance of electromagnetism compared to gravity on plasma:

"The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space. Under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation. In order to illustrate this, let us suppose that a particle moves at the earth's solar distance R_E ((the position vector being R_E) with the earth's orbital velocity v. If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by the solar gravitation (the effect of a magnetic field upon a possible atomic magnetic moment being negligible). If M is the solar and m, the atomic mass, and γ is the constant of gravitation, this force is f = -γMm R_E/R_E³. If the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion as well as the electron (charge e = ± 4.8 x 10^-10 e.s.u.) is subject to the force f_m = e(v/c) x B from an interplanetary magnetic field which near the earth's orbit is B. The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10^-4 gauss, which gives f_m/f ≈ 10⁷.
This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized." -- Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, Cosmic Electrodynamics (1963) "Chapter 1 General Survey", Oxford University Press.​

yes, but you did not say, diffuse fields of ionised hydrogen and in the precense of an established magnetic field , now did you.

Not in all those really broad and general statements you made.

What strenth is the interstellar magnetic field, the intergalactic field?

On gravito-electrodynamics, Alfvén and D.A. Mendis write:

While larger bodies in the Saturnian magnetosphere (e.g., boulders, satellites, etc.) are overwhelmingly influenced by gravitational forces, the electrons and ions are overwhelmingly influenced by electromagnetic forces. While Newtonian mechanics describes the motion of the former, electrodynamics describes the motion of the latter. In the case of the fine charged dust present in the Saturnian magnetosphere, the gravitational and electromagnetic forces can become comparable, at least to within an order of magnitude. In that case neither Newtonian mechanics nor electrodynamics is adequate for studying the motion of such grains; what is required is a combination of the two, namely, “gravito-electrodynamics.” -- "Plasma effects in the formation, evolution and present configuration of the Saturnian ring system, Alfven, H.; Mendis, D. A., Symposium on the Giant Planets and Their Satellites, Ottawa, Canada, May 16-June 2, 1982"​

They do give examples of various criteria, noting the importance of grain size, potential, and angular velocity.

Gosh you over generalize a lot don't you, you were mentioning all sorts of plasmas, weren't you and what is Alfven mentioning, some very particular ones. So you blame Alfven for your sloppy statements and errors of thinking. I think it is a shame that you have a web site , especially if you make such gross mis-statements.


So now you saying that in the precense of a sufficiently strong magnetic field the effects of plasma are more effected by the EM forces than the gravitational fields.

Funny, that isn't what you said before, you are very sloppy in your use and language and still have not shown where and in what context Alfven made the ratio claim.

Okay Ian, you are still not able to say anything straight up now are you.

Where is the magnetic field and who, when , where and how was it measured. In all those places you have put it, and wiat aren't some plasmas only minamaly ionised and some are mostly neutral hydrogen, what would that mean about your really broad statements?

Hmm.

And how does it apply to all the things you say it does.

You have yet to demonstrate that it exists or that it is as strong as you seem to think. (The magnetic fields you seem to reference and the Birkeland currents).

Unless you are INFERRING the Birkeland currents, sort of like dark matter.

You are just spinning, try explaining why Alfven uses such very careful language where he describes exactly why he has the satements that he has, and then how you end up with such broad , foolsih and ignorant statements that you then blame on Alfven, it is really pitiful.

What about the grain size Ian? And what conditions did Alfven put on it?

You really discredit yourself by going on about how important Alfven is and then you grossly misrepresent what he has to say.

Did he really just say 'grain size' , what else is in the quote that you are leaving out?

A real shame Alfven was very smart and very careful, you drag his name through the muck.

Oh well, you have yet to present any data or evidence that the currents and fields needed for your hugley inaccurate statements (as opposed to Alfven's very careful ones ) to be true.

Shame on you.

 

[Dancing David]

OK, it's time to take a break.

I've tried to answer questions where I can, and while I've never claimed to be an expert on the subject, calling people woos and cranks, and suggesting deliberate misrepresenting, is not very helpful.

It would have been nice to have a more constructive dialog, but it feels more accusatory. Kudos to those who have taken the time to read same papers, and those who are making an positive effort.

Unfortunately there is not enough time in the day.

Uh huh, riight.

You made grossly inaccurate statement, you misrepresented statements of Alfven and you run this nifty little web site about your little pet theories.

You could have made much more careful statements.

I would really hate to think that you just say that Alfven said all the stuff you think, and that is not the truth.

You made the broad statements you said that Alfven said this in a paper but didn't quote the source. When i read the paper , you just happened to leave out some very important information that Alfven had put in. Hmmm.

Why did you keep leaving out the part about the charge and the velocity Ian, rather convinient for someone with your web site.

How much is misrepresented there?

if you can't live by the words you write, what does that say about you?

 

[Dancing David]

Oh gosh ian, you are a shameless one aren't you, what is the title of Sec. 3 of your web site or more accurately the sub title

All plasmas react more strongly to electromagnetic forces than gravity. Hence 99.999% of the visible Universe reacts more strongly to electromagnetic forces. And all space plasmas produce magnetic fields.

