How the sun shines


Advanced search

Message boards : Science : How the sun shines

AuthorMessage
Profile Chipper Q
Avatar
Send message
Joined: Feb 20 05
Posts: 1568
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0
Message 73796 - Posted 23 Aug 2007 1:46:44 UTC

    Nice article about research at Gran Sasso National laboratory where researchers are detecting, for the first time, the low-energy neutrinos coming from the heart of the sun, pretty much confirming that physicists understand the nuclear activity that makes sunshine...

    Underground experiment sheds light on sun

    Profile tullio
    Send message
    Joined: Jan 22 05
    Posts: 1828
    Credit: 450,015
    RAC: 225
    Message 73804 - Posted 23 Aug 2007 4:51:53 UTC - in response to Message 73796.

      Nice article about research at Gran Sasso National laboratory where researchers are detecting, for the first time, the low-energy neutrinos coming from the heart of the sun, pretty much confirming that physicists understand the nuclear activity that makes sunshine...

      Underground experiment sheds light on sun

      There is a good article also on the July/August issue of CERN Courier. But what scares me a little is the size and cost of most modern physics and astronomy research tools, such as LHC, Gran Sasso and other neutrino detectors at the South Pole. I recently saw on Italian TV the first antennas of the Atacama Large Millimeter Array in Chile, which will consist of 66 units for radioastronomy in the millimeter band. I am also thinking of the ITER nuclear fusion reactor facility to be built in France. One good side of those Big Science projects is that they are just too big to be built by one nation alone, and they all are the results of international cooperation, like the ISS. I just watched the perfect landing of the Endeavor (or Endeavour for Brits) and I congratulate NASA. Good work!
      Tullio
      ____________

      Andreas
      Avatar
      Send message
      Joined: Oct 19 05
      Posts: 774
      Credit: 4,411,299
      RAC: 591
      Message 74070 - Posted 28 Aug 2007 8:27:47 UTC - in response to Message 73804.

        ...text...

        I just watched the perfect landing of the Endeavor (or Endeavour for Brits) and I congratulate NASA. Good work!
        Tullio


        Well, Endeavour is the correct name of the shuttle.

        peanut
        Avatar
        Send message
        Joined: May 4 07
        Posts: 162
        Credit: 9,644,812
        RAC: 0
        Message 74215 - Posted 2 Sep 2007 0:57:17 UTC

          Last modified: 2 Sep 2007 0:58:35 UTC

          This site proposes that the surface of the sun is rocky calcium ferrite.

          Is this site a "quack" site or is there some legitimate belief that the sun has a solid surface. The core of the sun is probably so dense that it has to be solid, I am talking more like a surface like the crust of the Earth.

          The site also proposes that observations from the Yohkoh satellite look similiar to results Dr. Kristian Birkeland produced in his experiments with an electromagnetic cathode sphere in his lab in the early 1900's. The Dr. basically thought the sun is like a giant iron sphere and it is electrical activity that causes arcs and gamma ray emissions.

          Profile Chipper Q
          Avatar
          Send message
          Joined: Feb 20 05
          Posts: 1568
          Credit: 708,571
          RAC: 0
          Message 74220 - Posted 2 Sep 2007 5:40:33 UTC - in response to Message 74215.

            This site proposes that the surface of the sun is rocky calcium ferrite.

            Is this site a "quack" site or is there some legitimate belief that the sun has a solid surface. The core of the sun is probably so dense that it has to be solid, I am talking more like a surface like the crust of the Earth.

            The site also proposes that observations from the Yohkoh satellite look similiar to results Dr. Kristian Birkeland produced in his experiments with an electromagnetic cathode sphere in his lab in the early 1900's. The Dr. basically thought the sun is like a giant iron sphere and it is electrical activity that causes arcs and gamma ray emissions.

            I ran across that site back in August 2005 and asked about it on this thread. This was back when there were 'plus' and 'minus' buttons to rate a post, so the second and third posts were so people could easily express their opinion (the buttons were deactivated on this forum a while ago). But read the comments of people who posted. Michael Mozina is the fellow who did a lot of work on the site in question... the site has changed a bit since then, but not too much...

            What do you think? (about the comments in the previous thread)

            Devilogic
            Send message
            Joined: Sep 15 06
            Posts: 9
            Credit: 39,257
            RAC: 0
            Message 74225 - Posted 2 Sep 2007 11:48:08 UTC - in response to Message 74215.

              This site proposes that the surface of the sun is rocky calcium ferrite.

              Is this site a "quack" site or is there some legitimate belief that the sun has a solid surface. The core of the sun is probably so dense that it has to be solid, I am talking more like a surface like the crust of the Earth.


              I should probably read the guy's site more thoroughly, but from what I gathered he doesn't adress any of the following:

              1. How does he propose the Sun generates its energy? (3.9e26 W is not a trivial affair - aside from nuclear reactions I really can't see any way)
              2. Where does he propose all the iron came from - in other words, how does he propose our Sun was born? (if you say Sun is made of iron you basically say that all models of galaxy and star formation are incorrect - you also invalidate any Big Bang scenario)
              3. A follow up question, does he acknowledge the existance of red giants, neutron stars, pulsars, black holes, supernovae, ...? How does he explain those came into existance?
              4. And finally, how does he explain the measured neutrino emissions (specifically the ones OP mentioned)?!

              Faliure to answer any one of this questions means a BIG hole in his theory (especially with respect to current theories), but I suspect he can't answer not even one. Gas based star formation is really a great unifying notion - if you abandon it I'll be impressed if you can explain anything.

              peanut
              Avatar
              Send message
              Joined: May 4 07
              Posts: 162
              Credit: 9,644,812
              RAC: 0
              Message 74227 - Posted 2 Sep 2007 13:41:35 UTC

                I read through your other thread on the surface of the sun Chipper Q. Sorry if I repeated the topic, but it is hard to dig through all the threads here! I guess the one post (most easily understood by me) that kind of leans me away from the solid surface is the last post that talks about the density of the sun. Unless we are missing something big, the density calculated makes the solid iron compound theory seem impossible.

                Profile Stranger7777
                Avatar
                Send message
                Joined: Mar 17 05
                Posts: 321
                Credit: 87,558,577
                RAC: 74,825
                Message 74242 - Posted 3 Sep 2007 5:58:19 UTC

                  This is really interesting. 7 years ago I wrote a small program that calculates the dense, pressure and temperature of a white dwarfs. That time it had an assumption that the start consist of a very dense electron gas and the star balances between it's own mass and pressure.
                  Typical star like our sun balances between mass of it's outer layers and inside radiation that comes from nuclear processes in it's core.
                  The detection of low-energy neutrinos make us beleive that we had made right assumptions about sun (and I believe other stars) core processes.
                  But this should be checked at least once again somewhere else before we may believe it.
                  ____________

                  Profile tullio
                  Send message
                  Joined: Jan 22 05
                  Posts: 1828
                  Credit: 450,015
                  RAC: 225
                  Message 74248 - Posted 3 Sep 2007 8:30:36 UTC - in response to Message 74242.

                    This is really interesting. 7 years ago I wrote a small program that calculates the dense, pressure and temperature of a white dwarfs. That time it had an assumption that the start consist of a very dense electron gas and the star balances between it's own mass and pressure.
                    Typical star like our sun balances between mass of it's outer layers and inside radiation that comes from nuclear processes in it's core.
                    The detection of low-energy neutrinos make us beleive that we had made right assumptions about sun (and I believe other stars) core processes.
                    But this should be checked at least once again somewhere else before we may believe it.

                    I think that the Borexino detector in the Gran Sasso tunnel has confirmed that the Sun is behaving as expected.
                    Tullio
                    ____________

                    peanut
                    Avatar
                    Send message
                    Joined: May 4 07
                    Posts: 162
                    Credit: 9,644,812
                    RAC: 0
                    Message 74278 - Posted 3 Sep 2007 21:45:13 UTC

                      Last modified: 3 Sep 2007 21:49:40 UTC

                      This little youtube vid says the sun shines thanks to quantum tunneling. 4 min vid.. It says the sun is not hot enough to overcome the atomic repulsion forces, but thanks to tunneling, that barrier can be overcome and the nuclei can fuse. It amazes me that any kind of order can come from such quantum chaos.

                      Profile tullio
                      Send message
                      Joined: Jan 22 05
                      Posts: 1828
                      Credit: 450,015
                      RAC: 225
                      Message 74289 - Posted 4 Sep 2007 5:55:12 UTC

                        I saw the video but, AFAIK, the nuclear reactions in the Sun's core are far more complex (e.g. Bethe's carbon cycle). One should not oversimplify too much.
                        Tullio
                        ____________

                        Ernesto Solis
                        Send message
                        Joined: Jun 11 05
                        Posts: 57
                        Credit: 49,513
                        RAC: 0
                        Message 78106 - Posted 8 Dec 2007 8:11:38 UTC - in response to Message 73796.

                          Nice article about research at Gran Sasso National laboratory where researchers are detecting, for the first time, the low-energy neutrinos coming from the heart of the sun, pretty much confirming that physicists understand the nuclear activity that makes sunshine...

                          Underground experiment sheds light on sun




                          Chipper Q,
                          You are an endless source of learning sunshine.
                          Thanks for the article!!!
                          Ernie Solis
                          P.S Go to www.soliswinery.com and buy yourself a bottle of wine on me. I'll owe ya!!! Catch me on tour!!!! :-)
                          ____________

                          Michael Mozina
                          Send message
                          Joined: Nov 15 05
                          Posts: 51
                          Credit: 8,270
                          RAC: 0
                          Message 78706 - Posted 26 Dec 2007 2:39:00 UTC - in response to Message 74225.

                            Last modified: 26 Dec 2007 2:41:15 UTC

                            I should probably read the guy's site more thoroughly, but from what I gathered he doesn't adress any of the following:

                            1. How does he propose the Sun generates its energy? (3.9e26 W is not a trivial affair - aside from nuclear reactions I really can't see any way)


                            The sun does not generate the bulk of it's energy, though it does generate some energy locally. The bulk of the energy comes from the electrical current that flows through the sun.

                            2. Where does he propose all the iron came from - in other words, how does he propose our Sun was born?


                            Our sun comes from a supernova remnant. It is a recycled star IMO.

                            (if you say Sun is made of iron you basically say that all models of galaxy and star formation are incorrect - you also invalidate any Big Bang scenario)


                            Well, technically it wouldn't necessarily invalidate a BB model, just an inflation/speed of light defying one.

                            3. A follow up question, does he acknowledge the existance of red giants,


                            Sure, they have a mostly helium atmosphere.

                            neutron stars,


                            I personally allow for the possibility of neutron stars. Not every EU advocate shares that viewpoint however.

                            pulsars,


                            Sure, see my answer on Neutron Stars.

                            black holes,


                            No, I share Einstein's opinion on that particular topic.

                            supernovae,


                            Sure, I just think they occur for a different reason.

                            ...? How does he explain those came into existance?


                            I don't necessarily attempt to explain how anything in the universe came into existence, just as you can't explain how a singularity came into existence. I tend to focus on the things that we might explain with EU theories (like coronal loops), rather than "big picture" mythologies I could never hope to demonstrate.

                            4. And finally, how does he explain the measured neutrino emissions (specifically the ones OP mentioned)?!


                            I explain them as being created in fusion processes in the solar atmosphere, and from the breakdown of cosmic rays in the solar atmosphere.

                            Faliure to answer any one of this questions means a BIG hole in his theory (especially with respect to current theories), but I suspect he can't answer not even one. Gas based star formation is really a great unifying notion - if you abandon it I'll be impressed if you can explain anything.


                            Well, keep in mind that every theory has "holes" in it. For instance standard solar theory can't explain the million degree coronal loops, the x-ray jets or those magnetic current carrying ropes we find between the sun and the Earth. Lambda-CMD theorists can't produce a single gram of "dark matter" or a controlled test that demonstrate that it exists. Inflation? Can you demonstrate that it exists in reality empirically in a controlled scientific test? Every theory has "problems", my our solar theories have the benefit of observational support.

                            If you're interested in a lengthy discussion on this topic, you might checkout this thread on Livescience. I've kept learning and growing in my understanding of the evidence that supports this model over the past few years.

                            http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=468660&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1

                            This particular thread is still active and it's been a highly productive conversation, both in terms of critique, and also in terms of helping me grow and become better at explaining my ideas to different types of people.
                            ____________
                            It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                            Profile Chipper Q
                            Avatar
                            Send message
                            Joined: Feb 20 05
                            Posts: 1568
                            Credit: 708,571
                            RAC: 0
                            Message 78809 - Posted 30 Dec 2007 3:49:02 UTC

                              Last modified: 30 Dec 2007 4:33:53 UTC

                              Hi Michael,

                              Good to see you here again!

                              4. And finally, how does he explain the measured neutrino emissions (specifically the ones OP mentioned)?!

                              I explain them as being created in fusion processes in the solar atmosphere, and from the breakdown of cosmic rays in the solar atmosphere.

                              Seems to me that we would observe quite different measurements in the flux of neutrinos if they originated in the solar atmosphere instead of from deeper within the sun. I think the temperature's plenty high enough in the corona to thoroughly ionize everything (is it hot enough for fission?), but the environment lacks the pressure required to achieve a matter density sufficient for fusion. I'm guessing it's possible that some neutrinos do originate in reactions above the photosphere, in the corona, where 'magnetic flux tubes' (IIRC) undergo 'reconnection' and release torrents of stored energy, but it is this stored energy that wouldn't otherwise be there if it weren't for the immense gravitational pressure deeper within the star that's really responsible for concentrating matter to sufficient density for nuclear fusion to proceed, i.e., there doesn't appear to be much hydrogen fusion occurring above the photosphere (solar wind is only 8% alpha particles)...

                              Nature is replete in having simultaneously a grand diversity and remarkable similarity, and so I think that more than observation of a phenomena with comparison to something similar is required to have a full understanding, which is to say that comparing the electromagnetic activity of the sun to that of a metal sphere may be useful, but far from complete.

                              So I still think your model needs the maths to back it up, because then you would be able to do something really impressive (as was done), like predict a specific neutrino flux, measure the flux and find it deficient, and then subsequently discover that it wasn't the measured quantity that was deficient, but rather it was the detectors and theory/model that were deficient, and hence make a wonderful discovery that the heavier neutrinos change their flavor! There's a good Wikipedia page on it - Neutrino oscillation.

                              Nice thread at the Livescience forum, and I do look forward to seeing how the model eventually adds up. I thought your remarks about maths were a little disparaging (and it's not so hard to quantify awareness: for a simple machine it's the sum total of the inputs (sensors, etc.) and the predicted behavior then is easily derived, and would be the sum total of the outputs). But you also said as profound a thing as I've ever heard when you stated that “the physics is universal?. I think that's exactly the reason maths is so important, because abstract though it may seem, mathematics is also a universal entity, so much so that with a great deal of confidence I can make the following statement about how many dimensions there are to the reality of what we observe: if your model doesn't have an odd number of space dimensions, it's wrong; it cannot have an even number of space dimensions and still produce what is observed... (see this MathPages article, ?Huygens' Principle?)

                              And as for the 'EU' (electromagnetic universe?) and gravity, well it doesn't seem that an EM field has the same affect on whatever is the mathematical equivalent of the 'fabric of spacetime' (the Metric tensor of General Relativity, IINM): only something with mass changes the shape of the fabric, yet it's gotta be the toughest thing around since even the most massive of the supermassive black holes are all caught up in it...

                              Hopefully the things I've stated are correct, anyone feel free to point out any mistakes, cheers
                              - - -

                              @ Ernie: thanks, may take you up on that wine for sure, keep on jammin'! :)

                              Michael Mozina
                              Send message
                              Joined: Nov 15 05
                              Posts: 51
                              Credit: 8,270
                              RAC: 0
                              Message 78825 - Posted 30 Dec 2007 21:24:12 UTC - in response to Message 78809.

                                Hi Michael,

                                Good to see you here again!


                                Thanks. :)

                                Seems to me that we would observe quite different measurements in the flux of neutrinos if they originated in the solar atmosphere instead of from deeper within the sun.


                                Hmm. Well, we don't really seem to have required technology to study the sun neutrino emissions at resolutions rivaling the Hinode equipment, or even the SOHO or Yohkoh equipment, so it's hard to say what we might find in higher resolution neutrino images. I do recall seeing one composite neutrino image at one point in time that appeared to show activity all around the sun and in the solar atmosphere. It was of course a very low resolution image, something like 64 x 64 pixels, so it's hard to make a lot of assumptions based on such a low resolution image. My "prediction" is that we will see the bulk of the electron neutrinos coming out of coronal loops in the solar atmosphere and other types of neutrino emissions all throughout the solar atmosphere. We'll have to wait and see how that prediction works out once we get higher resolution neutrino images to work with.

                                I think the temperature's plenty high enough in the corona to thoroughly ionize everything (is it hot enough for fission?), but the environment lacks the pressure required to achieve a matter density sufficient for fusion.


                                Inside the light plasma that makes up the bulk of the corona, that is true, but inside the coronal loops, that is not the case IMO. I believe that the areas inside the coronal loops are hot enough and dense enough (due to Bennett pinching effects) to support both P-P fusion processes as well as CNO fusion processes.

                                http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

                                Those Rhessi/Trace composite images show a direct correlation between the coronal loops seen in the Trace images and the neutron capture signatures observed by Rhessi. It also shows a correlation between the base of the coronal loops and the gamma rays observed by Rhessi.

                                I'm guessing it's possible that some neutrinos do originate in reactions above the photosphere, in the corona, where 'magnetic flux tubes' (IIRC) undergo 'reconnection' and release torrents of stored energy,


                                IMO there is no "stored energy" in the coronal loops, that are just "magnet ropes" full of electrical current flows just as Alfven predicted. How would the very light plasma in the corona even "store" magnetic energy? A simple north-south alignment of plasma atoms isn't going to result in any large magnetic field. To generate fields as powerful as we find in coronal loops requires current flow within the plasma. You could never achieve the magnetic field strengths we see in coronal loops with magnetic alignment of atoms alone.

                                but it is this stored energy that wouldn't otherwise be there if it weren't for the immense gravitational pressure deeper within the star that's really responsible for concentrating matter to sufficient density for nuclear fusion to proceed, i.e., there doesn't appear to be much hydrogen fusion occurring above the photosphere (solar wind is only 8% alpha particles)...


                                The z-pinch effect inside the coronal loops concentrates the plasma and adds an enormous amount of kinetic energy to the process. The current flow inside the coronal loops creates a Bennett pinch effect inside the coronal loops. Due to the these current flows, coronal loops reach into the tens of millions of degrees, and they release free neutrons as we have observed in Rhessi/Trace composite images.

                                Nature is replete in having simultaneously a grand diversity and remarkable similarity, and so I think that more than observation of a phenomena with comparison to something similar is required to have a full understanding, which is to say that comparing the electromagnetic activity of the sun to that of a metal sphere may be useful, but far from complete.


                                Well, I have to agree, but then I doubt that EU theory will ever be "complete" from a mathematical perspective, at least not in my lifetime. Birkeland did however go a long way toward demonstrating that electron flows through plasma could generate most if not all of the same observations we see in satellite images today. In his experiments, he simulated auroras, planetary rings, ring currents, coronal loops and CME type events. That alone should peak our interest in his work IMO. All the satellite evidence supports an electric universe interpretation IMO. These observations, both in the lab, and from space "qualify" EU theory, something that has never been done for standard theory.

                                So I still think your model needs the maths to back it up, because then you would be able to do something really impressive (as was done), like predict a specific neutrino flux, measure the flux and find it deficient, and then subsequently discover that it wasn't the measured quantity that was deficient, but rather it was the detectors and theory/model that were deficient, and hence make a wonderful discovery that the heavier neutrinos change their flavor! There's a good Wikipedia page on it - Neutrino oscillation.


                                I agree, EU theory (and my model) require additional maths over time to back it up. It does however have some maths associated with it already due to work of Charles Bruce, Hannes Alfven, and Anthony Perett. It has experimental support due to the work of Kristian Birkeland. Sustained (a couple hours) hydrogen fusion reactions have never been duplicated in a lab, and most standard solar models have no substantive laboratory support. For instance what exactly is "magnetic reconnection"? How does one "store" magnetic fields in light plasma? Can you explain the exact energy release mechanism at an atomic level that leads to "magnetic reconnection"? What kind of controlled test might we create that would distinguish 'magnetic reconnection' from ordinary electrical reconnection and ordinary electrical effects in plasma?

                                If mainstream astronomers can't explain the physics of the energy release of "magnetic reconnection", how can we be sure it's not just a misperceived idea that actually relates to electrical activity in plasma? Alfven certainly believed that magnetic reconnection theory was invalid and incaccurate, and he wrote the book on MDH theory. Coincidently he also wrote the book on plasma cosmology theory/EU theory from a mathematical perspective. The book "Cosmic Plasma" pretty much defines the basis of modern plasma cosmology theory.

                                Nice thread at the Livescience forum, and I do look forward to seeing how the model eventually adds up.


                                I think that particular thread has been very productive, and it's progressed at a very high level of professionalism. I think you'll enjoy it.

                                I thought your remarks about maths were a little disparaging


                                Let me address this point specifically. I love math, but only when it is applied to real physics and controlled empirical evidence. I don't appreciate mathematical mythologies that rely upon unqualified concepts like elves, inflation, dark energy or dark matter. There is a significant difference between the mathematically modeling done by Hannes Alfven, where each mathematical model was studied in relationship to the actual behaviors of real plasma in controlled laboratory conditions, and mathematical mythologies that are based on something unqualified like inflation. Whereas Alfven made every effort to make sure his models matched physical properties of plasma in a lab, Guth made no attempt to demonstrate that inflation really existed, or that it solved any missing "monopole problems". No one has ever demonstrated that inflation exists, or has any effect on matter. Therefore stuffing inflation into a mathematical model is pointless IMO, just as you might find it pointless for me to create mathematical models related to magical forces. The standard models have never been "qualified", just as magnetic reconnection theory has never been qualified or defined in terms of real physics. That's the difference in a nutshell. I have no problem with math, in fact I believe that math is necessary to fully understand (quantify) what we observe. Math alone however cannot ever "qualify" a theory. "Qualifying" a theory takes real scientific tests in controlled scientific conditions. Without qualification, I have no faith that the quantification process is useful or valid.

                                (and it's not so hard to quantify awareness: for a simple machine it's the sum total of the inputs (sensors, etc.) and the predicted behavior then is easily derived, and would be the sum total of the outputs).


                                So how would you use that definition of awareness to "quantify" my awareness? How much awareness do I possess compared to say a Dolphin?

                                But you also said as profound a thing as I've ever heard when you stated that “the physics is universal?. I think that's exactly the reason maths is so important, because abstract though it may seem, mathematics is also a universal entity, so much so that with a great deal of confidence I can make the following statement about how many dimensions there are to the reality of what we observe:


                                I agree with everything that you said in this part of your statement. Math is important, but only if it is based on *qualified* ideas. A math formulate related to how many elves fit on the head of a pin might contain a perfect mathematical model, and contain nothing useful at all as it relates to things that actually exist in reality. Math alone cannot be all that science is about. Science also requires qualification, not simply quantification.

                                if your model doesn't have an odd number of space dimensions, it's wrong; it cannot have an even number of space dimensions and still produce what is observed... (see this MathPages article, ?Huygens' Principle?)


                                EU theory assumes only 3 spacial dimensions, so I guess I'm ok on that score. :)

                                And as for the 'EU' (electromagnetic universe?) and gravity, well it doesn't seem that an EM field has the same affect on whatever is the mathematical equivalent of the 'fabric of spacetime' (the Metric tensor of General Relativity, IINM): only something with mass changes the shape of the fabric, yet it's gotta be the toughest thing around since even the most massive of the supermassive black holes are all caught up in it...


                                First let me point out that Einstein did not believe that "black holes" existed in nature, and it's not clear to me personally that "black holes" are not simply "MECO"s. EU theory would attempt to do what Einstein attempted to do, namely find the connection between gravity and electromagnetic fields. That would be the holy grail of EU theory just as any "GUT" (grand unified theory) is holy grail of any theory. The current flows within spacetime would be "threaded". In other words it is unlikely that all objects arranged in spacetime are treated alike by the current flows within spacetime. It is much harder to quantify the electric universe because it is more dynamic that standard models, and because it cannot make the same type of "assumptions" about the universe. That does not mean that we cannot quantify the energy releases inside spacetime, but it will take longer to quantify these current flows since we have very little idea about the voltages involved.

                                Here's a recent "quantification" of EU theory:

                                http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html
                                http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm

                                Hopefully the things I've stated are correct, anyone feel free to point out any mistakes, cheers


                                I don't really see any mistakes in your points. I agree with you that more mathematically modeling needs to take place in EU circles and in EU theories. On the other hand, I don't think that standard model can be exempt from "qualifying" the tenets of it's mathematical modeling. It's one thing to note/claim that there is "missing mass" in distant observations, but it's quite another thing to claim that this missing mass is contained in "non-baryonic" forms of mass. These are two distinct ideas. MOND theorists would tend to disagree with the first assumption (there is missing mass at all), and EU theorists would tend to disagree with both assumptions. There might be missing mass, but there is no evidence that any missing mass is contained in non-baryonic forms of "dark matter" rather than being found in electrons and iron suns.
                                ____________
                                It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                Michael Mozina
                                Send message
                                Joined: Nov 15 05
                                Posts: 51
                                Credit: 8,270
                                RAC: 0
                                Message 78838 - Posted 31 Dec 2007 0:39:53 UTC - in response to Message 78809.

                                  http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/10/13/sun-shots/

                                  I think this was the image I was referring to. If you notice, the whole sun is bright (not just the core) and the neutrino emissions seem to occur in the solar atmosphere as well. These observations seem to be consistent with an EU oriented solar theory. I'm not altogether clear how this image is consistent with a theory that predicts all neutrino emissions to occur predominantly in the core. I would think it would produce less "smudging" in this kind of image and look more like a point source rather than a whole atmospheric experience.
                                  ____________
                                  It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                  Profile Chipper Q
                                  Avatar
                                  Send message
                                  Joined: Feb 20 05
                                  Posts: 1568
                                  Credit: 708,571
                                  RAC: 0
                                  Message 78862 - Posted 31 Dec 2007 16:46:28 UTC

                                    Last modified: 31 Dec 2007 16:51:49 UTC

                                    (and it's not so hard to quantify awareness: for a simple machine it's the sum total of the inputs (sensors, etc.) and the predicted behavior then is easily derived, and would be the sum total of the outputs).



                                    So how would you use that definition of awareness to "quantify" my awareness? How much awareness do I possess compared to say a Dolphin?

                                    I'd use that definition exactly the same way to quantify the awareness of a human, incorporating provisions for a knowledge base and self-modifying algorithms between the input and output stages. Off hand I'd say that, just using the sun as an example, you are aware of far more than a dolphin.

                                    So I still think your model needs the maths to back it up, because then you would be able to do something really impressive (as was done), like predict a specific neutrino flux, measure the flux and find it deficient, and then subsequently discover that it wasn't the measured quantity that was deficient, but rather it was the detectors and theory/model that were deficient, and hence make a wonderful discovery that the heavier neutrinos change their flavor! There's a good Wikipedia page on it - Neutrino oscillation.



                                    I agree, EU theory (and my model) require additional maths over time to back it up. It does however have some maths associated with it already due to work of Charles Bruce, Hannes Alfven, and Anthony Perett. It has experimental support due to the work of Kristian Birkeland. Sustained (a couple hours) hydrogen fusion reactions have never been duplicated in a lab, and most standard solar models have no substantive laboratory support. For instance what exactly is "magnetic reconnection"? How does one "store" magnetic fields in light plasma? Can you explain the exact energy release mechanism at an atomic level that leads to "magnetic reconnection"? What kind of controlled test might we create that would distinguish 'magnetic reconnection' from ordinary electrical reconnection and ordinary electrical effects in plasma?

                                    If mainstream astronomers can't explain the physics of the energy release of "magnetic reconnection", how can we be sure it's not just a misperceived idea that actually relates to electrical activity in plasma? Alfven certainly believed that magnetic reconnection theory was invalid and incaccurate, and he wrote the book on MDH theory. Coincidently he also wrote the book on plasma cosmology theory/EU theory from a mathematical perspective. The book "Cosmic Plasma" pretty much defines the basis of modern plasma cosmology theory.

                                    Perhaps I should have used the word “collimated? instead of “stored?. See Dynamic and Stagnating Plasma Flow Leading to Magnetic-Flux-Tube Collimation

                                    And as for the 'EU' (electromagnetic universe?) and gravity, well it doesn't seem that an EM field has the same affect on whatever is the mathematical equivalent of the 'fabric of spacetime' (the Metric tensor of General Relativity, IINM): only something with mass changes the shape of the fabric, yet it's gotta be the toughest thing around since even the most massive of the supermassive black holes are all caught up in it...

                                    First let me point out that Einstein did not believe that "black holes" existed in nature, and it's not clear to me personally that "black holes" are not simply "MECO"s. EU theory would attempt to do what Einstein attempted to do, namely find the connection between gravity and electromagnetic fields. That would be the holy grail of EU theory just as any "GUT" (grand unified theory) is holy grail of any theory. The current flows within spacetime would be "threaded". In other words it is unlikely that all objects arranged in spacetime are treated alike by the current flows within spacetime. It is much harder to quantify the electric universe because it is more dynamic that standard models, and because it cannot make the same type of "assumptions" about the universe. That does not mean that we cannot quantify the energy releases inside spacetime, but it will take longer to quantify these current flows since we have very little idea about the voltages involved.

                                    Here's a recent "quantification" of EU theory:

                                    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html
                                    http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm
                                    Hopefully the things I've stated are correct, anyone feel free to point out any mistakes, cheers

                                    I don't really see any mistakes in your points. I agree with you that more mathematically modeling needs to take place in EU circles and in EU theories. On the other hand, I don't think that standard model can be exempt from "qualifying" the tenets of it's mathematical modeling. It's one thing to note/claim that there is "missing mass" in distant observations, but it's quite another thing to claim that this missing mass is contained in "non-baryonic" forms of mass. These are two distinct ideas. MOND theorists would tend to disagree with the first assumption (there is missing mass at all), and EU theorists would tend to disagree with both assumptions. There might be missing mass, but there is no evidence that any missing mass is contained in non-baryonic forms of "dark matter" rather than being found in electrons and iron suns.

                                    Please have a look at these articles, because like I said, we wouldn't otherwise know the stuff (dark matter) was there in the first place, whatever it turns out to be, if it weren't for the way it deforms the fabric of spacetime, and all the EM fields and cosmic rays in the universe pass right through it like nothing's there at all, so there you have it. The observations mentioned in the articles pretty much rule out MOND and other alternative theories on gravity:
                                    Cosmic train wreck defies dark matter theories
                                    This quote is from the following article: “The separation occurred because dark matter does not experience the same drag that stripped the gas from the galaxy clusters. That is because drag is caused by electromagnetic forces between atoms, and dark matter interacts with other matter only through the force of gravity.?
                                    Cosmic smashup provides proof of dark matter

                                    http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/10/13/sun-shots/

                                    I think this was the image I was referring to. If you notice, the whole sun is bright (not just the core) and the neutrino emissions seem to occur in the solar atmosphere as well. These observations seem to be consistent with an EU oriented solar theory. I'm not altogether clear how this image is consistent with a theory that predicts all neutrino emissions to occur predominantly in the core. I would think it would produce less "smudging" in this kind of image and look more like a point source rather than a whole atmospheric experience.


                                    Now that's a remarkable image! The central region translates to a much smaller volume of space than the surrounding region, yet it is by far brighter in neutrino flux, so most of the neutrinos are coming from inside the sun. If most of the neutrinos originated further out in the solar atmosphere then I think you would see a blurry ring of white pixels mostly where you now see the green ones, and the central region wouldn't be as white, but would fade more from white to yellow as you progressed from the ring towards the center. But don't take my word for it, run your own simulations: easy enough to write a routine that uses a random number generator to simulate neutrinos emanating predominantly from regions of your choosing, bearing in mind that they can come from the far side of the sun and pass through both the sun and the earth before reaching the detector, and then see which result more closely resembles the actual observation. Nice thing about the maths here is that you don't have to wait over 500 days to get a much higher resolution image... :)

                                    And the beauty of maths when you're trying to discover something is that you don't need to know precisely what something is in order to assign it to a variable that gets plugged into your model. In fact, you can do this for something that's not even there, just because you have some notion about symmetry or balance or equivalence, as in the way Einstein did with his 'cosmological constant'...

                                    Michael Mozina
                                    Send message
                                    Joined: Nov 15 05
                                    Posts: 51
                                    Credit: 8,270
                                    RAC: 0
                                    Message 78871 - Posted 31 Dec 2007 19:43:17 UTC - in response to Message 78862.

                                      I'd use that definition exactly the same way to quantify the awareness of a human, incorporating provisions for a knowledge base and self-modifying algorithms between the input and output stages. Off hand I'd say that, just using the sun as an example, you are aware of far more than a dolphin.


                                      Personally I think you would have a very difficult time demonstrating that idea in a tangible (physical) way based on synaptic activity in the two different brains. We're drifting a bit off topic however.

                                      Perhaps I should have used the word “collimated? instead of “stored?. See Dynamic and Stagnating Plasma Flow Leading to Magnetic-Flux-Tube Collimation


                                      That looks like a great paper by the way.

                                      Let's look at how Alfven defined a "magnetic rope". From his book "Cosmic Plasma":

                                      However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities.


                                      From your cited paper:

                                      We propose that the collimation of any, initially flared,
                                      current-carrying magnetic-flux tube is due to the following
                                      process [16]: a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) force resulting
                                      from the flared current profile drives axial plasma flows
                                      along the flux tube; the flows convect frozen-in magnetic
                                      flux from strong magnetic field regions to weak magnetic
                                      field regions; flow stagnation then piles up this embedded
                                      magnetic flux, increasing the local magnetic field and
                                      collimating the flux tube via the pinch effect.


                                      The "culminated" energy would appear to be electrical and kinetic in nature. The "pinch" effect that the authors of the paper and Hannes Alfven refer to is due to (caused by), the electrical currents that flow through the plasma. These statements seem to describe powerful "discharges" through plasma.

                                      Based on only a brief skim through of this paper, I would say it's a very good presentation of the discharge effect that we observe in the solar atmosphere. This does however lead us back to the question as to whether the sun is "internally" responsible for these electrical discharges, or it electrically interacts with the heliosphere. Based on the observation of acceleration of solar wind particles, the x-ray jets recently observed by Hinode, and these powerful electrical discharges in the corona, and the teardrop shape of the heliosphere, it would appear that there is a strong electrical interaction between the photosphere and the heliosphere.

                                      I appreciate the link by the way. I will definitely go through it more thoroughly as I get time today.

                                      Please have a look at these articles, because like I said, we wouldn't otherwise know the stuff (dark matter) was there in the first place, whatever it turns out to be, if it weren't for the way it deforms the fabric of spacetime, and all the EM fields and cosmic rays in the universe pass right through it like nothing's there at all, so there you have it.


                                      Well, a MACHO oriented definition of "dark matter" is actually fine by me. It's really only when one suggests that "dark matter" is made of non-baryonic mass that I get "uptight". Such a statement would be an extraordinary claim, and as such, it requires extraordinary evidence to support it. I actually do entertain MOND type theories, but I personally tend to suspect that the "missing mass" is located inside mostly Iron and Nickel suns.

                                      The observations mentioned in the articles pretty much rule out MOND and other alternative theories on gravity:
                                      Cosmic train wreck defies dark matter theories
                                      This quote is from the following article: “The separation occurred because dark matter does not experience the same drag that stripped the gas from the galaxy clusters. That is because drag is caused by electromagnetic forces between atoms, and dark matter interacts with other matter only through the force of gravity.?
                                      Cosmic smashup provides proof of dark matter


                                      IMO the "infrastructure" (solar systems) of the galaxies contain the bulk of the "missing mass". Due to the distances between stars in a galaxy, I would expect that any random "collision" of galaxies would result in few if any direct physical impacts between stars, and that the bulk of the mass would pass right though each other.

                                      As I said, I personally believe that suns are composed of mostly heavy elements which have mass separated in the solar environment. It is therefore likely IMO that astronomers grossly underestimate the mass of solar systems in distant galaxies. I personally tend to favor "MACHO" oriented "dark matter" explanations for these observations, but IMO it is premature to rule out MOND theory at this time. Some of these observations are quite new and require some time to work though when it comes to explaining these events from a modified gravity perspective.

                                      Now that's a remarkable image!


                                      I thought so too.

                                      The central region translates to a much smaller volume of space than the surrounding region, yet it is by far brighter in neutrino flux, so most of the neutrinos are coming from inside the sun.


                                      Hmmm. If I'm not mistaken, this is a 64x64 pixel image so it not exactly a "high" resolution image, but based on this image, IMO it's very premature to claim that the neutrino flux comes from 'inside' the sun. It "appears" to come from pretty much the whole exterior of the sun. Now of course there are scattering possibilities to consider, and this image is a very low resolution image, but this distribution pattern isn't really the kind of image I'd expect to see if the primary source of weakly interacting neutrinos was a small core in the middle of the sun. I would expect to see a much brighter central core, that dimmed dramatically with distance, and I would expect to observe little if any neutrino emissions from the solar atmosphere. In this case however we do seem to observe neutrino emissions from outside of the core, with the greatest concentration of neutrinos tracking to the surface of the photosphere rather than a small core in the center of the sun. Again, it's tough to get carried away here because we're working with such a limited resolution image, and we don't really understand much about scattering effects of neutrinos in plasmas.

                                      If most of the neutrinos originated further out in the solar atmosphere then I think you would see a blurry ring of white pixels mostly where you now see the green ones, and the central region wouldn't be as white, but would fade more from white to yellow as you progressed from the ring towards the center.


                                      Actually I would expect the surface of the photosphere to be a significant point of density change, and therefore it would react more frequently with cosmic rays. I would expect the entire surface of the photosphere to be 'lit up' in a relatively uniform matter. I would *not* expect to see a very small core, and no activity above the photosphere. If the bulk of these emissions occur near or in the photosphere, I would not expect to see a ring, but rather I would expect to see a complete sphere and emissions from the entire surface.

                                      But don't take my word for it, run your own simulations: easy enough to write a routine that uses a random number generator to simulate neutrinos emanating predominantly from regions of your choosing, bearing in mind that they can come from the far side of the sun and pass through both the sun and the earth before reaching the detector, and then see which result more closely resembles the actual observation. Nice thing about the maths here is that you don't have to wait over 500 days to get a much higher resolution image... :)

                                      And the beauty of maths when you're trying to discover something is that you don't need to know precisely what something is in order to assign it to a variable that gets plugged into your model. In fact, you can do this for something that's not even there, just because you have some notion about symmetry or balance or equivalence, as in the way Einstein did with his 'cosmological constant'...


                                      Of course he called the addition of that constant his greatest blunder. History can be rather ironic. :)

                                      GR as it was taught to me in school (quite a while ago) is a truly elegant theory that describes the gravitational force of attraction between objects made of matter. I think that is why Einstein regretted ever trying to fundamentally change GR to attempt to explain a static universe. He never defined the nature of that constant by the way, and there was no guarantee in his presentation of this constant that any "repulsive" force would have anything at all to do "gravity".

                                      Based on what GR has turned into in Lambda-CDM theory, it's not altogether clear to me that Einstein would appreciate these recent changes to GR theory, or whether he would be even more convinced that it was a giant mistake to ever try to make GR theory do repulsive tricks that it was never intended to do.
                                      ____________
                                      It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                      Nereid
                                      Send message
                                      Joined: Feb 9 05
                                      Posts: 79
                                      Credit: 925,034
                                      RAC: 0
                                      Message 78877 - Posted 1 Jan 2008 0:11:50 UTC

                                        I was wondering when you'd get around to posting here Michael!

                                        Did I read your earlier post correctly? You (with others?) have developed a quantitative model of the Sun, fully consistent with the relevant observations, based on the assumptions that a) the Sun is (primarily) powered by a giant ISM (inter-stellar medium) current, and that b) its elemental composition (outside any neutron star at its core) is predominantly iron (or iron-group elements)?

                                        Would you mind correcting my summary, by stating as clearly as you can just what the scope of any quantitative model is that you (with, or without, others) have developed re the Sun?

                                        On a somewhat unrelated (to the Sun) topic: what does 'EU Theory' predict that LIGO (etc) will detect? Quantitatively.

                                        Directly related question: what specific signatures (templates) - beyond those already incorporated in the various search algorithms - does 'EU Theory' suggest/recommend/hint at should also be added/incorporated/looked for?

                                        Michael Mozina
                                        Send message
                                        Joined: Nov 15 05
                                        Posts: 51
                                        Credit: 8,270
                                        RAC: 0
                                        Message 78880 - Posted 1 Jan 2008 2:31:51 UTC - in response to Message 78877.

                                          I was wondering when you'd get around to posting here Michael!