You know for a fact that isn't what Alfven said, he said that under certain condition that the effects of EM were more pwoerful.

Shame on you, you should remove Alfven's name from your website. That is just the most obvious, how many other GROSS MISSTATEMENTS are there at you web site.

Don't feel too sorry for yourself Ian, had you actually looked at what you write and what Alfven actually wrote, you could tell the difference right away.

But I had to actually read the paper and actually look at the quote, you on the other hand just made up a bunch of stuff.

You could have had a reasonable dialouge, i even tried to tell you exactly what i was going to do and warned you, you could have quoted all the stuff that you thought that Alfven said, instead of the stuff you made up.

Pathetic

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC is a troll.

I'm done with this nonsense.

Don't worry folks. He'll be back. Can't help himself.

 

[The Man]

.
Plasmas consist of charged particles by definition. Anyone interested in quantifying electromagnetic and gravitational forces can check the details with the references I have provided. Here's a direct quote from Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammer on the general importance of electromagnetism compared to gravity on plasma:

A fine exemplification of the Saturnian magnetosphere and the Earth’s magnetosphere interaction with charged particles and nothing that is not being considered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere

Similarly, in everyday applications, electric currents always require a "voltage" to drive them, a sort of electric pressure difference (a pressure known as "electric potential"), similar to the pressure difference that drives water along a pipe. Ohm's law is observed to hold fairly well in metallic conductors used by electric technology (e.g. wires) and it predicts a current proportional to voltage. Double the voltage and the current doubles, remove it and no current can flow.
Not so in the magnetosphere (and in many plasmas) where currents (with one important exception) need no voltage to drive them. Any electric current is the transport of electric charge, but in many cases, such transport is already implied by the structure of the field and the plasma. For instance, electrons and positive ions trapped in the dipole-like field near the Earth tend to circulate around the magnetic axis of the dipole (the line connecting the magnetic poles), without gaining or losing energy (see MOT, also "Guiding center motion"). Viewed from above the magnetic north pole (geographic south), ions circulate clockwise, electrons counterclockwise, producing a net circulating clockwise current, known (from its shape) as the ring current. No voltage is needed--the current arises naturally from the motion of the ions and electrons in the magnetic field, as described in the MSPF.
Any such current will modify the magnetic field. The ring current, for instance, strengthens the field on its outside, helping expand the size of the magnetosphere. At the same time, it weakens the magnetic field in its interior. In a magnetic storm, plasma is added to the ring current, making it temporarily stronger, and the field at Earth is observed to weaken by up to 1-2%.
The deformation of the magnetic field, and the flow of electric currents in it, are intimately linked, making it often hard to label one as cause and the other as effect. Frequently (as in the magnetopause and the magnetotail) it is intuitively more useful to regard the distribution and flow of plasma as the primary effect, producing the observed magnetic structure, with the associated electric currents just one feature of those structures, more of a consistency requirement of the magnetic structure.
As noted, one exception (at least) exists, a case where voltages do drive currents. That happens with Birkeland currents, which flow from distant space into the near-polar ionosphere, continue at least some distance in the ionosphere, and then return to space. (Part of the current then detours and leaves Earth again along field lines on the morning side, flows across midnight as part of the ring current, then comes back to the ionosphere along field lines on the evening side and rejoins the pattern.) The full circuit of those currents, under various conditions, is still under debate.

Magnetic fields tend to separate charges. The solar wind, being comprised of equal numbers of opposing charges, incident on the Earth’s (or Saturn’s) magnetosphere would most likely experience some separation of charge. This separation or potential difference being the driving voltage of the night side Birkeland currents that act to balance that charge separation within the earth’s magnetosphere.

 

[Belz...]

No, that's not what you said:

So, gravity is weak at small scales, becomes strong at the planetary scale and then becomes weak again.

Nice try, Zeuzzz. What I meant, I'm sure you know, is that they don't know the ROLE of plasma physics in large-scales structures. That much seems obvious, since we don't even know if it has any.

By that logic, the particles in the solar wind should not leave the sun as gravity should pull them back. Its obviously EM forces involved here

Ever heard of escape velocities ?

Well, Zeuzzz ?

 

[Dancing David]

Seems to have gotten really quiet since I pointed out that Ian (Alfven mentioned all plasma by reference to single atom of ionised hydrogen) Tresman was misrepresenting what Alfvaen said.

 

[iantresman]

Seems to have gotten really quiet since I pointed out that Ian (Alfven mentioned all plasma by reference to single atom of ionised hydrogen) Tresman was misrepresenting what Alfvaen said.

.
I certainly never claimed that Alfven mentioned all plasma by reference to single atom of ionised hydrogen. And Alfvén never said that either; See for example my last reference above to Alfvén and Mendis on dusty and grain plasmas.

The character of your post is exactly the reason why I have chosen to take a break. It will give me a chance to "feel sorry for myself", hang my head in shame, and work out other devious ways to misrpresent the world.