                                          Well, that was over two years ago at this point. :) Howdy Nereid. Did you miss me, or are you just working on your next virtual lynching? :)

                                          Did I read your earlier post correctly?


                                          Which of my posts were you referring to specifically? Could you quote me?

                                          You (with others?) have developed a quantitative model of the Sun, fully consistent with the relevant observations, based on the assumptions that a) the Sun is (primarily) powered by a giant ISM (inter-stellar medium) current,


                                          When you say "others", did you mean NASA?
                                          http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

                                          Let's clearly define the term "magnetic rope" according to MHD theory from the lips of Hannes Alfven.

                                          "However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . [/b]A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934)[/b], and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."


                                          Did you ever get around to reading Cosmic Plasma yet Nereid? Anyway, based on how Alfven defined a "magnetic rope" we can now thank NASA for shedding some light on how much power is flowing inside that current carrying thread between the sun and the Earth.

                                          Maybe you meant John Hopkins University was helping me?
                                          http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070822_skewed_saturn.html

                                          "Ring currents" around planets? Where have I seen this before? Oh yes, Birkeland created rings and ring currents around objects in his EU terella experiments. Pure coincidence in your opinion that Birkeland's theories and experiments predicted these types of observations too Nereid?

                                          and that b) its elemental composition (outside any neutron star at its core) is predominantly iron (or iron-group elements)?


                                          100 years ago, Birkeland actually built a working lab model of his theories based on EU principles. The neutron core (it could be a heavy iron core too) would act as the focal point (z-pinch point) for the electromagnetic core in Birkeland's laboratory model.

                                          Did you personally ever get around to qualifying hydrogen fusion theory by demonstrating a sustained hydrogen fusion reaction in plasma in controlled laboratory conditions? If so, did the fusion process involve Bennett pinch forces in plasma by any chance?

                                          Would you mind correcting my summary, by stating as clearly as you can just what the scope of any quantitative model is that you (with, or without, others) have developed re the Sun?


                                          You know I looked back at every one of my posts here and I never made any statement even remotely resembling what you just stated, or anything close to that statement. In fact I openly noted to Chipper Q that EU theory requires more work on the "quantitative" side of scientific life. That would be exactly the opposite of standard theory which has lots of quantitative presentations of ideas, but utterly lacks justification on the "qualitative" (controlled test) side of scientific life. All theories have their strengths and weaknesses. EU theory is no different in that respect.

                                          On a somewhat unrelated (to the Sun) topic: what does 'EU Theory' predict that LIGO (etc) will detect? Quantitatively.


                                          Quantitatively? Hmm. I hadn't really spent a lot of time even thinking about that issue frankly, I've certainly never tried to quantify it in any way. Most recently I've been on vacation with my family at the coast and working on solar models. I "hope" and believe that we will eventually find conclusive evidence of gravitational waves. I suspect that those waves will be indirectly related to EM fields in space and will likely follow and flow with the current carrying threads of spacetime. That's my guess anyway. I'm not sure I'm prepared to quantify anything at this point in time (or anytime). It's not really my personal field of expertise or interest.

                                          Directly related question: what specific signatures (templates) - beyond those already incorporated in the various search algorithms - does 'EU Theory' suggest/recommend/hint at should also be added/incorporated/looked for?


                                          Well, I suppose that EU theorists in general would assume that any GUT would probably describe mass objects that are expanding inside an all pervading EM field the "pushes" (z-pinches) objects together, and may accelerate them over time. An EU GUT would probably be based on the notion of mass acting as a focal point of the energy releases (electron flows) within the universe. Such a theory would probably suggest that the bulk of the large scale mass movements travel through the plasma filaments of space time, rather than as simple "spheres" of attraction/gravitational movement. The overall electron flows of the universe would tend to push (z-pinch) plasmas (particularly heavy plasmas) together over time. We'd probably expect to observe mass movements in jets around the largest gravity wells in spacetime, and we would expect to see mass movements following the overall current flows within the threads of spacetime. I don't of course speak for all EU theorists on this particular topic, but I think most EU theorists would be expecting to observe "rivers" of mass flow movement at a larger scale and more even "waves" of energy closest to the surface of the mass object.
                                          ____________
                                          It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                          Nereid
                                          Send message
                                          Joined: Feb 9 05
                                          Posts: 79
                                          Credit: 925,034
                                          RAC: 0
                                          Message 78881 - Posted 1 Jan 2008 2:39:06 UTC - in response to Message 78880.

                                            I was wondering when you'd get around to posting here Michael!


                                            Well, that was over two years ago at this point. :) Howdy Nereid. Did you miss me, or are you just working on your next virtual lynching? :)

                                            Did I read your earlier post correctly?


                                            Which of my posts were you referring to specifically? Could you quote me?

                                            You (with others?) have developed a quantitative model of the Sun, fully consistent with the relevant observations, based on the assumptions that a) the Sun is (primarily) powered by a giant ISM (inter-stellar medium) current,


                                            When you say "others", did you mean NASA?
                                            http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

                                            Let's clearly define the term "magnetic rope" according to MHD theory from the lips of Hannes Alfven.

                                            "However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . [/b]A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934)[/b], and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."


                                            Did you ever get around to reading Cosmic Plasma yet Nereid? Anyway, based on how Alfven defined a "magnetic rope" we can now thank NASA for shedding some light on how much power is flowing inside that current carrying thread between the sun and the Earth.

                                            Maybe you meant John Hopkins University was helping me?
                                            http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070822_skewed_saturn.html

                                            "Ring currents" around planets? Where have I seen this before? Oh yes, Birkeland created rings and ring currents around objects in his EU terella experiments. Pure coincidence in your opinion that Birkeland's theories and experiments predicted these types of observations too Nereid?

                                            and that b) its elemental composition (outside any neutron star at its core) is predominantly iron (or iron-group elements)?


                                            100 years ago, Birkeland actually built a working lab model of his theories based on EU principles. The neutron core (it could be a heavy iron core too) would act as the focal point (z-pinch point) for the electromagnetic core in Birkeland's laboratory model.

                                            Did you personally ever get around to qualifying hydrogen fusion theory by demonstrating a sustained hydrogen fusion reaction in plasma in controlled laboratory conditions? If so, did the fusion process involve Bennett pinch forces in plasma by any chance?

                                            Would you mind correcting my summary, by stating as clearly as you can just what the scope of any quantitative model is that you (with, or without, others) have developed re the Sun?


                                            You know I looked back at every one of my posts here and I never made any statement even remotely resembling what you just stated, or anything close to that statement. In fact I openly noted to Chipper Q that EU theory requires more work on the "quantitative" side of scientific life. That would be exactly the opposite of standard theory which has lots of quantitative presentations of ideas, but utterly lacks justification on the "qualitative" (controlled test) side of scientific life. All theories have their strengths and weaknesses. EU theory is no different in that respect.

                                            On a somewhat unrelated (to the Sun) topic: what does 'EU Theory' predict that LIGO (etc) will detect? Quantitatively.


                                            Quantitatively? Hmm. I hadn't really spent a lot of time even thinking about that issue frankly, I've certainly never tried to quantify it in any way. Most recently I've been on vacation with my family at the coast and working on solar models. I "hope" and believe that we will eventually find conclusive evidence of gravitational waves. I suspect that those waves will be indirectly related to EM fields in space and will likely follow and flow with the current carrying threads of spacetime. That's my guess anyway. I'm not sure I'm prepared to quantify anything at this point in time (or anytime). It's not really my personal field of expertise or interest.

                                            Directly related question: what specific signatures (templates) - beyond those already incorporated in the various search algorithms - does 'EU Theory' suggest/recommend/hint at should also be added/incorporated/looked for?


                                            Well, I suppose that EU theorists in general would assume that any GUT would probably describe mass objects that are expanding inside an all pervading EM field the "pushes" (z-pinches) objects together, and may accelerate them over time. An EU GUT would probably be based on the notion of mass acting as a focal point of the energy releases (electron flows) within the universe. Such a theory would probably suggest that the bulk of the large scale mass movements travel through the plasma filaments of space time, rather than as simple "spheres" of attraction/gravitational movement. The overall electron flows of the universe would tend to push (z-pinch) plasmas (particularly heavy plasmas) together over time. We'd probably expect to observe mass movements in jets around the largest gravity wells in spacetime, and we would expect to see mass movements following the overall current flows within the threads of spacetime. I don't of course speak for all EU theorists on this particular topic, but I think most EU theorists would be expecting to observe "rivers" of mass flow movement at a larger scale and more even "waves" of energy closest to the surface of the mass object.

                                            Thanks for the swift reply.

                                            I now see that I did, indeed, misunderstand what you wrote.

                                            Further, it would seem that there's nothing in 'EU theory' (or is it 'EU Theory'?, I'm not quite sure which form is preferred by its adherents) - as far as you know - that has direct, *quantitative*, relevance to the science behind Einstein@Home, and the intended observational goals of LIGO (and other GW detectors) in particular.

                                            I had prepared a lengthy response to one of your posts in this thread, but as I'm not in my normal environment, it got swallowed by the great Birkeland current in the sky :-(

                                            I'll see if I can re-create the essence of it, later.

                                            Nereid
                                            Send message
                                            Joined: Feb 9 05
                                            Posts: 79
                                            Credit: 925,034
                                            RAC: 0
                                            Message 78882 - Posted 1 Jan 2008 3:16:46 UTC - in response to Message 78825.

                                              [snip]

                                              Nature is replete in having simultaneously a grand diversity and remarkable similarity, and so I think that more than observation of a phenomena with comparison to something similar is required to have a full understanding, which is to say that comparing the electromagnetic activity of the sun to that of a metal sphere may be useful, but far from complete.


                                              Well, I have to agree, but then I doubt that EU theory will ever be "complete" from a mathematical perspective, at least not in my lifetime. Birkeland did however go a long way toward demonstrating that electron flows through plasma could generate most if not all of the same observations we see in satellite images today. In his experiments, he simulated auroras, planetary rings, ring currents, coronal loops and CME type events.

                                              He did?

                                              To what extent did his simulations match the observed SED (spectral energy distribution) of 'coronal loops and CME type events'? From gammas to radio.

                                              Note that this question is inherently quantitative.

                                              Ditto, for planetary rings, including the range of phase angles we now have good observational data for from missions such as Voyager 2, Galileo, and Cassini.

                                              In the context of your post, what do you mean by 'ring currents'?
                                              That alone should peak our interest in his work IMO. All the satellite evidence supports an electric universe interpretation IMO.

                                              Would you be so kind as to elaborate on what you mean by "[a]ll"?

                                              Are you referring to only direct observations, by spacecraft-based instruments, of the Sun (including the corona)? Only "images" from such instruments? Does you comment include in situ data on the IPM (inter-planetary medium) gathered by such instruments?

                                              Is there any particular reason you chose to not include evidence gathered by ground-based instruments?

                                              To what extent do (did) you intend your claim to be interpreted to refer to quantitative evidence?
                                              These observations, both in the lab, and from space "qualify" EU theory, something that has never been done for standard theory.

                                              Would you please say a bit more about this?

                                              In particular, what do you mean by qualify?
                                              So I still think your model needs the maths to back it up, because then you would be able to do something really impressive (as was done), like predict a specific neutrino flux, measure the flux and find it deficient, and then subsequently discover that it wasn't the measured quantity that was deficient, but rather it was the detectors and theory/model that were deficient, and hence make a wonderful discovery that the heavier neutrinos change their flavor! There's a good Wikipedia page on it - Neutrino oscillation.


                                              I agree, EU theory (and my model) require additional maths over time to back it up. It does however have some maths associated with it already due to work of Charles Bruce, Hannes Alfven, and Anthony Perett. It has experimental support due to the work of Kristian Birkeland. Sustained (a couple hours) hydrogen fusion reactions have never been duplicated in a lab, and most standard solar models have no substantive laboratory support. [snip]

                                              As you are no doubt well aware, the core concepts of "most standard solar models" include the following:
                                              * hydrostatic equilibrium
                                              * the concepts of radiative and convective transport of energy
                                              * opacity tables
                                              * average density of the Sun being the estimated mass of the Sun divided by its volume.

                                              To what extent do you feel - or claim - that these (or any subset) lacks "substantive laboratory support"?
                                              If mainstream astronomers can't explain the physics of the energy release of "magnetic reconnection", how can we be sure it's not just a misperceived idea that actually relates to electrical activity in plasma?

                                              This is a very good question!

                                              Devilogic's first point (in an earlier post, that you replied to) goes a long way to addressing it.

                                              How does 'EU theory' account - at least at an order of magnitude level - for the Sun having been approximately constant in its energy output (~4.10^26 W) over ~5 billion years, in terms of "electrical activity in plasma"?

                                              Note that this question incorporates the usual - internal consistency, and consistency with good, direct, relevant observations.
                                              Alfven certainly believed that magnetic reconnection theory was invalid and incaccurate, and he wrote the book on MDH theory. Coincidently he also wrote the book on plasma cosmology theory/EU theory from a mathematical perspective. The book "Cosmic Plasma" pretty much defines the basis of modern plasma cosmology theory. [snip]

                                              Exploring this will take us way, way beyond the scope of this thread, so I will simply note that Alfven's active scientific career ended before he had a chance to see, let alone assess, the cornucopia of modern, high quality astronomical observational results directly pertinent to his "plasma cosmology theory". This is a pity, because it would have been very interesting to see what he would have made of them.

                                              Curiously, none of those who remain enthralled by his ideas have managed (yet) to produce anything quantitative in terms of consistent explanations of (or, if you prefer, accounts of) those billions of observations.

                                              However, to end my comments with a note of sadness: Michael has, elsewhere, pointed to a paper by Alfven in which he (Alfven) reveals an amazingly simple misunderstanding of Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) ... how could the father of MHD have been so blind?

                                              Nereid
                                              Send message
                                              Joined: Feb 9 05
                                              Posts: 79
                                              Credit: 925,034
                                              RAC: 0
                                              Message 78887 - Posted 1 Jan 2008 8:59:04 UTC - in response to Message 74225.

                                                This site proposes that the surface of the sun is rocky calcium ferrite.

                                                Is this site a "quack" site or is there some legitimate belief that the sun has a solid surface. The core of the sun is probably so dense that it has to be solid, I am talking more like a surface like the crust of the Earth.


                                                I should probably read the guy's site more thoroughly, but from what I gathered he doesn't adress any of the following:

                                                1. How does he propose the Sun generates its energy? (3.9e26 W is not a trivial affair - aside from nuclear reactions I really can't see any way)
                                                2. Where does he propose all the iron came from - in other words, how does he propose our Sun was born? (if you say Sun is made of iron you basically say that all models of galaxy and star formation are incorrect - you also invalidate any Big Bang scenario)
                                                3. A follow up question, does he acknowledge the existance of red giants, neutron stars, pulsars, black holes, supernovae, ...? How does he explain those came into existance?
                                                4. And finally, how does he explain the measured neutrino emissions (specifically the ones OP mentioned)?!

                                                Faliure to answer any one of this questions means a BIG hole in his theory (especially with respect to current theories), but I suspect he can't answer not even one. Gas based star formation is really a great unifying notion - if you abandon it I'll be impressed if you can explain anything.

                                                We can easily extend this set of questions, to cover the several centuries of observational results from astronomy.

                                                Some background first.

                                                Estimates of the mass, radius, and energy output across the electromagnetic spectrum - the SED (spectral energy distribution) - of individual stars can be made from standard, lab-based techniques. Based solely on empirical, astronomical observations, we find that most* stars can be classified as 'Main Sequence' (MS) stars. Two (three) other classifications account for almost all* the rest - (super) giants, and white dwarfs. While there are very few 'neutron stars', no matter how you count (and classify) stars observationally, they are a highly distinctive class - their average density is far, far greater than any other class of star, and the range of their masses is quite narrow.

                                                To the extra questions, about Michael's non-mainstream ideas on stars.

                                                7. What proportion of Main Sequence stars "come[] from a supernova remnant"?

                                                8. What proportion of (super) giants "come[] from a supernova remnant"?

                                                9. What proportion of white dwarfs "come[] from a supernova remnant"?

                                                10. For what proportion of MS stars in (physical) binaries does "[t]he bulk of [their] energy come[] from the electrical current that flows through [them]"?

                                                11. Ditto for (super) giants in binaries.

                                                12. Ditto for white dwarfs in binaries.

                                                13. Ditto for neutron stars in binaries.

                                                Perhaps, after Michael has answered these questions, we could ask some more, concerning the physical mechanism(s), in his non-mainstream idea, that drive the observed intrinsic variability in stars.

                                                *Quantifying 'most' and 'almost all' can be easily done; however care is needed in defining the universe (the denominator) ... what do we choose to consider as 'all stars'?

                                                Nereid
                                                Send message
                                                Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                Posts: 79
                                                Credit: 925,034
                                                RAC: 0
                                                Message 78889 - Posted 1 Jan 2008 9:16:33 UTC - in response to Message 78706.

                                                  [snip]

                                                  [Does he acknowledge the existence of] neutron stars,


                                                  I personally allow for the possibility of neutron stars. Not every EU advocate shares that viewpoint however.

                                                  pulsars,


                                                  Sure, see my answer on Neutron Stars.

                                                  [snip]

                                                  Well, keep in mind that every theory has "holes" in it. [...] Lambda-CMD theorists can't produce a single gram of "dark matter" or a controlled test that demonstrate that it exists. [snip]


                                                  And in a later post (extract; I've added emphasis):


                                                  I thought your remarks about maths were a little disparaging


                                                  Let me address this point specifically. I love math, but only when it is applied to real physics and controlled empirical evidence. I don't appreciate mathematical mythologies that rely upon unqualified concepts like elves, inflation, dark energy or dark matter. There is a significant difference between the mathematically modeling done by Hannes Alfven, where each mathematical model was studied in relationship to the actual behaviors of real plasma in controlled laboratory conditions, and mathematical mythologies that are based on something unqualified like inflation. Whereas Alfven made every effort to make sure his models matched physical properties of plasma in a lab, Guth made no attempt to demonstrate that inflation really existed, or that it solved any missing "monopole problems". No one has ever demonstrated that inflation exists, or has any effect on matter. Therefore stuffing inflation into a mathematical model is pointless IMO, just as you might find it pointless for me to create mathematical models related to magical forces. The standard models have never been "qualified", just as magnetic reconnection theory has never been qualified or defined in terms of real physics. That's the difference in a nutshell. I have no problem with math, in fact I believe that math is necessary to fully understand (quantify) what we observe. Math alone however cannot ever "qualify" a theory. "Qualifying" a theory takes real scientific tests in controlled scientific conditions. Without qualification, I have no faith that the quantification process is useful or valid.

                                                  Let's explore this a bit, shall we?

                                                  May one ask in which lab Alfven (or anyone else) performed "real scientific tests in controlled scientific conditions" on "a single gram" of neutron star material? That is, a gram which has a density approximately the same as that of a neutron star.

                                                  Note that this question has nothing to do with dark (non-baryonic) matter, dark energy, or inflation; it's entirely about neutron stars.

                                                  Note too that we could extend this question by asking about 'MECOs', about inspiral GW signatures, and so on.

                                                  Michael Mozina
                                                  Send message
                                                  Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                  Posts: 51
                                                  Credit: 8,270
                                                  RAC: 0
                                                  Message 78903 - Posted 1 Jan 2008 23:03:24 UTC - in response to Message 78882.

                                                    Last modified: 1 Jan 2008 23:07:32 UTC

                                                    To what extent did his simulations match the observed SED (spectral energy distribution) of 'coronal loops and CME type events'? From gammas to radio.


                                                    To the extent that Birkeland could do so 100 years ago, he did. To the extent that Alfven and Peratt could do so they did. Did you ever read any of the links I provided you with? How come Birkeland was able to create aurora, planetary rings, and high energy, "coronal loop" discharges, and high energy "jets" from his experiments, and why is it that we see these same shapes, energy flows and patterns playing out in space? Are you curious at all, or is this just another electric witch hunt thing?

                                                    Note that this question is inherently quantitative.


                                                    No Nereid, reality is inherently physical. It is tangible, and it can be tested in a lab. One thing that you refuse to acknowledge, both in our conversations under my ManInTheMirror handle and my own name, is that science involves *qualification*, not simply quantification. It is irrelevant to me how many elves you think "quantitatively" dance on the head of a pin, if you don't qualify your belief in elves, it's irrelevant how "pretty" your quantification of elves looks on paper.

                                                    Birkeland "qualified" EU theory 100 years ago in controlled experiments, using very basic tools of science. Unlike you, Birkeland was scientifically curious about the link between electron flows and the aurora, and their link to other cosmological observations, from planetary rings, to coronal loop activity. You seem trapped in the idea that all knowledge comes from math. You can experience and enjoy love without quantifying it with integrals and calculus. Love is a part of "reality', irrespective of whether or not you or I can quantify it on paper.