 

[Zeuzzz]

No, that's not what you said:

So, gravity is weak at small scales, becomes strong at the planetary scale and then becomes weak again.

Nice try, Zeuzzz. What I meant, I'm sure you know, is that they don't know the ROLE of plasma physics in large-scales structures. That much seems obvious, since we don't even know if it has any.
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Quote:
By that logic, the particles in the solar wind should not leave the sun as gravity should pull them back. Its obviously EM forces involved here
Ever heard of escape velocities

Well, Zeuzzz ?

Yes i have heard of escpace velocity, i had to recapp it a few days ago infact. And what that that have to with the solar wind acceleration problem? Its how these particles reach escape velocity in the first place which is the big mystery. Read the first line of the solar wind page on wikipedia. There are over twenty completely different models to account for solar wind acceleration and coronal heating proposed in the literature;

Heating of the Solar Corona by Dissipative Alfve´n Solitons

During the past 50 years there have been many attempts to solve this outstanding problem in astrophysics, and there are more than 20 different models and mechanisms for coronal heating proposed in the literature; see reviews [6–8]

The positively charged ions have been shown to accelerate outwards through the corona and beyond, and the electrons seem to mill around with no preferred direction. Nothing in the fusion model predicts or explains this observed phenomenon, streams of neutral gas do not behave in this manner, and winds do not usually accelerate all by themselves. Dr. Peter T. Gallagher of the Big Bear Solar Observatory had this to say about this issue: “Understanding the physics of coronal heating and solar wind acceleration remains one of the unsolved problems of solar physics.” (Ref: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/strategy/sscac/letters/SScAC0103.htm)


They could make use of the suns global E-field to account for this acceleration, but the thing is, you wont find a single university textbook that even considers the suns E-field. I know, I looked when I was there, and there was plenty of talk about magnetism and other magnetic effects, but a severe lack of any mention of the complementary E-fields. But they insist on making up completely new particles to explain these problems (see paper above), new mysterious waves, they even propose tiny E-fields generated by each particle as it leaves, but the idea that the sun could eminate a global E-field which could for this acceleration seems to have eluded them. But at the moment, there is just one single paper that even considers what the potential E-field of the sun could be. They came to the value of 100 C, previously it was thought to be 1.6x10^-19, so thats quite a jump to start with, and their value is hardly definitive.

Infact, it seems that many of the most fundamental aspects of the sun are still considered by the experts that study that field to be problems that have no adequate solution yet. A lot of these issues could likely be solved by taking the sun circuitry into account, after all, it is ~100% plasma which is highly conductive, and perfect for a high degree of electrical activity.

Yet again astronomers seem to be re-inventing the wheel again, when EM forces offer a perfectly valid explanation. They just dont seem able to accept that charge separation can, and does, happen in space.

Due to the electric field surrounding the sun (due to its higher voltage in comparison with its surroundings) this is likely the mechanism by which the charged particles are accelerated. Acceleration of particles by an electric field is the most basic way that particles are accelerated, its the way that all particle accelerators work, and a similar process is likely happening outside the sun. This field would effect different charged ions differently and may beable to account for why the corona glows so bright, or a more basic question, why the corona is there in the first place. It is obviously an electrical phenomenon, it is made of very definitive filaments and is highly energetic in comparison with the rest of the solar wind. (The phrase solar wind is a misnomer; a flow of ions constitutes an electrical current, not a wind. We do not speak of an electric ‘wind’ flowing in our wires at home, or a wind of 650,000 amps entering the Earths poles)

Here are the problems as outlined in a recent overview of TRACE's work in 2007, seems that the solar model still has many problems unsolved;


link

Markus J. Aschwanden Submitted: 2007-03-20 15:39

we look back over the last 6 decades in solar physics and contemplate about 10 outstanding problems in solar physics:
(1) The solar neutrino problem,
(2) Structure of the solar interior (helioseismoloy),
(3) The solar magnetic field (dynamo, solar cycle, corona),
(4) Hydrodynamics of coronal loops, -
(5) MHD oscillations and waves (coronal seismology),
(6) The coronal heating problem,
(7) Self-organized criticality (from nanoflares to giant flares,
(8) Magnetic reconnection processes,
(9) Particle acceleration processes,
(10) Coronal mass ejections and coronal dimming.

The first two problems have been largely solved, recently, while the other 8 selected problems are still pending a final solution, and thus remain persistent Challenges for the next Solar Cycle 24, the theme of this jubilee conference.

 

[Ziggurat]

But they insist on making up completely new particles to explain these problems (see paper above),

What new particles are you refering to? Solitons? Solitons aren't particles.

But at the moment, there is just one single paper that even considers what the potential E-field of the sun could be. They came to the value of 100 C, previously it was thought to be 1.6x10^-19, so thats quite a jump to start with, and their value is hardly definitive.

1.6x10^-19 C is the charge of a single electron or a proton. It was never the proposed limit of charge on the sun, and nothing in the paper you cite suggests that it was. In fact, the paper explicitly refers to an earlier textbook which puts a limit of the charge on the sun of around 100 Couolombs, in line with what this paper itself calculates. The idea that the maximum accepted charge on the sun ever jumped by 20 orders of magnitude is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Zeuzzz]

What new particles are you refering to? Solitons? Solitons aren't particles.

If you read the paper, they are called "Alfvenons", and were invented by the people who wrote that paper.

1.6x10^-19 C is the charge of a single electron or a proton. It was never the proposed limit of charge on the sun, and nothing in the paper you cite suggests that it was. In fact, the paper explicitly refers to an earlier textbook which puts a limit of the charge on the sun of around 100 Couolombs, in line with what this paper itself calculates. The idea that the maximum accepted charge on the sun ever jumped by 20 orders of magnitude is a figment of your imagination.

previously, it was thought to be completely neutral. So that jump in magnitude is reality.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The character of your post is exactly the reason why I have chosen to take a break. It will give me a chance to "feel sorry for myself", hang my head in shame, and work out other devious ways to misrpresent the world.

It'll also give Ian, BAC, and Zeuzzz (the big three of EU-PU woo) a chance to finally go do all that hard-core research which is guaranteed to win them a Nobel Prize for overturning everything we know about astrophysics & cosmology.

Good luck guys... you're going to need it.

 

[MattusMaximus]

1.6x10^-19 C is the charge of a single electron or a proton. It was never the proposed limit of charge on the sun, and nothing in the paper you cite suggests that it was. In fact, the paper explicitly refers to an earlier textbook which puts a limit of the charge on the sun of around 100 Couolombs, in line with what this paper itself calculates. The idea that the maximum accepted charge on the sun ever jumped by 20 orders of magnitude is a figment of your imagination.

Not to mention, that even if the charge on the Sun were actually 100C and the excess charge on the Pioneer probe (remember the first topic of this thread?) were 1C, then the force of electrostatic interaction would be too weak by 10⁷ or 10,000,000 times to account for the Pioneer Anomaly!

All the calculations are outlined right here in post #465, and - surprise, surprise - not one of the EU-PU woo even acknowledged said calculation except to spin some nonsense about how the Sun must have much more charge on it.

Figment of the imagination indeed...

 

[Ziggurat]

If you read the paper, they are called "Alfvenons", and were invented by the people who wrote that paper.

If you read the paper, you'll realize that those are just a particular class of solitons. And solitons are not particles. They are wave packets which have certain properties. You can produce solitons in lots of different media, including water (where the first recorded observation of a soliton actually took place). So evidently you read something you didn't understand, and then concluded something completely baseless from your misunderstanding. I wonder how much of the credence you give to Electric Universe theories comes from such mistakes?

previously, it was thought to be completely neutral. So that jump in magnitude is reality.

Previously, it was treated as neutral. And for many purposes, it should be. But there's a big bloody difference, as any half-way qualified physicist can tell you, between treating something as being neutral and thinking that it is completely neutral (there's an old joke about a physicist treating cows as spheres - and the joke has nothing to do with the physicist thinking cows are spheres). The idea that macroscopic objects can have small charge imbalances is old and commonly accepted. Ever hear of the Millikan oil drop experiment? That idea is how quantization of charge was discovered. Nobody credible ever asserted the sun was completely neutral, and the paper you cite never makes any such assertion either. You're inventing positions to attribute to others inside your own head. If you do that, it's easy to conclude that the entire physics community was clueless, but such a belief is without any basis in reality.

 

[BeAChooser]

The word "open field line" is sometimes used casually when the speaker means "a line that that reconnects somewhere outside our region of interest" or sloppily in saying "magnetic reconnection involves breaking and reattaching field lines" when the speaker means "... crossing and reattaching field lines."

Nonsense, ben. You are grossly misrepresenting the facts when you claim the terms are only sometimes used casually or that the speakers actually only mean "crossing" field lines. I've proven in thread after thread with citation after citation that the top mainstream scientists have used the terms "breaking", "open" and "reconnecting" to describe what happens to field lines. And they talk about them as if they are real entities and these are literal events. And these statements were in peer-reviewed papers and other scientific oriented publications ... hardly casual conversation. So again, you are misrepresenting the facts.

May I use you as an illustration of the importance of careful language in physics?

Perhaps you should use the following examples as illustrations of that :

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q64134u3u72q3664/ "Magnetic reconnection in the corona and the loop prominence phenomenon, R. A. Kopp and G. W. Pneuman ... snip ... 1976 ... snip ... the flare event then tears open the field lines"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13318114.500-.html "When the solar wind blows: The northern lights are a sign of the awesome power that the Earth receives from the solar wind. The big puzzle is how, 07 March 1992 ... snip ... This is because reconnection also happens in the centre of the tail, converting pairs of open field lines back into closed field lines within the magnetosphere and releasing the stored energy."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n817203820715m76/ " Reconnection on open field lines ahead of coronal mass ejections ... snip ... 1995 ... Plasma and magnetic field signatures from 29 November 1990 indicate that the Ulysses spacecraft passed through a series of interplanetary structures that were most likely formed by magnetic reconnection on open field lines ahead of a coronal mass ejection (CME)."