                                                    Physical science requires empirical physical evidence. Birkeland provided empirical physical evidence that the 'structures' of the universe involve the flow of electrons through objects in space. His aurora experiments took 70 years to verify via in-situ satellite observations from space. It may take another 200 years before people like you are curious enough to notice the electrical links between planetary rings and ring currents and the flow of electromagnetic energy through the solar system, but Birkeland recognized this link, and built a working model over 100 years ago. Aren't you personally even the least bit interested in that link? How about we commit to taking some of those billions of dollars we spend on science every year and we reconstruct his experiments using the latest and greatest cameras and scientific equipment available and we find out?

                                                    Or did you just expect me personally to do it all for you before you'll lift a finger to even read the materials I've suggested (like cosmic plasma)?

                                                    Ditto, for planetary rings, including the range of phase angles we now have good observational data for from missions such as Voyager 2, Galileo, and Cassini.


                                                    Gee, if only you didn't expect me to do all the million dollar ground work for you, maybe we might find out.

                                                    Would you be so kind as to elaborate on what you mean by "[a]ll"?


                                                    I mean every high resolution solar satellite program (and most of the other ones as well) all support this 'interpretation' of the electrified nature of "physical reality".

                                                    Are you referring to only direct observations, by spacecraft-based instruments, of the Sun (including the corona)?


                                                    Sure. Let's start with the Rhessi program. If we point the Rhessi instrument at the Earth, we notice gamma ray signatures from the atmosphere of Earth. Why?

                                                    When we point that same instrument at the atmosphere of the sun, we see point signature gamma ray signatures in it's atmosphere too. Why?

                                                    Only "images" from such instruments? Does you comment include in situ data on the IPM (inter-planetary medium) gathered by such instruments?


                                                    Sure. The Wind instruments can tell us the moving nature of charged particles in out solar system. Satellites and ground stations record the acceleration of solar wind as it leaves the surface of the photosphere. Why?

                                                    You do realize that Birkeland could explain all the why parts of my questions, correct?

                                                    Is there any particular reason you chose to not include evidence gathered by ground-based instruments?


                                                    No, my bad. They provide tons of data to support an EU theory as well.

                                                    To what extent do (did) you intend your claim to be interpreted to refer to quantitative evidence?


                                                    As I explained to you earlier, I'm a "qualitative" individual, and EU theory is a well 'qualified' (as in controlled experimentation) theory. I lacks the funding to be as well "quantified" as you would personally like.

                                                    Would you please say a bit more about this?


                                                    Sure. During our conversations under my handle "ManInTheMirror", I demonstrated for you that almost nothing about Lambda-CDM theory has been "qualified" based on controlled experimentation. You can't provide a shred of evidence in a controlled test to demonstrate that inflation wasn't a figment of Guth's imagination. You can't demonstrate that "dark energy" has any effect on "physical reality" in a controlled lab test. You can't provide us with a single gram of non baryonic "dark matter", but somehow you need 80 percent "non-baryonic dark matter" to make all these fudge factors work out right.

                                                    Birkeland and Alfven built theory from "qualified" scientific testing in *controlled* laboratory experiments. Alfven took Birkeland's work on step further and explained the physical science of the movement of charged particles in EM fields in mathematical terms so that all of this might be "quantified" to your heart's content. I can't even get you to read his book for me so we can have an intelligent discussion on this topic.

                                                    In particular, what do you mean by qualify?


                                                    I mean show me a controlled test that demonstrates that dark energy isn't a figment of your metaphysical imagination, just as Birkeland demonstrated that electricity could produce planetary ring effects, auroras and current carrying "magnetic ropes" in the solar atmosphere.

                                                    As you are no doubt well aware, the core concepts of "most standard solar models" include the following:
                                                    * hydrostatic equilibrium


                                                    How is the sun in anyway in "hydrostatic equilibrium' in your opinion?

                                                    * the concepts of radiative and convective transport of energy


                                                    How does that transport of energy get past that "stratification subsurface" that Kosovichev found at .995R?

                                                    * opacity tables


                                                    For what? Do you presume that the sun is not mass separated by chance? If so, why?

                                                    * average density of the Sun being the estimated mass of the Sun divided by its volume.


                                                    If we presume no acceleration in the Z-axis, then all that tells us is the *average* density. It tells us little or nothing about it composition. We could have taken Birkeland's sphere from his terella, taken it's average density, and found it had the consistency of water. That does not mean his sphere was made of water. The same thing would apply to his solar model.

                                                    To what extent do you feel - or claim - that these (or any subset) lacks "substantive laboratory support"?


                                                    Hmmm. I would say that to a great degree *all* theories, including EU theory lacks *substantive laboratory support*, either from a quantitative perspective as is the case with EU theory, and from a qualification perspective as in the case of Lambda-CDM theory.

                                                    This is a very good question!


                                                    It's a great question, but of course I can't give you a good answer because neither you, nor any of your mainstream friends has ever qualified this idea in a controlled laboratory test, nor explained how "magnetic reconnection" releases energy at the atomic level that is in any way distinguishable from ordinary electrical interactions in plasma.

                                                    Nothing has been qualified from your side of the aisle, and the moment you step into the lab to build this equipment, you have to ask yourself what the equipment should look like. There's Birkeland's experiments staring us in the face. What shall we do?

                                                    Devilogic's first point (in an earlier post, that you replied to) goes a long way to addressing it.

                                                    How does 'EU theory' account - at least at an order of magnitude level - for the Sun having been approximately constant in its energy output (~4.10^26 W) over ~5 billion years, in terms of "electrical activity in plasma"?


                                                    The fact our sun continues to shine all day every day from an EU perspective, means that electrons flow through the universe, all day, every day, for eternity as far as I know.

                                                    Note that this question incorporates the usual - internal consistency, and consistency with good, direct, relevant observations.


                                                    Well, that observation of a "magnetic rope" Bennett pinch current flow from the sun to the Earth is one relevant observation. From it, we can determine the amount of energy that flows in such events. There is an energy flow, all day, every day, of solar wind particles that flow through out magnetosphere and generate currents in the magnetosphere via induction and the fact they are moving charged particles to begin with.

                                                    Exploring this will take us way, way beyond the scope of this thread,


                                                    No it's not. It cuts to the heart of the energy source Nereid. Why are there million degree coronal loops in the *corona*, if the photosphere is only 6K degrees? How many OOM differences might we expect to see in the coronal if there is not electrical discharge process involved in heating up the corona?

                                                    so I will simply note that Alfven's active scientific career ended before he had a chance to see, let alone assess, the cornucopia of modern, high quality astronomical observational results directly pertinent to his "plasma cosmology theory". This is a pity, because it would have been very interesting to see what he would have made of them.


                                                    It's a pity IMO that people like you don't pick up his book and pick up his work and quantify it to the professional level you desire. It would be highly enlightening, both to you personally, and to an entire planet. I'm trying to do my part, while earning a living writing software, enjoying my family time and enjoying life in general. I already know that Birkeland and Alfven are right about the electrified nature of physical reality, with our without all the math that you desire. I do think that EU theory requires more quantification, but that requires effort from qualified people like you, financial recognition, and publishing recognition. When I hand you papers, you won't even read them and whine about the publishing source.

                                                    Curiously, none of those who remain enthralled by his ideas have managed (yet) to produce anything quantitative in terms of consistent explanations of (or, if you prefer, accounts of) those billions of observations.


                                                    Baloney. I just handed you a NASA link that quantified that energy transfer for you. Did you not read it?

                                                    However, to end my comments with a note of sadness: Michael has, elsewhere, pointed to a paper by Alfven in which he (Alfven) reveals an amazingly simple misunderstanding of Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) ... how could the father of MHD have been so blind?


                                                    You know Nereid, when you call the guy with Nobel prize, "blind" without ever reading his book, without reading those Nasa links I provided, and without even considering what I've talked about with you for the last couple of years, I can't help but think that it's you that insist on remaining blind.

                                                    Could it be that you are wrong and Birkeland was right about the electrical nature of physical reality? Could it be right that currents flow inside the plasmas of spacetime, knowing full well that plasma are nearly perfect conductors of electrons?

                                                    Could it be that suns are not powered internally, but instead the are powered by the currents that flow through spacetime? All these questions remain unanswered, and you have never answered my question about whether or not you have read the book Cosmic Plasma, by the father of MHD theory, the guy with the Nobel prize, and oh, ya, the quantitative "father' of plasma physics?

                                                    ____________
                                                    It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                    Michael Mozina
                                                    Send message
                                                    Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                    Posts: 51
                                                    Credit: 8,270
                                                    RAC: 0
                                                    Message 78904 - Posted 1 Jan 2008 23:11:59 UTC - in response to Message 78889.

                                                      Last modified: 1 Jan 2008 23:13:01 UTC

                                                      Let's explore this a bit, shall we?

                                                      May one ask in which lab Alfven (or anyone else) performed "real scientific tests in controlled scientific conditions" on "a single gram" of neutron star material? That is, a gram which has a density approximately the same as that of a neutron star.


                                                      Not to my knowledge, no. Suppose I state for the record that it's possible that neutron plasmas may not exist, will you open your mind to the possibility that the universe experiences the flow of electrons through it?

                                                      Maybe Birkeland's theories deserve some financial support and equal time in the classroom?


                                                      ____________
                                                      It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                      Michael Mozina
                                                      Send message
                                                      Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                      Posts: 51
                                                      Credit: 8,270
                                                      RAC: 0
                                                      Message 78905 - Posted 1 Jan 2008 23:34:33 UTC - in response to Message 78889.

                                                        One more point about a the approach to science that seems important.

                                                        Plasma cosmology/EU theory is built from the ground up in a "standard" (controlled physical testing) manner. It is an extension of laboratory tests with electricity and mathematically begins with plasma physics. It is built from the small scale, and extends itself into the large scale as far as it can go with empirical evidence.

                                                        Birkeland created empirical evidence that electron flows through objects in space could explain aurora activity, planetary rings, coronal loop activity, "jetting" activity, and he even described electrified tornado like effects in plasma, all done by one guy, over 100 years ago. Alfven (and many other like Bruce) saw the value of his work in electrical theory and applied to to the sun and to other things in space. Alfven pretty much wrote the plasma physics book. If you want a better quantitative understanding of the relationships between what can be seen in space and from the ground using the best technology possible, and what can be created in a lab using the best technology possible, you'll have to spend some money recreating Birkeland's experiments using the best technology possible. It would be worth every penny IMO.

                                                        EU theory extends outward as our in-situ technologies improve and we can record the energy transfers between the sun and the Earth using newer technologies. It extends outward as we watch the acceleration of solar wind particles leave the photosphere. It extends outward as we observe "twisted magnetic ropes" between objects in space.

                                                        Lambda-CMD theory begins with a premise, specifically that all matter and energy originated from 0,0,0,0 (or darn close to it) and it attempts to build a "big picture" concept that then extends downward into the solar system and into the lab. It is a completely different approach to science.
                                                        ____________
                                                        It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                        Michael Mozina
                                                        Send message
                                                        Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                        Posts: 51
                                                        Credit: 8,270
                                                        RAC: 0
                                                        Message 78906 - Posted 1 Jan 2008 23:51:31 UTC - in response to Message 78889.

                                                          http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/BirkelandCosmology.pdf


                                                          ____________
                                                          It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                          Nereid
                                                          Send message
                                                          Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                          Posts: 79
                                                          Credit: 925,034
                                                          RAC: 0
                                                          Message 78930 - Posted 2 Jan 2008 4:01:10 UTC - in response to Message 78903.

                                                            [snip]

                                                            [As you are no doubt well aware, the core concepts of "most standard solar models" include the following:
                                                            ...]

                                                            * average density of the Sun being the estimated mass of the Sun divided by its volume.


                                                            If we presume no acceleration in the Z-axis, then all that tells us is the *average* density. It tells us little or nothing about it composition. We could have taken Birkeland's sphere from his terella, taken it's average density, and found it had the consistency of water. That does not mean his sphere was made of water. The same thing would apply to his solar model.

                                                            [snip]

                                                            I know you introduced comments along the lines of 'no acceleration in the Z-axis' elsewhere, but I've forgotten what you intend by it; would you mind elaborating please?

                                                            I'm particularly interested in light of this, from an earlier post of yours:
                                                            There might be missing mass, but there is no evidence that any missing mass is contained in non-baryonic forms of "dark matter" rather than being found in electrons and iron suns.

                                                            You seem to be saying, here, that at least a significant minority of stars have masses of the order of 10 to 100 (or more) times that of the average MS (Main Sequence) star, and/or that astronomers have mis-estimated at least these stars' masses.

                                                            Would you mind elaborating please?

                                                            Nereid
                                                            Send message
                                                            Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                            Posts: 79
                                                            Credit: 925,034
                                                            RAC: 0
                                                            Message 78932 - Posted 2 Jan 2008 4:19:38 UTC - in response to Message 78903.


                                                              [snip]

                                                              As you are no doubt well aware, the core concepts of "most standard solar models" include the following:
                                                              * hydrostatic equilibrium


                                                              How is the sun in anyway in "hydrostatic equilibrium' in your opinion?

                                                              * the concepts of radiative and convective transport of energy


                                                              How does that transport of energy get past that "stratification subsurface" that Kosovichev found at .995R?

                                                              * opacity tables


                                                              For what? Do you presume that the sun is not mass separated by chance? If so, why?

                                                              * average density of the Sun being the estimated mass of the Sun divided by its volume.


                                                              If we presume no acceleration in the Z-axis, then all that tells us is the *average* density. It tells us little or nothing about it composition. We could have taken Birkeland's sphere from his terella, taken it's average density, and found it had the consistency of water. That does not mean his sphere was made of water. The same thing would apply to his solar model.

                                                              To what extent do you feel - or claim - that these (or any subset) lacks "substantive laboratory support"?


                                                              Hmmm. I would say that to a great degree *all* theories, including EU theory lacks *substantive laboratory support*, either from a quantitative perspective as is the case with EU theory, and from a qualification perspective as in the case of Lambda-CDM theory.

                                                              [snip]

                                                              Michael, somewhere, in some forum or other, I think I recall someone responding to you rather tartly, to the effect that you apparently have a poor understanding of even classical physics.

                                                              I'm sorry to say that this part of your post, which I am quoting in full, seems to lend weight to the remark.

                                                              Back in September, 2007, in this thread, peanut asked whether [your website] was a "quack" site or not. Based on what you wrote (above), I can see why so many have concluded that it is. After all, if you don't (apparently) even know what terms like 'hydrostatic equilibrium' and 'convective and radiative transport of energy' mean, it may well be reasonable to conclude that you also don't understand the physics of electromagnetism either, much less plasma physics.

                                                              Nereid
                                                              Send message
                                                              Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                              Posts: 79
                                                              Credit: 925,034
                                                              RAC: 0
                                                              Message 78933 - Posted 2 Jan 2008 4:32:42 UTC - in response to Message 78903.

                                                                Last modified: 2 Jan 2008 4:33:21 UTC


                                                                [snip]

                                                                Devilogic's first point (in an earlier post, that you replied to) goes a long way to addressing it.

                                                                How does 'EU theory' account - at least at an order of magnitude level - for the Sun having been approximately constant in its energy output (~4.10^26 W) over ~5 billion years, in terms of "electrical activity in plasma"?


                                                                The fact our sun continues to shine all day every day from an EU perspective, means that electrons flow through the universe, all day, every day, for eternity as far as I know.

                                                                Note that this question incorporates the usual - internal consistency, and consistency with good, direct, relevant observations.


                                                                Well, that observation of a "magnetic rope" Bennett pinch current flow from the sun to the Earth is one relevant observation. From it, we can determine the amount of energy that flows in such events. There is an energy flow, all day, every day, of solar wind particles that flow through out magnetosphere and generate currents in the magnetosphere via induction and the fact they are moving charged particles to begin with.

                                                                [snip]


                                                                How many electrons does it take, in a day, to produce the Sun's observed, integrated, energy output, in the UV to IR part of the spectrum (say, 100 nm to 1 micron)? From an EU perspective of course.

                                                                What is the average "energy flow, all day, every day, of solar wind particles that flow through out magnetosphere"? In watts if you please.

                                                                Michael Mozina
                                                                Send message
                                                                Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                Posts: 51
                                                                Credit: 8,270
                                                                RAC: 0
                                                                Message 78934 - Posted 2 Jan 2008 6:27:41 UTC - in response to Message 78930.

                                                                  Last modified: 2 Jan 2008 6:30:34 UTC

                                                                  I know you introduced comments along the lines of 'no acceleration in the Z-axis' elsewhere, but I've forgotten what you intend by it; would you mind elaborating please?


                                                                  If you go back to Newton's analogy of a rock on a string, the force on the string will increase if while swinging the string we also ride up an elevator during that process. There is additional force on the system (the string) due to our acceleration in the z-axis while riding the elevator. You seem to think the universe is accelerating don't you?

                                                                  You seem to be saying, here, that at least a significant minority of stars have masses of the order of 10 to 100 (or more) times that of the average MS (Main Sequence) star, and/or that astronomers have mis-estimated at least these stars' masses.


                                                                  Yep, I think that they underestimate the masses of stars and they underestimate the amount of mass inside the ions and electrons that flow between stars. Birkeland seemed to believe that there was more mass in the plasma between the stars than there was mass inside the solar system. He may be right, but it's probably threaded and localized in filaments as he also predicted.

                                                                  Before we go any further: Did you read the book Cosmic Plasma, yes or no? If not, you have no business even asking me any questions about EU theory anymore Nereid. I've answered your questions for years and you've never once lifted a finger to educate yourself from the people who can actually best answer you quantification questions. Birkeland and Alfven were also into mathematics. Their work would be a far better starting point as it relates to learning about EU theory quantitatively than yacking with me in cyberspace. I can't really help you, but they can. I know I can't help you, because you've made it clear that you aren't interested in educating yourself in the ways that I have suggested, and I don't know how else you might hope to educate yourself about the mathematical principles behind plasma physics than to study the teachings of the Nobel prize winning scientist that developed them.

                                                                  ____________
                                                                  It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                  Michael Mozina
                                                                  Send message
                                                                  Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                  Posts: 51
                                                                  Credit: 8,270
                                                                  RAC: 0
                                                                  Message 78935 - Posted 2 Jan 2008 6:50:41 UTC - in response to Message 78932.

                                                                    Last modified: 2 Jan 2008 6:52:23 UTC

                                                                    How is the sun in anyway in "hydrostatic equilibrium' in your opinion?

                                                                    How does that transport of energy get past that "stratification subsurface" that Kosovichev found at .995R?

                                                                    For what? Do you presume that the sun is not mass separated by chance? If so, why?
                                                                    ...

                                                                    Back in September, 2007, in this thread, peanut asked whether [your website] was a "quack" site or not. Based on what you wrote (above), I can see why so many have concluded that it is. After all, if you don't (apparently) even know what terms like 'hydrostatic equilibrium' and 'convective and radiative transport of energy' mean, it may well be reasonable to conclude that you also don't understand the physics of electromagnetism either, much less plasma physics.


                                                                    First you seem to read into my posts a series of statements that I never made, and now you've concluded you know more about convection and such from a series of simple scientific questions I asked you to explain. This is absolutely amazing behavior Nereid. I hope you don't attempt to go into the mind reading business or into editing, you don't seem to be very good at it.

                                                                    That stratification subsurface Kosovichev found at .995R wasn't predicted to exist inside the middle of your presumably open convection zone. What's it doing there?

                                                                    You know you can't hide from reality forever. Even NASA now is starting to release data that is consistent with EU theory Nereid. I really don't know why you seem intent on crusading against the idea. I mean if you're wrong about Birkeland (like Chapman was wrong about Birkeland), you could go down as the world's biggest cyberspace anti-electricity smuck. Even Chapman didn't have the benefit of Alfven's work. Why do you feel the need to publicly burn the electric witches Nereid?

                                                                    My website is not a "quack" website, because it is based upon the sweat equity science of the likes of Birkeland, and Bruce and Alfven. It is not based upon what I personally have done, or what any single individual has done, but rather what scientists as a whole have done to reveal the electrical nature of physical reality on cosmic scales.

                                                                    Sooner or later, you're going to have to realize that EM fields can explain why solar wind accelerates as it leaves the photosphere. Electricity heats plasma in the Earths atmosphere to such high temperatures and kinetic energies that they emit gamma rays in the Earth's atmosphere. That same process occurs in the solar atmosphere as well. Electricity is all around us Nereid. It's in those "magnetic ropes" between the sun and the Earth. It's in those gamma ray and neutron capture events we observe in the solar atmosphere too. It's the force that accelerates the solar wind particles, and it's the force that is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity.

                                                                    People called Birkeland a quack too. They called Alfven an quack. They called Bruce a quack. They gave Alfven a Nobel prize and still called him a quack. I guess I'm in good company at least.

                                                                    The funny part in all this is that Chapmans elegant mathematics was preferred for many years over Birkelands "sloppy" and "messy" explanations. It wasn't for another 70 years that this debate between mathematics and physical testing could be resolved, but in the end, it was physical lab tests that won out. In the end Nereid, all your huffing and puffing and crusading against Birkeland's theories will only make you into another one of histories Chapman stories. Greater mathematicians than you have stood against Birkeland's ideas and been blown away in the end. So it will be with all your petty insults and all your crusades. You'll be the last women on earth that realizes the electrical nature of physical reality, and it will be documented on the internet. :)
                                                                    ____________
                                                                    It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                    Profile Mike Hewson
                                                                    Forum moderator
                                                                    Avatar
                                                                    Send message
                                                                    Joined: Dec 1 05
                                                                    Posts: 3322
                                                                    Credit: 27,290,402
                                                                    RAC: 20,561
                                                                    Message 78936 - Posted 2 Jan 2008 7:41:34 UTC

                                                                      OK, this is my 'without prejudice' statement ..... :-)

                                                                      Any and all participants should review advice on posting given here, plus the smaller pane on the left side headed 'Rules' that appears when you compose a post.

                                                                      Polite topical discussion is fine from whatever viewpoints, and this is healthy. However any further personal insults ( precise, vague, disingenuous, or disguised ) will result in deletion.

                                                                      This is about as grumpy as you will see me. :-)
                                                                      [ Because after that I just start deleting .... ]

                                                                      Cheers, Mike.

                                                                      NB. On the scientific side, while the proof of any theory is always experiment & observation - it is also true that a considerable amount of cosmic behaviour is really not accounted for and understood in a genuine sense.

                                                                      Alas, because they are "null" definitions, dark matter and dark energy explanations are at present indistinguishable from "don't know". That is the trap with a "definition by exclusion" approach. Many cosmologists have admitted this.

                                                                      [ A good source of such opinion, though time consuming, is the SLAC Summer Institute lectures. Search from here, particularly 2003 Cosmic Connections for video streaming of the lectures. As the title suggests, large scale phenomena can/do depend on the small scale. ]

                                                                      I have no idea whether EU is adequate or mature enough to account for any data, cosmic or local - my ignorance is complete there! :-)

                                                                      However there is quite a need for some theory/paradigm shift/addition, as our 'local' observations don't seem to generalise well enough to fully explain the really distant/huge/old stuff. There are stunning exceptions to this problem though, the CMB spectrum for instance ....
                                                                      ____________
                                                                      "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short." - Blaise Pascal

                                                                      Nereid
                                                                      Send message
                                                                      Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                      Posts: 79
                                                                      Credit: 925,034
                                                                      RAC: 0
                                                                      Message 78943 - Posted 2 Jan 2008 14:45:43 UTC - in response to Message 78934.

                                                                        I know you introduced comments along the lines of 'no acceleration in the Z-axis' elsewhere, but I've forgotten what you intend by it; would you mind elaborating please?


                                                                        If you go back to Newton's analogy of a rock on a string, the force on the string will increase if while swinging the string we also ride up an elevator during that process. There is additional force on the system (the string) due to our acceleration in the z-axis while riding the elevator. You seem to think the universe is accelerating don't you?

                                                                        Thanks.

                                                                        I don't really follow this, and as this website doesn't support LaTeX (or similar), it's probably not a good idea to ask you to expand on it, by writing the relevant (Newtonian) equations, showing that estimates of the mass of a primary from (for example) analysis of positions of an orbiting secondary vary depending upon what plane the secondaries are in with respect to an acceleration vector of the system as a whole. Have you seen discussion of this in any celestial mechanics textbook?

                                                                        In any case, if I understand your point correctly, there are at least three ways to easily, and independently, test it:

                                                                        1) plenty of objects in our solar system orbit the Sun in planes inclined to that of the Earth's orbit; any 'z-axis effect' would show up as a systematic trend in estimates of the Sun's mass by orbital inclination. As far as I know, no such effect has ever been reported, so the Sun's mass is probably known to an accuracy of better than 1 part per thousand, possibly 1 ppm.

                                                                        2) the (GR) deflection of light (or any electromagnetic radiation) as it passes the Sun ('gravitational lensing') is independent of any acceleration. Such deflection has been measured now in multiple wavebands, over a wide range of impact angles. As far as I know, there are no reports of any systematic differences in the estimated mass of the Sun, and the mass estimated by this method agrees with the classical, Newtonian, one, within the uncertainty limits.

                                                                        3) the acceleration of the solar system barycentre, with respect to a set of pulsars, can be estimated using secular changes in arrival times of the pulses (i.e. using the pulsars as clocks). I recall reading a paper which looked for such acceleration, and found none, down to ~10^-11 m/s^2. If you - or any other reader - are interested, I'll see if I can dig it up.

                                                                        I don't understand how an acceleration of the universe, consistent with good observational data, would affect estimates of the mass of the Sun - could you elaborate please?
                                                                        You seem to be saying, here, that at least a significant minority of stars have masses of the order of 10 to 100 (or more) times that of the average MS (Main Sequence) star, and/or that astronomers have mis-estimated at least these stars' masses.


                                                                        Yep, I think that they underestimate the masses of stars and they underestimate the amount of mass inside the ions and electrons that flow between stars. Birkeland seemed to believe that there was more mass in the plasma between the stars than there was mass inside the solar system. He may be right, but it's probably threaded and localized in filaments as he also predicted.

                                                                        Showing that astronomers have underestimated the mass of stars, by factors of even a few, let alone tens or hundreds, would be a radical discovery! If independently confirmed, it would almost certainly result in a trip to Sweden for those who first showed it.

                                                                        To what extent can you show that the standard astronomical methods of estimating the mass of stars is off by such large factors?

                                                                        The ISM (interstellar medium) has been studied for centuries now, and its baryonic component (ions, atoms, electrons, molecules, dust grains, ...) is well understood.

                                                                        The ionised parts of the ISM reveal themselves to us by their emission lines, their absorption lines, and their broadband emission.

                                                                        The total mass of the ISM can also be constrained by analysis of the motions of stars in our neighbourhood, with techniques first used by Oort (in the 1920s, IIRC) and revised and extended by Bahcall (1960s?). I am not aware of any reports of the (local) ISM being as massive as you suggest, from the results of such research.

                                                                        The various 'local lensing' surveys - such as MACHO, OGLE, and MOA - would also have detected any compact filaments massive enough to cause outweigh the stars; again, I am not aware of any of these surveys finding any such mass.

                                                                        That said, there certainly are galaxies whose ISM is more massive than the stars; however, they are few in number, and their total mass is trivial compared with, say, the giant ellipticals found at the centres of rich clusters.

                                                                        While showing that astronomers have underestimated the mass of the ionised component of the ISM by several orders of magnitude, at least in our galaxy, and others in the Local Group, would not be quite as radical as showing that astronomers have dramatically underestimated the mass of stars, it would still propel the discoverer into the astronomy hall of fame.

                                                                        To what extent can you show that the standard astronomical methods of estimating the mass of the ISM (ionised component or total) is off by such large factors?

                                                                        Nereid
                                                                        Send message
                                                                        Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                        Posts: 79
                                                                        Credit: 925,034
                                                                        RAC: 0
                                                                        Message 78947 - Posted 2 Jan 2008 19:03:53 UTC

                                                                          One more technique that constrains the (baryonic) composition of the ISM: interstellar scintillation, which may be considered as the 'twinkling' of 'radio stars', analogous to the twinkling of stars we see in the night sky with our unaided vision.

                                                                          This a phenomenon well-known to radio astronomers, and can be used to explore the small-scale structure (down to an au or less) of the ISM, particularly its (free) electron density. There are, of course, other, independent, methods for estimating the ISM's electron density, though they tend to produce estimates of the integrated electron density, smearing out any small-scale structure.

                                                                          While there are several puzzles concerning the small-scale (electron density) structure of the ISM, which structure seems to be present in both ionised and neutral ISM phases, as far as I know, there are no reports which point to electron densities many dozens of orders of magnitude higher than the corresponding, estimated densities of ions or atoms. In this respect at least, the mass of ISM (free) electrons is way below the mass of stars, at least in our local galactic neighbourhood.

                                                                          Michael Mozina
                                                                          Send message
                                                                          Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                          Posts: 51
                                                                          Credit: 8,270
                                                                          RAC: 0
                                                                          Message 78952 - Posted 2 Jan 2008 19:28:29 UTC - in response to Message 78947.

                                                                            Last modified: 2 Jan 2008 19:29:07 UTC

                                                                            One more technique that constrains the (baryonic) composition of the ISM: interstellar scintillation, which may be considered as the 'twinkling' of 'radio stars', analogous to the twinkling of stars we see in the night sky with our unaided vision.


                                                                            I'm going to ignore the z-axis movement conversation in this thread and focus on this specific issue since it is directly related to "powering" the stars, and the amount of mass in a galaxy.

                                                                            Let's start with Kristian Birkeland's quote from the PDF file I posted earlier:

                                                                            One of the most peculiar features of this cosmogony is that space beyond the heavenly bodies is assumed to be filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds in such densities that the aggregate mass of the heavenly bodies within a limited, very large space would be only a very small fraction of the aggregate mass of the flying atoms and corpuscles there.


                                                                            In other words, Birkeland calculated (math was his thing by the way) that most of the mass of a galaxy and the universe was contained in the plasma steams and electrons streams between the stars, not in the stars themselves. If we're looking for "missing mass" or underestimated mass explanations, Birkeland would suggest that we look to the flying atoms and electrons for the bulk of that mass. Some of the mass could be contained in some underestimation process related to solar theory (acceleration), but most of the mass of a galaxy would be inside the plasma threads, not inside the suns according to Birkeland.

                                                                            http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.annotated.pdf

                                                                            Peratt's description of how a galaxy functions and flows according to electromagnetic cosmology theory (I like that term) seems to suggest that the flow pattern of the ions and electrons coming into the galaxy, affect the flow pattern of the galaxy itself. That seems logical to me.

                                                                            It seems then that any "missing mass" we might find as a result of lensing observations is bound to be located inside the flowing filaments of plasma, and we are likely to be underestimating the mass in those filaments according to Birkeland and Peratt. Peratt's probably your best resource when it comes to quantifying plasma physical interactions since he's done the most computer modeling of such movements in plasma and also works at Los Alamos and can verify that his models match observations in a lab.



                                                                            ____________
                                                                            It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                            Nereid
                                                                            Send message
                                                                            Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                            Posts: 79
                                                                            Credit: 925,034
                                                                            RAC: 0
                                                                            Message 78957 - Posted 3 Jan 2008 1:47:29 UTC - in response to Message 78952.

                                                                              Last modified: 3 Jan 2008 1:55:52 UTC


                                                                              [snip]

                                                                              Let's start with Kristian Birkeland's quote from the PDF file I posted earlier:

                                                                              One of the most peculiar features of this cosmogony is that space beyond the heavenly bodies is assumed to be filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds in such densities that the aggregate mass of the heavenly bodies within a limited, very large space would be only a very small fraction of the aggregate mass of the flying atoms and corpuscles there.


                                                                              In other words, Birkeland calculated (math was his thing by the way) that most of the mass of a galaxy and the universe was contained in the plasma steams and electrons streams between the stars, not in the stars themselves. If we're looking for "missing mass" or underestimated mass explanations, Birkeland would suggest that we look to the flying atoms and electrons for the bulk of that mass. Some of the mass could be contained in some underestimation process related to solar theory (acceleration), but most of the mass of a galaxy would be inside the plasma threads, not inside the suns according to Birkeland.

                                                                              http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.annotated.pdf

                                                                              Peratt's description of how a galaxy functions and flows according to electromagnetic cosmology theory (I like that term) seems to suggest that the flow pattern of the ions and electrons coming into the galaxy, affect the flow pattern of the galaxy itself. That seems logical to me.

                                                                              It seems then that any "missing mass" we might find as a result of lensing observations is bound to be located inside the flowing filaments of plasma, and we are likely to be underestimating the mass in those filaments according to Birkeland and Peratt. Peratt's probably your best resource when it comes to quantifying plasma physical interactions since he's done the most computer modeling of such movements in plasma and also works at Los Alamos and can verify that his models match observations in a lab.

                                                                              I'm somewhat surprised at one aspect of Peratt's write up of Birkeland's 'cosmogonic theory' - Birkeland died in 1917, yet 'galaxies'* were not recognised as different 'island universes', a quite different kind of object from the other 'nebulae', until a decade later. I don't know if Peratt purposely introduced the anachronism - in order to provide a nice hook to his own work with the supercomputer perhaps - but it certainly detracted from the quality of the article for me.

                                                                              Of course, he was not writing a paper for a peer-reviewed journal, so in that sense his sin (if we may use that term) is no worse than that of hundreds of marketing folk who churn out PRs for astronomical institutions (how many times, for example, have you read of the Big Bang theory stating that the universe began in an infinitely dense, infinitely hot singularity?).

                                                                              More substantively, it's clear, from the Birkeland quote (that you have reproduced here), that he (Birkeland) assumed that the mass of what we (today) call the ISM is greater than that of the stars within it. In this respect, your gloss appears inaccurate - Birkeland did NOT "calculate[] [...] that most of the mass of a galaxy and the universe was contained in the plasma steams and electrons streams between the stars, not in the stars themselves".

                                                                              Do you know of any Birkeland papers in which he summarises any such calculations, and provides the input values, assumptions or postulates?

                                                                              In any case, I doubt that Birkeland was familiar with even the contemporary rudimentary (by today's standards) observations that constrain the mass of the ISM, and of course he could not possibly have been aware of even the techniques used in the last quarter century or so that have produced so many independent, mutually consistent conclusions about the composition of the ISM.

                                                                              I'm familiar with Peratt's supercomputer simulations of galaxy morphology, and I think the lack of citations to his papers on this speaks volumes ... his work on plasmas in the LANL lab may be excellent, but the extreme narrowness of the observables that he sought to match his simulation results with means those results are next to useless, in terms of testing his stated hypotheses.

                                                                              In any case, IIRC, Peratt's simulated galaxies are not dominated (in mass) by the ISM, so they are not models of Birkeland's 'cosmogonic theory'.

                                                                              Finally, it is unnecessary to take such an indirect route (per your post) to conclude that the ISM may contain more (baryonic) mass than in stars; as I said in my earlier post, you can perform a range of direct, empirical observations of the ISM. From those observations, it is straight-forward to calculate robust estimates of the density, composition, temperature, etc of the ISM.

                                                                              If you know of dramatic shortcomings in either the direct observations or the straight-forward analyses of them, such that the (baryonic) mass of the ISM has been underestimated by at least four orders of magnitude, please write up a paper! Immediately!! Once independently validated and verified, such a paper would be most welcome to astronomers.

                                                                              Footnote: in one sense, Birkeland was quite right; in rich clusters of galaxies, the IGM (inter-galactic medium) dominates, in terms of the total cluster mass. However, his being 'right' here cannot possibly have been due to an anachronistic theory of galaxies, cluster of same, and the IGM ... in the first decade of the 20th century, there was no 'IGM'. However, in another sense, Birkeland was quite wrong; the most consistent interpretation of a range of independent observations of the IGM is that its baryonic ("electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds", plus neutral atoms and molecules, plus dust, plust ...) component is a relatively minor (~10-20%) contributor to its total mass.

                                                                              * the 'galactic systems' in the 1902-03 quote from Birkeland refer (I'm pretty sure) to systems within the galaxy (i.e. the Milky Way); note his term 'spiral nebulae' for what we, today, call spiral galaxies.

                                                                              Michael Mozina
                                                                              Send message
                                                                              Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                              Posts: 51
                                                                              Credit: 8,270
                                                                              RAC: 0
                                                                              Message 78961 - Posted 3 Jan 2008 7:44:43 UTC - in response to Message 78957.

                                                                                Last modified: 3 Jan 2008 7:54:50 UTC

                                                                                More substantively, it's clear, from the Birkeland quote (that you have reproduced here), that he (Birkeland) assumed that the mass of what we (today) call the ISM is greater than that of the stars within it. In this respect, your gloss appears inaccurate - Birkeland did NOT "calculate[] [...] that most of the mass of a galaxy and the universe was contained in the plasma steams and electrons streams between the stars, not in the stars themselves".


                                                                                http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf

                                                                                No, actually, he indeed "calculated" it. I'll have to skim through the pdf when I get a chance to find that same quote. His calculation was shortly after that flying ion quote as I recall. Before you write Birkeland off Nereid, take a gander at the the math he provides around page 650-770. Birkeland was every bit as capable of doing the math as you are, or Alfven was. None of you were slouches in the areas of quantification methods and mathematical calculation. I think his density calculations is on page 720, or somewhere around there.

                                                                                I'm familiar with Peratt's supercomputer simulations of galaxy morphology, and I think the lack of citations to his papers on this speaks volumes ... his work on plasmas in the LANL lab may be excellent, but the extreme narrowness of the observables that he sought to match his simulation results with means those results are next to useless, in terms of testing his stated hypotheses.


                                                                                You know, this statement in particular seems ridiculous. Plasma cosmology theory (and reality for that matter) cannot be "graded" by the number of paper citations one receives. His work in LANL has paid his bills Nereid, and they've kept him around too. He build computer models for you and everything. How in the world can you simply brush him off with a some glib comment about paper citations? For someone who claims to be interesting in quantification, you certainly are picky about your sources, and you're very creative about the way you justify handwaving away all the heavy duty mathematics behind these theories.

                                                                                In any case, IIRC, Peratt's simulated galaxies are not dominated (in mass) by the ISM, so they are not models of Birkeland's 'cosmogonic theory'.


                                                                                No, but I don't think Peratt added enough Iron and Nickel atoms to his simulations. I'm not sure how it would play out in a mass separated concept using Manuel's elemental abundance figures. It might be interesting to rerun his simulations with Manuals elemental abundance figures and see where the mass ends up then. Birkeland used iron as one of the elements he based his mass calculations on. I'm not sure of all the details behind Peratt's simulations, but I doubt they included Manuel's abundance figures.

                                                                                Finally, it is unnecessary to take such an indirect route (per your post) to conclude that the ISM may contain more (baryonic) mass than in stars;


                                                                                I was attempting to provide you with a bit of the "history" behind the theory. It certainly wasn't intended to be the most direct method of communicating a personal opinion on the topic.

                                                                                as I said in my earlier post, you can perform a range of direct, empirical observations of the ISM. From those observations, it is straight-forward to calculate robust estimates of the density, composition, temperature, etc of the ISM.


                                                                                Do these simulations include Bennett Pinches/Magnetic ropes in them?

                                                                                If you know of dramatic shortcomings in either the direct observations or the straight-forward analyses of them, such that the (baryonic) mass of the ISM has been underestimated by at least four orders of magnitude, please write up a paper! Immediately!!


                                                                                I don't have to, it's been done a lot of times. All the authors note that mass calculations can't account for the actual mass, at which point they promptly stuff "dark matter" into the gaps of the otherwise failed calculation. If you've got any evidence that any of the "missing mass" you're looking for can come from non-baryonic dark matter (I'll give you neutrino mass if you like), then please provide empirical evidence that such mass actually exists in nature in a controlled laboratory experiment like Birkeland performed. It's ironic that he was one of the early proponents of an ISM, and an ISM was one of his key "predictions" based on experimental evidence. Got any experimental evidence that any exotic forms of non baryonic dark matter actually exist? I hear that non-baryonic matter tastes lovely in the spring, but every time I try to verify that claim, non one seems to be able to produce any to taste, or to weigh, or to experiment with in any way.

                                                                                Once independently validated and verified, such a paper would be most welcome to astronomers.


                                                                                I think I'm on of the least "welcome" individuals that you know Nereid, published papers or no published papers. :) I've already published papers related to iron suns that were based on chemistry, and heliosiesmology and satellite imagery. Your side of the aisle doesn't seem interested in chemistry or heliosiesmology, or satellite images for that matter. I have all the evidence I need to demonstrate that the sun is not mostly made of hydrogen and helium.

                                                                                Footnote: in one sense, Birkeland was quite right; in rich clusters of galaxies, the IGM (inter-galactic medium) dominates, in terms of the total cluster mass. However, his being 'right' here cannot possibly have been due to an anachronistic theory of galaxies, cluster of same, and the IGM ... in the first decade of the 20th century, there was no 'IGM'. However, in another sense, Birkeland was quite wrong; the most consistent interpretation of a range of independent observations of the IGM is that its baryonic ("electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds", plus neutral atoms and molecules, plus dust, plust ...) component is a relatively minor (~10-20%) contributor to its total mass.