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mccoma01/node4.html "Tongues, bottles, and disconnected loops: The opening and closing of the interplanetary magnetic field, David J. McComas, Space and Atmospheric Sciences Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico ... snip ... 1995 ... snip ... 4. Closing of Open Magnetic Field Lines ... snip ... As a consequence, the only reasonable method of reducing the IMF magnitude in interplanetary space seems to be via reconnection between oppositely directed, previously open field lines [ McComas et al., 1989, 1991; McComas, 1994]."

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95JA02857.shtml " JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 101, NO. A5, PAGES 10,805–10,816, 1996, MHD simulations of the transition of magnetic reconnection from closed to open field lines"

http://books.google.com/books?id=nf...pUqyOYT&sig=I3ecdSkSIpadpdiTij4FyWFrzME&hl=en "Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory And Applications by Eric Ronald Priest and Terry Forbes ... snip ... published 2000 ... reconnection is essentially a topological restructuring of a magnetic field caused by a change in the connectivity of its field lines. ... snip ... 11.1 Large-Scale Eruptive Phenomena ... The opening of the field lines in such an active region by a CME leads to the formation of flare ribbons and loops ... snip ... both ribbons and loops are formed by the process of magnetic energy release as open field lines reconnect to become closed loops again. ... snip ... since the CME flux ropes are likely to contain a mixture of both closed and open field lines".

http://www.taborcommunications.com/archives/100178.html "WEATHERING THE SUBSTORM by J. William Bell, NCSA Senior Science Writer, 05/25/01... snip ... This release marks the beginning of the expansion phase, in which the open field lines reconnect to their appropriate pole on the earth."

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZV...=LucBLysBZH63Q2rhRrd05FdKjRo&hl=en#PPA1014,M1 "The Century of Space Science by J. A. M. Bleeker, Johannes Geiss, M. Huber ... snip ... 2001 ... snip ... it was Hoyle's student Dungey (1961) who first applied the reconnection concept to the interaction of the solar wind and the magnetosphere. His famous diagram (Figure 10) showed that, with a southward IMF, magnetospheric field lines may merge with the IMF on the front side, become open, get pulled across the polar cap, and be transferred back into closed field lines at a reconnection site on the rear side."

http://www.irf.se/Publications/IRFreport280.pdf "Proceeding of the Magnetic Reconnection Meeting in Kiruna, Sweden,
September 2002 ... snip ... The distinguishing characteristics of MR are considered to be ... snip ... , and open magnetic field lines ... snip ... Since one of the requirements for MR is open field lines, it should be distinguishable from processes that occur on closed field lines."

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00009000005001925000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes "A new laboratory experiment on magnetic reconnection, Phys. Plasmas 9, 1925*(2002) ... snip ... R. L. Stenzel, J. M. Urrutia, M. Griskey, and K. Strohmaier, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California ... snip .... In a large laboratory plasma reconnection of three-dimensional (3-D) magnetic fields is studied in the parameter regime of electron magnetohydrodynamics (EMHD). ... snip ... By definition, the change in field topology from closed to open field lines involves reconnection "

http://www.mist.ac.uk/mistg203.html "RAS/MIST discussion meeting, 10th October 2003 ... snip ... Identifying the open-closed field line boundary in magnetospheric and ionospheric data sets"

Space Science*By L. K. Harra, Keith O. Mason ... snip ... 2004 ... snip ... The occurence of reconnection in the vicinity of the subsolar dayside magnetopause creates two 'open' magnetic flux tubes, which have one end located in the north and south polar ionospheres, and the other ends out in the solar wind. Just after they have undergone reconnection, these field lines have a sharp kink as they thread through the dayside magnetopause. The magnetic tension of these field lines at the magnetopause acts to try to straighten them. ... snip ... a continual cycle of magnetospheric convection is set up, with open field lines being created by dayside reconnection"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g542121367532401/ " Magnetic Star-Disk Interaction in Classical T Tauri Stars ... snip ... 2004 ... snip ... "They found the magnetic field to open up and reconnect periodically, launching a pulsed outflow"

http://books.google.com/books?id=xP...sig=YrBdGl8vsFpFYL_Cq0-QUEuc8n0&hl=en#PPP1,M1 "The Sun, Solar Analogs and the Climate*By Joanna D. Haigh, Michael Lockwood, Mark S. Giampapa, Advanced Course 34, 2004, Swiss Society for Astrophysics and Astronomy .. snip ... 2.6 The Role of Magnetic Reconnection in the Solar Corona and Inner Heliosphere ... snip ... Where open field lines come into close proximity and have opposite polarity, reconnection can take place at an X-line ... snip ... Wang, et. al. (1996) show how field lines must be opened at the leading edge of a coronal hole extension by reconnection of this type and then close again at its trailing edge"

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/425126 "The Origin of Postflare Loops, N. R. Sheeley, Jr., H. P. Warren, and Y.-M. Wang... snip ... 2004 ... snip ... we conclude that postflare loops are the end result of the formation, filling, deceleration, and cooling of magnetic loops produced by the reconnection of field lines blown open in the flare."

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...f+"open+field+lines"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us "The importance of open field lines for the generation of daytime rayed aurora and plasma turbulence, E. M. Blixt, K. Oksavik, T. Grydeland, A. Stromme, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 7, 9-2-2005"

http://www.nersc.gov/news/science/reconnection.php "Understanding Magnetic Explosions, On December 6, 2006, Global Positioning System (GPS) devices suddenly started malfunctioning all over the Earth. The culprit: a solar flare. ... snip ... The basic idea is that the churning of ionized gas amplifies the magnetic fields in a plasma by twisting and folding them—kinetic energy being converted into magnetic energy. When the magnetic field lines touch or cross, they break, reconnect, and reverse direction ... snip ... Constantly in motion, the field lines sometimes touch or cross and reverse direction in a process called magnetic reconnection. Open field lines instead of loops show that plasma is being ejected outward as a solar flare."

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...ld+lines+are+opened"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us "Ionospheric signatures of the low-latitude boundary layer under
conditions of northward IMF and small clock angle ... snip ... 2006 ... snip ... Under conditions of south-
ward IMF closed field lines are opened by reconnection near the equatorial magnetopause."

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...lines"+reconnection&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us "CORONAL MAGNETIC FIELD TOPOLOGY OVER FILAMENT CHANNELS: IMPLICATION FOR CORONAL MASS EJECTION INITIATIONS, Yan Li and Janet Luhmann ... snip ... 2006 ... snip ... It seems difficult for the eruption process to open the field lines and at the same time to release energy. The so-called breakout model (Antiochos 1998; Antiochos etal.1999) solves this problem ... snip ... through magnetic reconnection between the large-scale overlying arcade and lower central arcade immediately over the sheared structure to let out the eruption."

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2008-1/ "Flare Observations by Arnold O.*Benz, Institute of Astronomy, ETH ... snip ... 3.1 Geometry of the coronal magnetic field ... snip ... This suggests that in a third of all flares at least one of the four ends of reconnecting field lines is open. ... snip ... The energy release by open and a closed field lines, termed interchange reconnection, has been proposed some time ago (Heyvaerts et al., 1977; Fisk et al., 1999) and applied more recently to in situ observations in a CME (Crooker and Webb, 2006)."

http://www.physics.soton.ac.uk/teach/year4/notes/phys6004/PHYS6004f8.doc "SPACE PLASMA PHYSICS – Consequences of reconnection: convection ... snip ... the open field lines produced by magnetopause reconnection ... snip ... where they can be opened again by reconnection and so start another cycle. We call this large scale circulation of magnetic flux (with its frozen-in plasma) “convection”. This was also the origin of the concept of magnetic reconnection, made by Jim Dungey in 1953 (published in 1961)."

And as I told Ziggurat, I could go on and on listing examples like those since I only quoted from the first few pages in Google searches numbering 1000's of pages of hits. You totally misrepresent what that mainstream has done vis a vis "open" field lines. And I think you know it.

Furthermore, I can just as easily find scientists stating unequivocally that field lines must be closed loops according to Gauss' law. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field "Gauss's law for magnetism" states that the magnetic field is solenoidal (has zero divergence). This is equivalent to the simple statement that, in any field-line depiction of a magnetic field, the field lines cannot have starting or ending points; they must form a closed loop, or else extend to infinity on both ends."

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations "The structure of the magnetic field ... snip ... This equation only works if the integral is done over a closed surface. This equation says, that in every volume the sum of the incoming magnetic field lines equuals the sum of the outgoing magnetical field lines. This means that the magnetic field lines must be closed loops."

http://www.yorku.ca/marko/ComPhys/Ampere/Ampere.html "Magnetic field lines are always closed. One can formulate Gauss' law for magnetism, but given that there is no equivalent of charges (permanent magnets are always dipoles), the magnetic flux through closed surfaces always vanishes."

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node78.html "Gauss' Law for Magnetic Fields ... snip ... Magnetic field-lines form closed loops which never begin or end."

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node116.html "Maxwell's Equations ... snip ... The second equation is the magnetic equivalent of Gauss' law (see Sect.*8.10). This equation describes how the non-existence of magnetic monopoles causes magnetic field-lines to form closed loops."

http://books.google.com/books?id=bR...sig=KBXVn0S68FN0msmbpuaMwS1KHxA&hl=en#PPT4,M1 "The Physics Companion by Anthony C. Fischer-Cripps ... snip ... 2003 ... snip ... It is a peculiar property of magnetic field lines that they always form closed loops. ... snip ... 3.7.4 Maxwell's equations ... magnetic field lines always form closed loops. ... snip ... Magnetic field lines always close upon themselves. ... snip ... Gauss' law for magnetism says that for any closed surface in space, the total magnetic flux is zero meaning that all magnetic flux lines join up with themselves."

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...+field+lines"+closed&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us "Gauss’ Law and Magnetism, Kevin Paulson, Department of Engineering, University of Hull ... snip ... • Magnetic field lines do not begin or end, but always close like a circle."