                                                                                * the 'galactic systems' in the 1902-03 quote from Birkeland refer (I'm pretty sure) to systems within the galaxy (i.e. the Milky Way); note his term 'spiral nebulae' for what we, today, call spiral galaxies.


                                                                                I'll have to track down the "spiral galaxy" part of Peratt's comments from that previous paper. Your point about the timeline of the discovery of galaxies seems valid, but I suspect there is a terminology change over time aspect to Peratts comments. I don't think he just made that up. I can't recall what Birkeland said about "spiral nebulae" at this point, but I do vaguely recall such a comment. It's been awhile since I've read Birkeland's work. I'll have to look through Birkeland's work again to see where Peratt got that idea.
                                                                                ____________
                                                                                It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                Nereid
                                                                                Send message
                                                                                Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                Posts: 79
                                                                                Credit: 925,034
                                                                                RAC: 0
                                                                                Message 78962 - Posted 3 Jan 2008 9:39:07 UTC - in response to Message 78961.

                                                                                  Last modified: 3 Jan 2008 9:52:30 UTC

                                                                                  More substantively, it's clear, from the Birkeland quote (that you have reproduced here), that he (Birkeland) assumed that the mass of what we (today) call the ISM is greater than that of the stars within it. In this respect, your gloss appears inaccurate - Birkeland did NOT "calculate[] [...] that most of the mass of a galaxy and the universe was contained in the plasma steams and electrons streams between the stars, not in the stars themselves".


                                                                                  http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf

                                                                                  No, actually, he indeed "calculated" it. I'll have to skim through the pdf when I get a chance to find that same quote. His calculation was shortly after that flying ion quote as I recall. Before you write Birkeland off Nereid, take a gander at the the math he provides around page 650-770. Birkeland was every bit as capable of doing the math as you are, or Alfven was. None of you were slouches in the areas of quantification methods and mathematical calculation. I think his density calculations is on page 720, or somewhere around there.

                                                                                  Thanks; that's a lot more help, in terms of making a 'Birkeland' case than Peratt's summary!

                                                                                  I'll look into this and comment further later.

                                                                                  I'm familiar with Peratt's supercomputer simulations of galaxy morphology, and I think the lack of citations to his papers on this speaks volumes ... his work on plasmas in the LANL lab may be excellent, but the extreme narrowness of the observables that he sought to match his simulation results with means those results are next to useless, in terms of testing his stated hypotheses.


                                                                                  You know, this statement in particular seems ridiculous. Plasma cosmology theory (and reality for that matter) cannot be "graded" by the number of paper citations one receives. His work in LANL has paid his bills Nereid, and they've kept him around too. He build computer models for you and everything. How in the world can you simply brush him off with a some glib comment about paper citations? For someone who claims to be interesting in quantification, you certainly are picky about your sources, and you're very creative about the way you justify handwaving away all the heavy duty mathematics behind these theories.

                                                                                  I'd appreciate it Michael if you responded to what I actually wrote.

                                                                                  But perhaps I wasn't clear enough; my fault then ... I'll try again.

                                                                                  Here's the logic of the part of my post you quoted:

                                                                                  * Peratt's papers on simulating spiral galaxies are next to useless, in terms of testing (his stated) hypotheses

                                                                                  * why? because the simulated observables he reported, in those papers, are very narrow in range - only a 'velocity curve' and some ill-defined morphology*

                                                                                  (* also because he failed to address the manifest shortcomings of the simulated observables he did report; this comment was not included in my original)

                                                                                  * with such a narrow range of reported results, given how easy it would have been to report more extensive ones, many of the astronomers who actually read the papers would have found them unconvincing

                                                                                  (* also, he did not give enough detail of the code he used in the simulations (I may have mis-remembered here), making it quite a challenge for anyone to independently verify his results; this comment was not included in my original)

                                                                                  * it is for at least these shortcomings in his published work, from the perspective of doing astrophysics, that his papers are not cited.

                                                                                  To say this another way: the lack of citations is a result of the weakness of his science (as presented in the papers themselves; only he knows how good the science is that he didn't present), not the other way round.

                                                                                  Perhaps I can illustrate this better by taking a recent example: "High Galactic Latitude Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Structure and Associated (WMAP) High Frequency Continuum Emission", by Gerrit Verschuur (source: http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1125). There was quite a fuss about this when the v1 preprint appeared on arXiv - concrete evidence that the CMB may not be 'C' (cosmic) after all! However, that v1 was so full of flaws that those who were familiar with the relevant observations dismissed it as rubbish. v2, which may eventually be published, in ApJ, fixes these (at least the obvious flaws).

                                                                                  Curiously, the endorser (Richard Lieu) got some of his grad students to do a simple test, using publicly available code, and found the original Verschuur paper's main conclusion (that at least a part of the CMB may have a 'local' signature on it) is not, in fact, consistent with the observations Verschuur chose.

                                                                                  In this case, a hypothesis was proposed, a paper written based on it, and a method of testing the hypothesis presented (in v2, not v1). Normal science, peer-review working well, and the paper will join thousands of others as providing a tiny bit of extra evidence for modern cosmological models (though that was clearly not the hope of either Verschuur or Lieu).

                                                                                  Back to Peratt's papers. By choosing to publish them in a journal far removed from astrophysics, Peratt lost the chance to get robust comments (from anonymous reviewers), and, perhaps, the chance to write a paper that provided a much better test of his hypotheses.
                                                                                  In any case, IIRC, Peratt's simulated galaxies are not dominated (in mass) by the ISM, so they are not models of Birkeland's 'cosmogonic theory'.


                                                                                  No, but I don't think Peratt added enough Iron and Nickel atoms to his simulations. I'm not sure how it would play out in a mass separated concept using Manuel's elemental abundance figures. It might be interesting to rerun his simulations with Manuals elemental abundance figures and see where the mass ends up then. Birkeland used iron as one of the elements he based his mass calculations on. I'm not sure of all the details behind Peratt's simulations, but I doubt they included Manuel's abundance figures.

                                                                                  I don't quite follow you here Michael - the ISM contains essentially no iron or nickel; it is dominated by H and He ... except for some parts of some supernovae remnants (and planetary nebulae).

                                                                                  These conclusions come from a great many direct astronomical observations, using several independent methods, so whatever "Manuel's elemental abundance figures" are, they would seem to be inconsistent with the data (for the ISM).
                                                                                  Finally, it is unnecessary to take such an indirect route (per your post) to conclude that the ISM may contain more (baryonic) mass than in stars;


                                                                                  I was attempting to provide you with a bit of the "history" behind the theory. It certainly wasn't intended to be the most direct method of communicating a personal opinion on the topic.

                                                                                  as I said in my earlier post, you can perform a range of direct, empirical observations of the ISM. From those observations, it is straight-forward to calculate robust estimates of the density, composition, temperature, etc of the ISM.


                                                                                  Do these simulations include Bennett Pinches/Magnetic ropes in them?

                                                                                  They're not 'simulations' Michael; they are direct observations, followed by pretty simple analyses.

                                                                                  Take just one example, optical 'nebular' emission lines: the composition and density of regions of the ISM where these emission lines are observed follows from standard tables of line oscillator strengths, plus an extension of laboratory spectroscopy - so much light in this line, so much in that line, turn the handle and robust estimates of densities and compositions fall out. To get absolute numbers, the only extra thing you need is an estimate of distance. All quite straight-forward and quite uncontroversial.
                                                                                  If you know of dramatic shortcomings in either the direct observations or the straight-forward analyses of them, such that the (baryonic) mass of the ISM has been underestimated by at least four orders of magnitude, please write up a paper! Immediately!!


                                                                                  I don't have to, it's been done a lot of times. All the authors note that mass calculations can't account for the actual mass, at which point they promptly stuff "dark matter" into the gaps of the otherwise failed calculation. If you've got any evidence that any of the "missing mass" you're looking for can come from non-baryonic dark matter (I'll give you neutrino mass if you like), then please provide empirical evidence that such mass actually exists in nature in a controlled laboratory experiment like Birkeland performed. It's ironic that he was one of the early proponents of an ISM, and an ISM was one of his key "predictions" based on experimental evidence. Got any experimental evidence that any exotic forms of non baryonic dark matter actually exist? I hear that non-baryonic matter tastes lovely in the spring, but every time I try to verify that claim, non one seems to be able to produce any to taste, or to weigh, or to experiment with in any way.

                                                                                  This is news to me ... we are talking about the ISM, aren't we?

                                                                                  Within our own galaxy, there's little observational evidence for dark matter in the thin disk (it's in the halo).

                                                                                  Perhaps you could point us to papers making the case for non-baryonic matter being a significant component of the thin disk ISM in our galaxy?

                                                                                  Otherwise, yes, if you claim the ISM (at least in our local region of the galaxy) contains, in line with Birkeland, significantly more mass (in the form of electrons and ions) than that in the stars of this region, then you do have to make that case ... by showing the (observational, analytical) shortcomings in the standard methods of estimating the ISM's mass, for example.

                                                                                  Oh and can we get past this 'if I can't make it in a lab it doesn't exist' please? I mean, you already said no one has even a single gram of 'neutron star material' in any Earthly lab, much less a gram of a MECO. Further, no one has produced, in the lab, many of the nebular lines (including the very common green [OIII] one). And no Earthly lab contains a 2 x 10^30 kg lump of 75% H, 23% He, 2% other elements!
                                                                                  [snip]

                                                                                  Footnote: in one sense, Birkeland was quite right; in rich clusters of galaxies, the IGM (inter-galactic medium) dominates, in terms of the total cluster mass. However, his being 'right' here cannot possibly have been due to an anachronistic theory of galaxies, cluster of same, and the IGM ... in the first decade of the 20th century, there was no 'IGM'. However, in another sense, Birkeland was quite wrong; the most consistent interpretation of a range of independent observations of the IGM is that its baryonic ("electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds", plus neutral atoms and molecules, plus dust, plust ...) component is a relatively minor (~10-20%) contributor to its total mass.

                                                                                  * the 'galactic systems' in the 1902-03 quote from Birkeland refer (I'm pretty sure) to systems within the galaxy (i.e. the Milky Way); note his term 'spiral nebulae' for what we, today, call spiral galaxies.


                                                                                  I'll have to track down the "spiral galaxy" part of Peratt's comments from that previous paper. Your point about the timeline of the discovery of galaxies seems valid, but I suspect there is a terminology change over time aspect to Peratts comments. I don't think he just made that up. I can't recall what Birkeland said about "spiral nebulae" at this point, but I do vaguely recall such a comment. It's been awhile since I've read Birkeland's work. I'll have to look through Birkeland's work again to see where Peratt got that idea.

                                                                                  I'm looking forward to it.

                                                                                  * With very little additional effort he could have captured, and reported, a range of simulated observables, from SEDs to relative intensities (in the two main wavebands astronomers of the time had the most experience with, light and radio) to polarisations to ...

                                                                                  Nereid
                                                                                  Send message
                                                                                  Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                  Posts: 79
                                                                                  Credit: 925,034
                                                                                  RAC: 0
                                                                                  Message 78968 - Posted 3 Jan 2008 16:49:11 UTC

                                                                                    If we can get back to the topic of this thread ("How the sun shines"), I'd like to present this summary:

                                                                                    The primary requirements of any theory purporting to explain how the Sun shines are as follows:
                                                                                    1. energy output of 3.8 x 10^26 W
                                                                                    2. SED approximately that of a 5780 K blackbody (another source says 5530 K)
                                                                                    3. energy output has varied by ~<0.1% over the past ~30 years
                                                                                    4. energy output has varied by ~<30% over the past ~<4.5 billion years.

                                                                                    We may classify sources of the Sun's energy as internal, external, or a combination.

                                                                                    As far as I know (AFAIK), the following sources have been proposed:

                                                                                    A. core fusion of H into He; the current mainstream view, with thousands of published papers

                                                                                    B. chemical burning, e.g. of coal; an idea discounted over 100 years ago

                                                                                    C. gravitational collapse; ditto

                                                                                    D. 'Manuel's mechanism', something to do with a neutron star core; only a few published papers on this

                                                                                    E. an external (electrical) current, the central concept in 'EU Theory'; AFAIK, there are no published papers on this

                                                                                    F. another internal source, or sources

                                                                                    G. another external source, or sources.

                                                                                    How does each of these eight fare with respect to (wrt) the four requirements?

                                                                                    AFAIK, only A meets all four.

                                                                                    Showing that B and C fail requirement 4 is, today, often a classroom exercise in undergraduate physics courses, or even advanced science/physics in high school.

                                                                                    F and G obviously cannot be tested!

                                                                                    IIRC, in at least one of Manuel's paper there is a case presented for D meeting requirements 1 and 4. However, Manual's idea would seem to require that the Sun is a very special star. If we add requirements similar to 1 through 4, for Main Sequence (MS) stars, and add a requirement concerning the observed dominance of MS stars, I'm not sure D would meet all the requirements (no surprise that A does, as thousands of papers attest). Perhaps the weakest link here is in robustly, and independently, estimating the ages of MS stars ... I think such robust estimates can be made, but they are not easy to describe in 1,000 words or less. Of course, invoking some form of the Copernican principle side-steps the need for such estimates, at least for stars that are, by direct observation, very similar to the Sun.

                                                                                    Perhaps Michael Mozina would be kind enough to provide references which address how E meets requirements 1 through 4?

                                                                                    Michael Mozina
                                                                                    Send message
                                                                                    Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                    Posts: 51
                                                                                    Credit: 8,270
                                                                                    RAC: 0
                                                                                    Message 78971 - Posted 3 Jan 2008 23:14:37 UTC - in response to Message 78968.

                                                                                      IIRC, in at least one of Manuel's paper there is a case presented for D meeting requirements 1 and 4. However, Manual's idea would seem to require that the Sun is a very special star.


                                                                                      Let me start with this point. Manuel's idea would not require the belief that our sun is all that "special". In other words, if Manuel is correct, then we would be likely to find that all stars contain a small spinning neutron core since our sun contains a small core and it does not seem special in any particular respect. Some neutron cores might be larger than others, some might rotate faster than others, but the basic concept could be applied to all stars, not just our own star.

                                                                                      There's actually some interesting new evidence this week to suggests that "white dwarfs" exhibit some of the pulsing properties that are typically associated with spinning neutron stars.

                                                                                      http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/White_Dwarf_Pulses_Like_A_Pulsar_999.html

                                                                                      Note that a rapidly spinning inner core might go a long way to explaining the "missing momentum" that is observed in stars. The outside surface of stars does not seem to rotate anywhere near fast enough to explain where all the momentum went during their formation process.

                                                                                      Perhaps the weakest link here is in robustly, and independently, estimating the ages of MS stars ... I think such robust estimates can be made, but they are not easy to describe in 1,000 words or less. Of course, invoking some form of the Copernican principle side-steps the need for such estimates, at least for stars that are, by direct observation, very similar to the Sun.


                                                                                      I think one of the primary unknowns with EU theories in general, and particularly when it is combined with iron sun theories, is the fact that in EU theory, stars could be almost any age and it would be nearly impossible to predict how long they might last. If the total energy output isn't limited to internal sources of energy, then in theory at least, an iron star could last much longer than a hydrogen/fusion burning sun.

                                                                                      Perhaps Michael Mozina would be kind enough to provide references which address how E meets requirements 1 through 4?


                                                                                      Well, I can't even say for sure what all the energy sources (plural) might be. In fact, in EU theory, even the internal vs. external energy concept gets "fuzzy". Let's start with some basic observations.

                                                                                      The sun as you know, is not actually a "blackbody" of any sort. Its atmosphere is not solid, but rather it's outer atmosphere is made entirely of light plasmas that do no emit energy uniformly like a blackbody. The plasmas are actually cooler in the lower atmosphere and hotter in the upper atmosphere. The solar atmosphere has got million degree coronal loops sticking out in some places while other areas of the atmosphere show no such activity. As an energy calculation method, blackbody calculations might be a useful way of looking at the total energy output, but as it comes to describing the actual heat flow behaviors (energy signatures) of the sun's atmosphere, it's completely meaningless to think of ans sun as a "blackbody". We're can really only consider how we might explain a "total" energy release that is somewhere in the range of 3.8 X 10^36 watts, that is "extremely" stable over a 30 year window and "moderately" stable over a much longer window of time.

                                                                                      Some other observations are useful when talking about the energy output of the sun. The solar wind accelerates as it leaves the photosphere. X-ray jets shoot off the surface of the photosphere at very high speeds, and the coronal temperatures are OOM's hotter than the surface of the photosphere. All these observations suggest to an EU proponent that the sun's atmosphere electrically interacts with the heliosphere and ultimately with the galactic winds. These behaviors suggest that electrons rain down onto the sun and into our solar system in great volume. These electron flows provide a significant amount of the heat that the sun generates in the form of resistance inside the plasmas of the upper solar atmosphere.

                                                                                      There are definitely "local" energy releases associated with the current flows through the atmosphere. Rhessi observes neutron capture signatures and gamma-ray signatures in the solar atmosphere that are consistent with P-P and CNO fusion processes.

                                                                                      http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

                                                                                      Interestingly enough, as MITM at BAUT, I even got Tim T to agree that these high energy emissions were probably associated with at least P-P fusion processes in the solar atmosphere. These fusion processes occur "locally" (in the solar atmosphere), but the fusion processes themselves are a direct result of the z-pinches in the electron currents that flow through the plasmas of the atmosphere. Is that local fusion of hydrogen and/or carbon an "inner" or an "outer" energy source?

                                                                                      There are energy releases from the solar atmosphere that are a direct result of high energy (cosmic ray) particles striking the solar atmosphere.

                                                                                      There are also likely to be any number of possible internal energy release mechanisms, including heat related to gravitational compression forces, and probably some induction processes related to having a rapidly spinning core rotating inside of a mostly metallic crust. There could be fusion processes inside the sun, or even fission processes inside a mass separated sun. There are many possible options to choose from, and there is currently little if any way to determine how much of the total energy release is due to any of these potential influences.

                                                                                      As a rule of thumb, I would suspect that most EU enthusiasts are more apt to suggest that the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons), not from the sun itself. The regulation of the energy output would be external as well. I would personally be inclined to agree with that assessment, but I personally believe that there are significant internal energy sources to account for. I don't think that Oliver's purely internal energy output calculations would necessarily need to apply to an electric sun theory, but I do believe there is a significant local component to the energy release process.

                                                                                      The overall stability of the sun's output would be related to the overall stability of the current flow through the sun. The slow but steady changes to the energy output over billion year timelines could be related to changes to the internal configuration (I.e. the core loses momentum and spins more slowly over time). It could also be related to the suns' positioning within the galaxy, or the energy flow changes within the entire galaxy.

                                                                                      I tend to believe that the sun's core rotates rapidly (on a 5 minute rotation cycle) and that it is composed of either a heavy neutron material as Dr Manuel suggests (mostly likely scenario IMO), or it is composed of heavy elements like Iron and Nickel and/or fissionable materials. Whatever the material of the core, it probably takes the form of a flowing internal z-pinch filament, with strong currents running through/around the core. I can't say for sure how much energy is produced internally due to induction etc, because as you said before, there is little if any way to test for an internal energy source based on our current state of technology. We would have to know what the external current flows were, and how much resistance we might expect with very great precision to have any idea how much additional internal energy we might need to explain the sun's total energy output. I don't think we're anywhere close to that level of sophistication just yet. Even an induction type of "inner" energy release process might be caused by a z-pinch through the core that "winds it up" which in turn could help regulate the flow of current through the core.

                                                                                      I tend to favor a spinning core of heavy elements, and I personally lean toward a neutron material, whereas other EU proponents like upriver seem to be much more skeptical of the presence of neutron materials. A basic spinning core solar model would work with a core made of heavy elements as well. The observation of a 22 year rotation of the sun's magnetic field suggests that there is either an internally driven process that is responsible for that observation (like a rapidly spinning core that slowly rotates it's spin axis due to induction, or it is due to an external process such as the changing galactic wind condition at the heliosheath. We don't have the technology to test either of these theories at the moment.
                                                                                      ____________
                                                                                      It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                      Odysseus
                                                                                      Avatar
                                                                                      Send message
                                                                                      Joined: Dec 17 05
                                                                                      Posts: 364
                                                                                      Credit: 3,931,666
                                                                                      RAC: 1,963
                                                                                      Message 78973 - Posted 4 Jan 2008 1:55:08 UTC - in response to Message 78962.