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/ 79E24C10-1A35-4365-856D-A7316B3EBD2E/0/4_05_2002_edited.pdf "April 5, 2002 ... snip ... Gauss’ Law for Magnetic Fields ... snip ... Magnetic Field lines are always closed"

http://books.google.com/books?id=6P...sig=Qbe5ydrn-QQxIF3R1NRHH3bTgsE&hl=en#PPP1,M1 "Introduction to Electromagnetic Compatibility by Clayton R. Paul, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineeering ... snip ... 2006 ... is Gauss' law for the magnetic field, stated in integral form ... snip ... This result implies that all magnetic field lines form closed paths"

http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys136d/modules/m7/Ampere.htm "The third of Maxwell's equations tells us that there are no magnetic charges, and therefore no sources and sinks for the magnetic field.* The net flux of the magnetic field through any closed surface is zero.* All the field lines that enter through the surface into a volume enclosed by the surface also exit through the surface. Magnetic field lines always are closed loops."

http://people.rit.edu/agysps/courses/313_062web/exam_info/finalinfo.htm " Final Exam info, Wednesday, 28 Feb 2007 ... snip ... GL for magnetism -- no magnetic monopoles; magnetic field lines form closed loops (pen must stay on paper)"

http://www.phys.uri.edu/~gerhard/PHY204/tsl236.pdf "Gauss' Law for Magnetic Field ... snip ... Magnetic field lines always close in themselves."

http://ww.stjohnshigh.org/~fborchelt/ index_files/ap_physics_chapters_29_30_31.ppt ... snip ... Chapter 29* Magnetic Fields & Forces ... snip ... Gauss’s Law for magnetism is similar, using a Gaussian surface • implies that magnetic field lines MUST be closed loops, not lines, that both enter and exit the Gaussian surface"

http://www.geocities.com/iamlad/physicsmain.html "Lori Dalton's Physics Page ... snip ... Gauss's Law in Magnetism: This equation states that the net magnetic flux through a closed surface is zero. In other words, magnetic field lines do not begin or end anywhere and thus must be looped."

So don't preach to us about the "importance of careful language in physics", ben. Better you spend your time explaining why astrophysicists invented the notion of open field lines while ignoring such known phenomena as Birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers and z-pinches.

 

[ben m]

Yes, those are open as in "not ending back on the Sun". Sorry. Read the papers, the lines are shown on many plots. They don't actually end but rather go off the edges of the plot, away from the Sun's surface. The astrophysics term for a line going off the edge of your plot is an "open field line". This configuration (as plotted, discussed, analyzed, and observed) obeys Gauss's law.

 

[Dancing David]

.
I certainly never claimed that Alfven mentioned all plasma by reference to single atom of ionised hydrogen. And Alfvén never said that either; See for example my last reference above to Alfvén and Mendis on dusty and grain plasmas.

The character of your post is exactly the reason why I have chosen to take a break. It will give me a chance to "feel sorry for myself", hang my head in shame, and work out other devious ways to misrpresent the world.

When you mentioned that plasmas were effected by EM forces at 10^7 ratio more than gravity , you most certainly were talking about Alfven's calculation for a single ionised atom of hydrogen, that is what you referenced in your own statement when I asked for the ratio.

That is what the ratio is about , you showed it to me, and that is what it says, the ratio for a single atom of ionised hydrogen one AU from the sun. it does not reference all the plasmas that you reference, he says that it points to the importance of plasmas but you misrepresnted him.

Do you want me to copy your references to the ratio and how they do not compare to Alfven's calculation?

It is all in black and white. And be cautious what you say about dusty plasmas , i am looking at your site about that too!

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3539218&postcount=694

That you can obtain by plugging in some values in to Gravitoelectrodynamics equations. For charged particles smaller than grains, electromagnetic forces dominate. Larger than grains, gravity dominates.

Hannes Alfvén compares the two forces on a charged particles in a partially ionized plasma, and finds electromagnetic forces are dominant by a factor of 10,000,000. See "Electromagnetic force, Comparison with the gravitational force: In a partially ionized plasma". Basic plasma physics.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3541236&postcount=768

Many things sound like nonsense until they are understood properly. As I said in a previous post:

Hannes Alfvén compares the two forces on a charged particles in a partially ionized plasma, and finds electromagnetic forces are dominant by a factor of 10,000,000. See "Electromagnetic force, Comparison with the gravitational force: In a partially ionized plasma". Basic plasma physics.

Gravitoelectrodynamics provides the equations of motion for small particles and grains where electromagnetic forces dominate. For larger grains, gravity dominates.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3547207&postcount=958

Originally Posted by Dancing David
Oh yeah, then where are his quotes and why do you deliberately leave out the part about the charge and velocity of the particles?
.

Plasmas consist of charged particles by definition. Anyone interested in quantifying electromagnetic and gravitational forces can check the details with the references I have provided. Here's a direct quote from Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammer on the general importance of electromagnetism compared to gravity on plasma:
"The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space. Under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation. In order to illustrate this, let us suppose that a particle moves at the earth's solar distance RE ((the position vector being RE) with the earth's orbital velocity v. If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by the solar gravitation (the effect of a magnetic field upon a possible atomic magnetic moment being negligible). If M is the solar and m, the atomic mass, and γ is the constant of gravitation, this force is f = -γMm RE/RE3. If the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion as well as the electron (charge e = ± 4.8 x 10-10 e.s.u.) is subject to the force fm = e(v/c) x B from an interplanetary magnetic field which near the earth's orbit is B. The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10-4 gauss, which gives fm/f ≈ 107. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized." -- Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, Cosmic Electrodynamics (1963) "Chapter 1 General Survey", Oxford University Press.
On gravito-electrodynamics, Alfvén and D.A. Mendis write:
While larger bodies in the Saturnian magnetosphere (e.g., boulders, satellites, etc.) are overwhelmingly influenced by gravitational forces, the electrons and ions are overwhelmingly influenced by electromagnetic forces. While Newtonian mechanics describes the motion of the former, electrodynamics describes the motion of the latter. In the case of the fine charged dust present in the Saturnian magnetosphere, the gravitational and electromagnetic forces can become comparable, at least to within an order of magnitude. In that case neither Newtonian mechanics nor electrodynamics is adequate for studying the motion of such grains; what is required is a combination of the two, namely, “gravito-electrodynamics.” -- "Plasma effects in the formation, evolution and present configuration of the Saturnian ring system, Alfven, H.; Mendis, D. A., Symposium on the Giant Planets and Their Satellites, Ottawa, Canada, May 16-June 2, 1982"
They do give examples of various criteria, noting the importance of grain size, potential, and angular velocity.

And in fact here is the pertinent part of the quote by Alfven

In order to illustrate this, let us suppose that a particle moves at the earth's solar distance RE ((the position vector being RE) with the earth's orbital velocity v. If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by the solar gravitation (the effect of a magnetic field upon a possible atomic magnetic moment being negligible). If M is the solar and m, the atomic mass, and γ is the constant of gravitation, this force is f = -γMm RE/RE3. If the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion as well as the electron (charge e = ± 4.8 x 10-10 e.s.u.) is subject to the force fm = e(v/c) x B from an interplanetary magnetic field which near the earth's orbit is B. The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10-4 gauss, which gives fm/f ≈ 10^7.

No you will note that in your misquotation of Alfven you reference ‘partially ionized plasma’ not once but then you quote yourself.

So please note this very important thing, Alfven is stating that the equation applies to ‘the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion’ and no less that it is in a particular place ‘earth's solar distance’ and a particular velocity ‘earth's orbital velocity’.

Now one might think that you had made this error in earnest and that you did not notice that Alfven stated that this is the case for a single atom of ionized hydrogen, why then do you say that it is Alfven’s statement regarding partially ionized plasma? Did you actually read what he wrote?

The effect on a partially ionized plasma would be VERY DIFFERENT for as Alfven states very clearly and you ignore ‘If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by the solar gravitation (the effect of a magnetic field upon a possible atomic magnetic moment being negligible).’, so a partially ionized plasma would not respond to EM forces at a ratio of 10^7 against gravity.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yes, those are open as in "not ending back on the Sun". Sorry. Read the papers, the lines are shown on many plots. They don't actually end but rather go off the edges of the plot, away from the Sun's surface. The astrophysics term for a line going off the edge of your plot is an "open field line".

No, what the mainstream means by open is exemplified by images such as this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6828/images/410525ab.2.jpg

They are not talking about lines going off the edge of the plot. In the above image, they are talking about lines coming in from each side of the plot and looping back from where they came, opening and then reconnecting such that a line comes from one side of the plot and exit on the opposite side.

Here's another image showing the same thing taking place:

http://www.aldebaran.cz/astrofyzika/plazma/reconnection/reko.gif

In that image a field line that clearly went from one edge of the plot to another meets one doing the same thing but going in the opposite direction. Both break open and then reconnect with it's opposite counterpart, creating a field line that comes in one edge and goes out the same edge. Sorry, but for that to topologically happen, there has to be an instant when the field line is open within the boundaries of the plot ... violating Gauss' law.

And there are more such geometries depicted here: http://www.aldebaran.cz/astrofyzika/plazma/reconnection_en.html Such as this: http://www.aldebaran.cz/astrofyzika/plazma/reconnection/reko_2.gif

Here's another example which shows a sequence where magnetic field lines break apart and then rejoin to make a closed loop.

http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/geospace_images/earth_magnetosphere/cowley3.gif

And another from http://solar.physics.montana.edu/coradett/ : http://solar.physics.montana.edu/coradett/images/reconnect.jpg

And another: http://solarmuri.ssl.berkeley.edu/~hhudson/cartoons/thetoons/Gold_cartoon.gif

Sorry, ben, but open field lines of the type I meant is exactly what the mainstream community has been telling us exist for years. And all this time, folks like you have just ignored that "importance of careful language in physics".