                                                                                        […] no one has produced, in the lab, many of the nebular lines (including the very common green [OIII] one).

                                                                                        That’s nebulium, don’t you know.

                                                                                        (Excuse the levity.)


                                                                                        ____________

                                                                                        Michael Mozina
                                                                                        Send message
                                                                                        Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                        Posts: 51
                                                                                        Credit: 8,270
                                                                                        RAC: 0
                                                                                        Message 78975 - Posted 4 Jan 2008 3:45:49 UTC - in response to Message 78973.

                                                                                          […] no one has produced, in the lab, many of the nebular lines (including the very common green [OIII] one).

                                                                                          That’s nebulium, don’t you know.

                                                                                          (Excuse the levity.)



                                                                                          It seems like this conversation needed some levity actually. :)

                                                                                          ____________
                                                                                          It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                          Profile tullio
                                                                                          Send message
                                                                                          Joined: Jan 22 05
                                                                                          Posts: 1828
                                                                                          Credit: 450,015
                                                                                          RAC: 225
                                                                                          Message 78977 - Posted 4 Jan 2008 8:34:41 UTC

                                                                                            If the nuclear strong interaction does not power stars, what is its utility? To give electricity to France through its nuclear reactors? Remember Occam's Razor (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). But the strong force is evidently necessary.
                                                                                            Tullio
                                                                                            ____________

                                                                                            Nereid
                                                                                            Send message
                                                                                            Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                            Posts: 79
                                                                                            Credit: 925,034
                                                                                            RAC: 0
                                                                                            Message 78995 - Posted 4 Jan 2008 18:33:55 UTC - in response to Message 78961.

                                                                                              More substantively, it's clear, from the Birkeland quote (that you have reproduced here), that he (Birkeland) assumed that the mass of what we (today) call the ISM is greater than that of the stars within it. In this respect, your gloss appears inaccurate - Birkeland did NOT "calculate[] [...] that most of the mass of a galaxy and the universe was contained in the plasma steams and electrons streams between the stars, not in the stars themselves".


                                                                                              http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf

                                                                                              No, actually, he indeed "calculated" it. I'll have to skim through the pdf when I get a chance to find that same quote. His calculation was shortly after that flying ion quote as I recall. Before you write Birkeland off Nereid, take a gander at the the math he provides around page 650-770. Birkeland was every bit as capable of doing the math as you are, or Alfven was. None of you were slouches in the areas of quantification methods and mathematical calculation. I think his density calculations is on page 720, or somewhere around there.

                                                                                              [snip]

                                                                                              Wow! That's a >160MB file!!

                                                                                              Anyway, I downloaded and read it (well, skimmed it, and didn't even look at the ~600 pages of 'Plates').

                                                                                              I couldn't find anything at all on the ISM, with electrons and ions, along the lines of the Peratt quote; when you do find it, would you mind letting us know which page(s) it's on please?

                                                                                              I also appreciate better what Peratt said ("He then shot clouds of electrons towards this simulated Earth to produce a light phenomenon that looked like the aurora. (We now know that the solar wind also consists of positive ions, as well as negative electrons.)". Certainly Birkeland's work seems very good, for his time, but modern data on the observable phenomena is dramatically better.

                                                                                              The "looked like" is quite educational: while the visual images do 'look like' aurorae, and while Birkeland's simulation does reproduce his hypothesised mechanism (at least qualitatively), he was also lucky, in the sense that we now know the detailed mechanisms involved*, and, from this much deeper understanding, know that the parts that Birkeland missed (or got wrong) do not affect the visual appearance of aurorae (within the restricted range of Birkeland's tests; he did not, for example, examine spectra, for example, or polarisation).

                                                                                              Also of interest is that Birkeland proposed a mechanism for how the Sun shines: radioactive decay (I should add it as source H). It is not a key part of his 'paper'; rather it is a by-product of his speculation as to the source of the electrons causing aurorae.

                                                                                              One last note: I think I read, somewhere in those >900 pages, that Birkeland's hypothesis leads to the electrons which cause aurorae being (highly) relativistic, and that they take not much more time to get from the Sun to Earth than light does. If indeed this is a logical consequence of his hypothesis, then we could use it as a good example of how science works - some parts of Birkeland's proposed mechanism turn out to be right, others quite wrong; the theory/model gets modified, tweaked, adjusted, new observations taken and tests performed; and the cycle repeats.

                                                                                              * much better anyway; for sure there are many more details awaiting discovery

                                                                                              Nereid
                                                                                              Send message
                                                                                              Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                              Posts: 79
                                                                                              Credit: 925,034
                                                                                              RAC: 0
                                                                                              Message 78996 - Posted 4 Jan 2008 18:48:23 UTC - in response to Message 78971.

                                                                                                [snip]

                                                                                                Perhaps Michael Mozina would be kind enough to provide references which address how E meets requirements 1 through 4?


                                                                                                Well, I can't even say for sure what all the energy sources (plural) might be. In fact, in EU theory, even the internal vs. external energy concept gets "fuzzy". Let's start with some basic observations.

                                                                                                The sun as you know, is not actually a "blackbody" of any sort. Its atmosphere is not solid, but rather it's outer atmosphere is made entirely of light plasmas that do no emit energy uniformly like a blackbody. The plasmas are actually cooler in the lower atmosphere and hotter in the upper atmosphere. The solar atmosphere has got million degree coronal loops sticking out in some places while other areas of the atmosphere show no such activity. As an energy calculation method, blackbody calculations might be a useful way of looking at the total energy output, but as it comes to describing the actual heat flow behaviors (energy signatures) of the sun's atmosphere, it's completely meaningless to think of ans sun as a "blackbody". We're can really only consider how we might explain a "total" energy release that is somewhere in the range of 3.8 X 10^36 watts, that is "extremely" stable over a 30 year window and "moderately" stable over a much longer window of time.

                                                                                                Some other observations are useful when talking about the energy output of the sun. The solar wind accelerates as it leaves the photosphere. X-ray jets shoot off the surface of the photosphere at very high speeds, and the coronal temperatures are OOM's hotter than the surface of the photosphere. All these observations suggest to an EU proponent that the sun's atmosphere electrically interacts with the heliosphere and ultimately with the galactic winds. These behaviors suggest that electrons rain down onto the sun and into our solar system in great volume. These electron flows provide a significant amount of the heat that the sun generates in the form of resistance inside the plasmas of the upper solar atmosphere.

                                                                                                There are definitely "local" energy releases associated with the current flows through the atmosphere. Rhessi observes neutron capture signatures and gamma-ray signatures in the solar atmosphere that are consistent with P-P and CNO fusion processes.

                                                                                                http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

                                                                                                Interestingly enough, as MITM at BAUT, I even got Tim T to agree that these high energy emissions were probably associated with at least P-P fusion processes in the solar atmosphere. These fusion processes occur "locally" (in the solar atmosphere), but the fusion processes themselves are a direct result of the z-pinches in the electron currents that flow through the plasmas of the atmosphere. Is that local fusion of hydrogen and/or carbon an "inner" or an "outer" energy source?

                                                                                                There are energy releases from the solar atmosphere that are a direct result of high energy (cosmic ray) particles striking the solar atmosphere.

                                                                                                There are also likely to be any number of possible internal energy release mechanisms, including heat related to gravitational compression forces, and probably some induction processes related to having a rapidly spinning core rotating inside of a mostly metallic crust. There could be fusion processes inside the sun, or even fission processes inside a mass separated sun. There are many possible options to choose from, and there is currently little if any way to determine how much of the total energy release is due to any of these potential influences.

                                                                                                As a rule of thumb, I would suspect that most EU enthusiasts are more apt to suggest that the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons), not from the sun itself. The regulation of the energy output would be external as well. I would personally be inclined to agree with that assessment, but I personally believe that there are significant internal energy sources to account for. I don't think that Oliver's purely internal energy output calculations would necessarily need to apply to an electric sun theory, but I do believe there is a significant local component to the energy release process.

                                                                                                The overall stability of the sun's output would be related to the overall stability of the current flow through the sun. The slow but steady changes to the energy output over billion year timelines could be related to changes to the internal configuration (I.e. the core loses momentum and spins more slowly over time). It could also be related to the suns' positioning within the galaxy, or the energy flow changes within the entire galaxy.

                                                                                                I tend to believe that the sun's core rotates rapidly (on a 5 minute rotation cycle) and that it is composed of either a heavy neutron material as Dr Manuel suggests (mostly likely scenario IMO), or it is composed of heavy elements like Iron and Nickel and/or fissionable materials. Whatever the material of the core, it probably takes the form of a flowing internal z-pinch filament, with strong currents running through/around the core. I can't say for sure how much energy is produced internally due to induction etc, because as you said before, there is little if any way to test for an internal energy source based on our current state of technology. We would have to know what the external current flows were, and how much resistance we might expect with very great precision to have any idea how much additional internal energy we might need to explain the sun's total energy output. I don't think we're anywhere close to that level of sophistication just yet. Even an induction type of "inner" energy release process might be caused by a z-pinch through the core that "winds it up" which in turn could help regulate the flow of current through the core.

                                                                                                I tend to favor a spinning core of heavy elements, and I personally lean toward a neutron material, whereas other EU proponents like upriver seem to be much more skeptical of the presence of neutron materials. A basic spinning core solar model would work with a core made of heavy elements as well. The observation of a 22 year rotation of the sun's magnetic field suggests that there is either an internally driven process that is responsible for that observation (like a rapidly spinning core that slowly rotates it's spin axis due to induction, or it is due to an external process such as the changing galactic wind condition at the heliosheath. We don't have the technology to test either of these theories at the moment.

                                                                                                Thanks for the lengthy reply Michael.

                                                                                                I must say that I'm now rather confused.

                                                                                                Back on 26 December, 2007, in this thread, you wrote, in answer to the question "How does he propose the Sun generates its energy? (3.9e26 W is not a trivial affair - aside from nuclear reactions I really can't see any way)":

                                                                                                The sun does not generate the bulk of it's energy, though it does generate some energy locally. The bulk of the energy comes from the electrical current that flows through the sun.

                                                                                                Your more recent post is much more tentative, to the point of all but declaring 'anything goes' ("There are many possible options to choose from, and there is currently little if any way to determine how much of the total energy release is due to any of these potential influences.")

                                                                                                In any case, can you provide us with references to papers which describe the details of the hypothesis that "the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons)" and which include estimates of what that energy is (i.e. the extent to which it satisfies requirement 1)?

                                                                                                Nereid
                                                                                                Send message
                                                                                                Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                Posts: 79
                                                                                                Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                RAC: 0
                                                                                                Message 78998 - Posted 4 Jan 2008 20:09:36 UTC - in response to Message 78971.

                                                                                                  IIRC, in at least one of Manuel's paper there is a case presented for D meeting requirements 1 and 4. However, Manual's idea would seem to require that the Sun is a very special star.


                                                                                                  Let me start with this point. Manuel's idea would not require the belief that our sun is all that "special". In other words, if Manuel is correct, then we would be likely to find that all stars contain a small spinning neutron core since our sun contains a small core and it does not seem special in any particular respect. Some neutron cores might be larger than others, some might rotate faster than others, but the basic concept could be applied to all stars, not just our own star.

                                                                                                  There's actually some interesting new evidence this week to suggests that "white dwarfs" exhibit some of the pulsing properties that are typically associated with spinning neutron stars.

                                                                                                  http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/White_Dwarf_Pulses_Like_A_Pulsar_999.html

                                                                                                  Note that a rapidly spinning inner core might go a long way to explaining the "missing momentum" that is observed in stars. The outside surface of stars does not seem to rotate anywhere near fast enough to explain where all the momentum went during their formation process.

                                                                                                  Perhaps the weakest link here is in robustly, and independently, estimating the ages of MS stars ... I think such robust estimates can be made, but they are not easy to describe in 1,000 words or less. Of course, invoking some form of the Copernican principle side-steps the need for such estimates, at least for stars that are, by direct observation, very similar to the Sun.


                                                                                                  I think one of the primary unknowns with EU theories in general, and particularly when it is combined with iron sun theories, is the fact that in EU theory, stars could be almost any age and it would be nearly impossible to predict how long they might last. If the total energy output isn't limited to internal sources of energy, then in theory at least, an iron star could last much longer than a hydrogen/fusion burning sun.

                                                                                                  [snip]


                                                                                                  A little searching turned up this 2001 O. Manuel conference presentation, in which source D is described: The Sun's Origin, Composition and Source of Energy.

                                                                                                  There may be an earlier paper where Manuel presents this source; there are several later conference presentations, posters, and (I think) one paper which present source D.

                                                                                                  None of these address requirements 2, 3, or 4.

                                                                                                  Regarding requirement 1: Manuel et al. simply declare that >57% of 'solar luminosity' is due to 'neutron emission from the solar core', where the 'solar core' is a neutron star in which the neutrons are in an excited state; neutrons which are 'emitted' from this core produce '~10-22 MeV' per neutron. There are at least two references to this process, but I have not been able to obtain either. The first is "O. Manuel, C. Bolon and M. Zhong, J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 252 (2002) 3-7".

                                                                                                  This hypothesis, in respect to 'How the sun shines', seems similar to Peratt's on spiral galaxies, in this respect: for such a (potentially) exciting idea, the main author seems curiously reticent about seeking to test it, even though several simple, direct tests which seem both obvious and straight-forward have not even been mentioned in the latest papers, despite it being some 6-7 years now since it was first published. And, like Peratt's paper, such an underwhelming presentation may be one reason* why none of the papers have been cited much (other than by later papers by the same author).

                                                                                                  * another reason could be that, for Manuel's mechanism to be what powers all (or most) MS stars, the ('super-massive') neutron star remnants of supernovae must fragment 'into smaller ones'. Manuel cites the work of W. K. Brown for this; a quick check shows that the Brown hypothesis seems to have gotten no traction, in the >20 years since it was first published.

                                                                                                  Nereid
                                                                                                  Send message
                                                                                                  Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                  Posts: 79
                                                                                                  Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                  RAC: 0
                                                                                                  Message 79000 - Posted 4 Jan 2008 20:16:38 UTC - in response to Message 78973.

                                                                                                    […] no one has produced, in the lab, many of the nebular lines (including the very common green [OIII] one).

                                                                                                    That’s nebulium, don’t you know.

                                                                                                    (Excuse the levity.)


                                                                                                    Indeed.

                                                                                                    There are actually two [O III] 'green' lines, at 495.9 and 500.7 nm.

                                                                                                    Curiously, another part of the history of astronomical spectral lines appears in the Birkeland material, 'coronium' ... of course Birkeland cannot have known that this is not a 'new element', but, unlike nebulium, coronium lines can be produced in the laboratory.

                                                                                                    Michael Mozina
                                                                                                    Send message
                                                                                                    Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                    Posts: 51
                                                                                                    Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                    RAC: 0
                                                                                                    Message 79001 - Posted 4 Jan 2008 20:33:46 UTC - in response to Message 78995.

                                                                                                      Wow! That's a >160MB file!!


                                                                                                      It's also 100 years old. :) Try finding it in print sometime. :)

                                                                                                      Anyway, I downloaded and read it (well, skimmed it, and didn't even look at the ~600 pages of 'Plates').

                                                                                                      [quote]I couldn't find anything at all on the ISM, with electrons and ions, along the lines of the Peratt quote; when you do find it, would you mind letting us know which page(s) it's on please?


                                                                                                      Will do. Like I said, I think it's on page 720-721, but I'll look it up for you after work. The file can be searched, and I recall that is calculation was right after after his flying ion comment.

                                                                                                      I also appreciate better what Peratt said ("He then shot clouds of electrons towards this simulated Earth to produce a light phenomenon that looked like the aurora. (We now know that the solar wind also consists of positive ions, as well as negative electrons.)". Certainly Birkeland's work seems very good, for his time, but modern data on the observable phenomena is dramatically better.


                                                                                                      Sure, of course. Even still, for his day, his lab is pretty impressive and it looks to be pretty well funded. I'd say he was way ahead of his time.

                                                                                                      The "looked like" is quite educational: while the visual images do 'look like' aurorae, and while Birkeland's simulation does reproduce his hypothesised mechanism (at least qualitatively), he was also lucky, in the sense that we now know the detailed mechanisms involved*, and, from this much deeper understanding, know that the parts that Birkeland missed (or got wrong) do not affect the visual appearance of aurorae (within the restricted range of Birkeland's tests; he did not, for example, examine spectra, for example, or polarisation).


                                                                                                      Well, the notion of "looks like" is a bit misleading. The basic concept was correct. He didn't have in situ measurements to work with, and spectral analysis was in it's infancy back then. They had not even identified all the wavelengths that relate to various elements. The energy transfer process that Birkeland proposed however was accurate. There is a current flow involved in the process. Now of course his overall model was rather primitive, and it was limited due to a lack of overall technological sophistication in 1908, but it was accurate, at least at the basic level.

                                                                                                      Also of interest is that Birkeland proposed a mechanism for how the Sun shines: radioactive decay (I should add it as source H). It is not a key part of his 'paper'; rather it is a by-product of his speculation as to the source of the electrons causing aurorae.


                                                                                                      Interestingly enough, fission was also my first energy proposal when I setup my website. In fact it's still mentioned as a possible energy source on my website. There could be a lot of factors in a sun's total energy output, so internal, and some external.

                                                                                                      One last note: I think I read, somewhere in those >900 pages, that Birkeland's hypothesis leads to the electrons which cause aurorae being (highly) relativistic, and that they take not much more time to get from the Sun to Earth than light does.


                                                                                                      Hmmm, well not exactly. He suggested that there may be "beams" of energy (cathode rays) directed at the Earth from the sun. In those instances, particles might travel a significant portion of the speed of light, but I got the impression he also recognized a "background" flow of ions that was not necessarily traveling at very high speeds. Interesting enough we have seen CME events that have spewed heavier protons at a significant portion of the speed of light.

                                                                                                      If indeed this is a logical consequence of his hypothesis, then we could use it as a good example of how science works - some parts of Birkeland's proposed mechanism turn out to be right, others quite wrong; the theory/model gets modified, tweaked, adjusted, new observations taken and tests performed; and the cycle repeats.

                                                                                                      * much better anyway; for sure there are many more details awaiting discovery


                                                                                                      Well, I certainly agree that there were aspects of his theories that were less accurate than others. He seemed to presume that the sun was the primary energy source of these interactions for instance, whereas now it's pretty clear that there is at least some external component to this process. He could still be right about fission being an energy source however.

                                                                                                      I think the most intriguing part of his theories is that he tested them in a lab. His opinions about the flow of energy were directly related to what he was able to directly observe in a lab, using standard (controlled) scientific tests and by making methodical changes to the experiment to see the results of these changes. That is a textbook example of how science is supposed to work. We're supposed to test our theories to a great a degree as possible, and develop theories that come from a controlled testing process.

                                                                                                      His "methods" are far more along the lines of classic physics, and less along the lines of "guessing". When astronomers today talk about "magnetic reconnection", they have no laboratory evidence that "magnetic reconnection" is real, and they've never tested the idea before pointing to things that are occurring in the solar atmosphere and claiming that "magneticreconnectiondidit".

                                                                                                      That is the difference between Birkeland's methodical use of classical physical testing procedures and today's brand (Chapman's brand) of astronomy that is based on pure mathematical speculation, devoid of physical testing. Birkeland understood that there were electrical energy releases occurring in the Earth's atmosphere because he could turn off the power and watch these emission patterns go away. Today's astronomers seem utterly unwilling to get their hands dirty or to test their theories in real life scenarios before making pronouncements. Magnetic reconnection theory is another recent example of an idea that is simply logically wrong, it is in direct opposition to the MHD theory that Alfven espoused, it defies the laws of physics, and it's based on blind math, not scientific tests of concept. The worst part however is that any electrical engineer can tell you that magnetic fields always form a full continuum. They don't make and break connections like electrical circuits or release any energy at a zero point (null point) in the magnetic field.

                                                                                                      http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf



                                                                                                      ____________
                                                                                                      It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                      Michael Mozina
                                                                                                      Send message
                                                                                                      Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                      Posts: 51
                                                                                                      Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                      RAC: 0
                                                                                                      Message 79002 - Posted 4 Jan 2008 20:37:27 UTC - in response to Message 79000.

                                                                                                        […] no one has produced, in the lab, many of the nebular lines (including the very common green [OIII] one).

                                                                                                        That’s nebulium, don’t you know.

                                                                                                        (Excuse the levity.)


                                                                                                        Indeed.

                                                                                                        There are actually two [O III] 'green' lines, at 495.9 and 500.7 nm.

                                                                                                        Curiously, another part of the history of astronomical spectral lines appears in the Birkeland material, 'coronium' ... of course Birkeland cannot have known that this is not a 'new element', but, unlike nebulium, coronium lines can be produced in the laboratory.


                                                                                                        The guy was working with the best information he had in 1908. It's not surprising that we can think of ourselves as "more enlightened" today. It's all relative however. If it turns out he was right, his willingness to embrace EU theory 100 years ago puts him way ahead of mainstream astronomers of today. You might be able to nitpick on a few details, but he was way ahead of where you are today as I see things, at least from a theoretical and physical testing perspective.
                                                                                                        ____________
                                                                                                        It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                        Michael Mozina
                                                                                                        Send message
                                                                                                        Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                        Posts: 51
                                                                                                        Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                        RAC: 0
                                                                                                        Message 79003 - Posted 4 Jan 2008 21:05:22 UTC - in response to Message 78996.

                                                                                                          Thanks for the lengthy reply Michael.

                                                                                                          I must say that I'm now rather confused.

                                                                                                          Back on 26 December, 2007, in this thread, you wrote, in answer to the question "How does he propose the Sun generates its energy? (3.9e26 W is not a trivial affair - aside from nuclear reactions I really can't see any way)":

                                                                                                          The sun does not generate the bulk of it's energy, though it does generate some energy locally. The bulk of the energy comes from the electrical current that flows through the sun.

                                                                                                          Your more recent post is much more tentative, to the point of all but declaring 'anything goes' ("There are many possible options to choose from, and there is currently little if any way to determine how much of the total energy release is due to any of these potential influences.")


                                                                                                          Your confusion is perfectly understandable. It's not an "anything goes" position on my part, it's an "any rational scientific option must be logically and methodically considered" position. Based on satellite image data and heliosiesmology studies, and even empirical chemistry data, I can really only "observe" what is going on in the upper atmosphere of the sun. No photons from below about .995R are visible to me in satellite images, so I have no way of knowing for sure (based on pure observational evidence) exactly what structures might be sitting underneath that crust. The sun could in fact be powered by a small neutron core as Manuel suggests. It could be powered by fission as Birkeland suggested. No internal power source however could account for the acceleration of solar wind particles, or that image of neutrino emissions I posted earlier. No matter what internal process that we might consider as a possible internal energy source for stars, we cannot simply ignore the effects of external energy components.

                                                                                                          In any case, can you provide us with references to papers which describe the details of the hypothesis that "the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons)" and which include estimates of what that energy is (i.e. the extent to which it satisfies requirement 1)?


                                                                                                          Hmm. I'll have to go back through Alfven's work and Peratt's work to see exactly what they did in this regard. I can't think of such a paper off the top of my head at the moment, so I'll have to get back to you on that question.
                                                                                                          ____________
                                                                                                          It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                          Michael Mozina
                                                                                                          Send message
                                                                                                          Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                          Posts: 51
                                                                                                          Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                          RAC: 0
                                                                                                          Message 79004 - Posted 4 Jan 2008 21:09:04 UTC - in response to Message 78977.

                                                                                                            If the nuclear strong interaction does not power stars, what is its utility? To give electricity to France through its nuclear reactors? Remember Occam's Razor (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). But the strong force is evidently necessary.
                                                                                                            Tullio


                                                                                                            Such interactions *may indeed* power stars. The only reason *any* internal energy source is needed is because we "assume" that stars are their own power source. If we remove that assumption, we can't be sure that anything is "necessary" other than current flow. I do think that their is a strong nuclear force involved, I just don't believe that this force accounts for all the energy released from the sun.

                                                                                                            ____________
                                                                                                            It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                            Nereid
                                                                                                            Send message
                                                                                                            Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                            Posts: 79
                                                                                                            Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                            RAC: 0
                                                                                                            Message 79005 - Posted 4 Jan 2008 21:57:56 UTC - in response to Message 79003.

                                                                                                              Just quickly ...


                                                                                                              [snip]
                                                                                                              It could be powered by fission as Birkeland suggested. No internal power source [of the Sun] however could account for [...] that image of neutrino emissions I posted earlier.

                                                                                                              [snip]

                                                                                                              Here, AFAIK, is the source of that image.

                                                                                                              The discussion of it, earlier in this thread, contained a few errors and misunderstandings*; too bad Bob Svoboda's text accompanying the image wasn't included: "This image is a 500-day exposure from 7-25 MeV. It is a plot of the difference between the sun's RA (x-axis) and DEC (y-axis) and those of the reconstructed neutrino-induced secondary electrons. This secondary scattering process smears out the image, so that it is many times the actual size of the sun."

                                                                                                              I'm sure you realise, Michael, that hundreds (if not thousands) of those papers I referenced earlier, in respect of source A, present a multi-faceted, robust case for exactly the opposite of what you assert.

                                                                                                              In a nutshell (1,000 words or less), would you mind summarising the reasons for your assertion?

                                                                                                              If you'd be so kind, perhaps you could start by addressing the apparent inconsistency between "it's an "any rational scientific option must be logically and methodically considered" position" and the categorical certainty of your assertion.

                                                                                                              * not least of which a comment on the Cosmic variance blog, from whence Michael took it, addressed well: "Mr. nc, (or dr. nc?) why so grumpy? It is not a figure or illustration, it is art based on the physical world.

                                                                                                              You learned neutrinos can pass through the earth relatively unimpeded didn’t ya? Not bad for a piece of art.
                                                                                                              "

                                                                                                              Nereid
                                                                                                              Send message
                                                                                                              Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                              Posts: 79
                                                                                                              Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                              RAC: 0
                                                                                                              Message 79006 - Posted 4 Jan 2008 22:18:44 UTC - in response to Message 79002.

                                                                                                                […] no one has produced, in the lab, many of the nebular lines (including the very common green [OIII] one).

                                                                                                                That’s nebulium, don’t you know.

                                                                                                                (Excuse the levity.)


                                                                                                                Indeed.

                                                                                                                There are actually two [O III] 'green' lines, at 495.9 and 500.7 nm.

                                                                                                                Curiously, another part of the history of astronomical spectral lines appears in the Birkeland material, 'coronium' ... of course Birkeland cannot have known that this is not a 'new element', but, unlike nebulium, coronium lines can be produced in the laboratory.


                                                                                                                The guy was working with the best information he had in 1908.

                                                                                                                He was, indeed.
                                                                                                                It's not surprising that we can think of ourselves as "more enlightened" today.

                                                                                                                I didn't mean to imply that we were ... writing a history of an idea, especially one in what was then a purely observational science (in situ data wasn't collected until many decades after Birkeland's death), is quite tricky; for one thing, it is so easy to make revisionist mistakes, or slip in anachronisms (as in the Peratt article, for example).
                                                                                                                It's all relative however. If it turns out he was right, his willingness to embrace EU theory 100 years ago puts him way ahead of mainstream astronomers of today.

                                                                                                                But Michael, there's no doubt at all: many of the things in that >900 page tome of Birkeland's are just plain wrong! Even Peratt said so!!

                                                                                                                And isn't 'EU theory' just as much an anachronism as Peratt's mistake (about spiral galaxies)? Is this a term Birkeland himself uses, in his writing? Was it common in the relevant scientific community of the first decade of the 1900s?

                                                                                                                And even if "it turns out he was right", much of the being "right" was little more than a lucky accident. There's nothing controversial, or demeaning, or condescending, or ... about this; it's a very common aspect of all of science, when examined across gulfs which span revolutions.

                                                                                                                FWIW, I think the biggest mistake one could make, when doing science, would be to place the work of some giant on a pedestal and not test, refine, re-test, re-refine, etc the ideas they proposed. Einstein provides an excellent example: GR ranks with Newton's work on gravitation and Darwin's on evolution as among the greatest. Yet Einstein, to the very end, did not embrace quantum mechanics. Not too long after his death, one of his most potent objections (the EPR paradox) was tested ... and the universe declared Einstein wrong.
                                                                                                                You might be able to nitpick on a few details, but he was way ahead of where you are today as I see things, at least from a theoretical and physical testing perspective.

                                                                                                                I don't really understand this ... the theoretical underpinnings of his work are just Maxwell's equations, aren't they? And the GB of in situ IPM and Earth's magnetosphere data are surely far more important than any lab simulation, aren't they?

                                                                                                                Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                Send message
                                                                                                                Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                Posts: 51
                                                                                                                Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                RAC: 0
                                                                                                                Message 79008 - Posted 4 Jan 2008 23:14:22 UTC - in response to Message 79005.

                                                                                                                  The discussion of it, earlier in this thread, contained a few errors and misunderstandings*; too bad Bob Svoboda's text accompanying the image wasn't included: "This image is a 500-day exposure from 7-25 MeV. It is a plot of the difference between the sun's RA (x-axis) and DEC (y-axis) and those of the reconstructed neutrino-induced secondary electrons. This secondary scattering process smears out the image, so that it is many times the actual size of the sun."


                                                                                                                  I think we all assumed that was the case but maybe I "assumed" you understood something about the equipment they use to detect neutrinos. It's "messy" in the sense of scattering effects.

                                                                                                                  I'm sure you realise, Michael, that hundreds (if not thousands) of those papers I referenced earlier, in respect of source A, present a multi-faceted, robust case for exactly the opposite of what you assert.


                                                                                                                  If by "robust" case, you mean someone has higher resolution neutrino images that show a definite and distinct point source of neutrinos coming from the core of the sun, then I know for a fact that no such "robust" observation exists. If you mean that lots of a papers *assume* that the sun is mostly made of hydrogen and helium and it's not separated much by mass, and neutrinos 'oscillate' (another law of physics defying move), then sure, I do realize lots of people believe in hydrogen/helium suns.

                                                                                                                  The problem with those mathematical papers Nereid is that in the real world (real sun) we have a rigid set of features sitting .995R. From even a theoretical perspective there's lots of problems with a hydrogen/helium model. Plasma tend to mass separate in gravitational and electromagnetic fields so the sun should be one giant mass separator of plasmas. You can't support your hydrogen sun theories with much empirical scientific evidence however, particularly once we start looking at that mass separation problem, those heliosiesmology images, and those running difference images.

                                                                                                                  In a nutshell (1,000 words or less), would you mind summarising the reasons for your assertion?


                                                                                                                  I'll summarize it in two sentences and one paper:

                                                                                                                  We observe gamma ray emissions in the solar *atmosphere* in Rhessi images:
                                                                                                                  http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/428876
                                                                                                                  There is every likelihood that we will observe full disk composite images of the sun due to atmospheric neutrino emissions.

                                                                                                                  If you'd be so kind, perhaps you could start by addressing the apparent inconsistency between "it's an "any rational scientific option must be logically and methodically considered" position" and the categorical certainty of your assertion.


                                                                                                                  Unless you can explain to me why I would not expect to observe neutrino emissions from the high energy events in the solar atmosphere, I see no reason to believe that they do not occur there, or that I would not see surface related "hits" from such events. Lots of different kinds of high energy cosmic ray interactions might release neutrinos in the upper atmosphere of the sun. I could almost be logically certain to observe more than just a single point source of neutrinos from the sun's core.
                                                                                                                  ____________
                                                                                                                  It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                  Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                  Send message
                                                                                                                  Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                  Posts: 51
                                                                                                                  Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                  RAC: 0
                                                                                                                  Message 79012 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 0:10:29 UTC - in response to Message 79006.

                                                                                                                    Last modified: 5 Jan 2008 0:15:22 UTC

                                                                                                                    I didn't mean to imply that we were ... writing a history of an idea, especially one in what was then a purely observational science (in situ data wasn't collected until many decades after Birkeland's death), is quite tricky; for one thing, it is so easy to make revisionist mistakes, or slip in anachronisms (as in the Peratt article, for example).


                                                                                                                    The thing I like about Birkeland's work is that it *is* based on standard scientific methodologies, and it has certainly yielded very useful scientific predictions, starting with the idea that there are electrical currents flowing from the sun to the Earth. NASA has already confirmed the existence of a "magnetic rope" between the Sun and the Earth that carried massive amounts of electrical energy.

                                                                                                                    Now we can pick at his ideas if we like based on 20/20 hindsight. We can giggle about his lack of knowledge as it relates to emission wavelengths and how they relate to various ions. We can note that he didn't fully understand the nature of the solar wind, even though he said that space was filled with flying ions *of all kinds*, but in reality, he was way ahead of where "modern" astronomy is today IMO.

                                                                                                                    But Michael, there's no doubt at all: many of the things in that >900 page tome of Birkeland's are just plain wrong! Even Peratt said so!!


                                                                                                                    But some of it was just plain right too Nereid. Now what?

                                                                                                                    And isn't 'EU theory' just as much an anachronism as Peratt's mistake (about spiral galaxies)? Is this a term Birkeland himself uses, in his writing? Was it common in the relevant scientific community of the first decade of the 1900s?


                                                                                                                    No. Let's not get lost in semantics.

                                                                                                                    Every theory has it's "founders" and plasma cosmology theory/electric universe theory/Electromagnetic cosmology theory (I like the last name the best) has it's founder in Birkeland. He's the first guy to systematically experiment with, and describe the electromagnetic forces and how these forces affect objects in space. He tinkered with the variables, he played with the surface materials. He did all the "hands on" things that a scientist is supposed to do before pointing to the sky and claiming "my new idea did it"! Of course he worked with limited information, and of course he made mistakes. On the other hand it's been demonstrated now that Birkeland was right about the electromagnetic nature of physical reality and how the electromagnetic forces of nature affect bodies in space.

                                                                                                                    And even if "it turns out he was right", much of the being "right" was little more than a lucky accident. There's nothing controversial, or demeaning, or condescending, or ... about this; it's a very common aspect of all of science, when examined across gulfs which span revolutions.


                                                                                                                    A lucky accident? Excuse me? His experiments were *methodical*. His methods of collecting data were *methodical*. His willingness to brave the elements of nature to take such measurement was above and beyond what most human beings would be willing to endure. There was absolutely nothing "lucky" about his work Nereid. It's called "sweat equity science" the way it's supposed to be done.

                                                                                                                    Compare and contrast methodical effort and scientific controlled testing with Guth pointing down at a math formula he dreamed up one day and claiming "inflationdidit". Luck had nothing to do with Birkeland's work Nereid.

                                                                                                                    FWIW, I think the biggest mistake one could make, when doing science, would be to place the work of some giant on a pedestal and not test, refine, re-test, re-refine, etc the ideas they proposed.


                                                                                                                    Sometimes I would agree with you.

                                                                                                                    Einstein provides an excellent example: GR ranks with Newton's work on gravitation and Darwin's on evolution as among the greatest. Yet Einstein, to the very end, did not embrace quantum mechanics. Not too long after his death, one of his most potent objections (the EPR paradox) was tested ... and the universe declared Einstein wrong.


                                                                                                                    Well, batting 999 out of 1000 ain't too bad.

                                                                                                                    Then again, Einstein also never embraced "black holes" or the push-me-pull-you brand of Lambda-CDM theory either. I'll bet he wasn't wrong on those issues and you're still wrong, even with all your 20/20 hindsight.

                                                                                                                    I don't really understand this ... the theoretical underpinnings of his work are just Maxwell's equations, aren't they?


                                                                                                                    How about the practical underpinnings of his *real life experiments* Nereid? Theories always look good on paper. It's when we test them against what we observe in "reality" that separates good theoretical underpinnings from useless theoretical underpinnings. He did the lab work to tell the difference between a good theory and a bad one.

                                                                                                                    And the GB of in situ IPM and Earth's magnetosphere data are surely far more important than any lab simulation, aren't they?


                                                                                                                    Of course. That "magnetic rope" that NASA found "in situ" using THEMIS is important confirmation of Birkeland's theories. So were the satellite observations of Birkeland currents flowing into the the Earth from satellites of the 70's. Each step takes our understanding of electrical currents further out into the solar system and further out into deep space. Mainstream scientists of today however always act so surprised anytime they see something the involves the flow of current through objects in space. Birkeland already understood the "basics" over 100 years ago, and yet here we are 100 years later being "surprised" but "magnetic ropes" that flow from the sun to the Earth. They were all actual "predictions" that were made by Birkeland over 100 years ago. These predictions weren't "lucky guesses", there were based on sweat equity scientific research in a lab using controlled scientific methods, not pie-in-the-sky mathematical theories that can never be tested. Birkeland understood the mathematical theories he was working with, but he took the next step and applied his theories to "reality" and then he noted what he observed in his experiments. From there he made legitimate scientific "predictions" that are only now being "confirmed" by in-situ measurements.

                                                                                                                    The part that "irks" me about astronomers of today is that they aren't even aware of Birkeland's predictions, they've never read his work, and they are always "surprised" every time they find some electrical interaction in space.

                                                                                                                    That "surprise" from the mainstream is based on pure ignorance of a lot of sweat equity research that was done over 100 years ago. Plasma is a nearly perfect conductor of electrical current. Many things we've observed in space involve the flow of current. Therefore, it should not be a surprise to anyone that spacetime contains current flows and plasma threads containing current. Even still, every month there's some new story about a "surprised" astronomer that has observed a "twisted plasma filament" here, or a "magnetic rope" there. How silly. Birkeland would be utterly dismayed to see his hard work being so under appreciated by astronomers of today. He would think we all had amnesia or something.

                                                                                                                    ____________
                                                                                                                    It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                    Nereid
                                                                                                                    Send message
                                                                                                                    Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                    Posts: 79
                                                                                                                    Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                    RAC: 0
                                                                                                                    Message 79013 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 0:28:22 UTC - in response to Message 79008.


                                                                                                                      [snip]
                                                                                                                      In a nutshell (1,000 words or less), would you mind summarising the reasons for your assertion?


                                                                                                                      I'll summarize it in two sentences and one paper:

                                                                                                                      We observe gamma ray emissions in the solar *atmosphere* in Rhessi images:
                                                                                                                      http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/428876
                                                                                                                      There is every likelihood that we will observe full disk composite images of the sun due to atmospheric neutrino emissions.

                                                                                                                      Hmm ... isn't that a good example of the logical fallacy called 'false dilemma' (or 'false dichotomy')?

                                                                                                                      In other words, you seem to be using the detection of gammas from the solar atmosphere as precluding any and every other possible source of solar neutrinos.

                                                                                                                      Isn't this inconsistent with the uncertainty and tentativeness of your earlier post ("There are many possible options to choose from, and there is currently little if any way to determine how much of the total energy release is due to any of these potential influences.")?

                                                                                                                      Further, wouldn't any valid test of the hypothesis that at least some solar neutrinos come from the core require a robust, tightly constrained estimate of the neutrino emission expected from the 'gammas in the solar atmosphere'?

                                                                                                                      If you'd be so kind, perhaps you could start by addressing the apparent inconsistency between "it's an "any rational scientific option must be logically and methodically considered" position" and the categorical certainty of your assertion.


                                                                                                                      Unless you can explain to me why I would not expect to observe neutrino emissions from the high energy events in the solar atmosphere, I see no reason to believe that they do not occur there, or that I would not see surface related "hits" from such events. Lots of different kinds of high energy cosmic ray interactions might release neutrinos in the upper atmosphere of the sun. I could almost be logically certain to observe more than just a single point source of neutrinos from the sun's core.

                                                                                                                      Indeed ... on this we agree completely.

                                                                                                                      As I just said, the next step, in testing one or other hypothesis, would be to make a robust, ranged estimate of the expected neutrino emission (under that hypothesis).

                                                                                                                      In the case of 'gammas in the solar atmosphere', I'm not aware of any such estimates - can you provide references to any please?

                                                                                                                      Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                      Send message
                                                                                                                      Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                      Posts: 51
                                                                                                                      Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                      RAC: 0
                                                                                                                      Message 79014 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 0:49:18 UTC - in response to Message 79013.

                                                                                                                        In other words, you seem to be using the detection of gammas from the solar atmosphere as precluding any and every other possible source of solar neutrinos.


                                                                                                                        I don't need to "preclude" any energy source. Even a fusion reaction in the core isn't going to make those surface emissions go away. If standard theory is accurate about fusion reactions in the core, then I might expect to see a very bright dot in the core, but I would still see surface discharges from the gamma ray point sources and I would still see the effects on cosmic rays on these observations. I can't eliminate your model, but I can make somewhat different predictions about these emissions patterns based on an EU solar model.

                                                                                                                        Isn't this inconsistent with the uncertainty and tentativeness of your earlier post ("There are many possible options to choose from, and there is currently little if any way to determine how much of the total energy release is due to any of these potential influences.")?


                                                                                                                        Those gamma rays are observed in the solar atmosphere, irrespective of the energy sources involved in the total solar energy output. These gamma emissions should also emit neutrinos, irrespective of the energy sources involved.

                                                                                                                        Further, wouldn't any valid test of the hypothesis that at least some solar neutrinos come from the core require a robust, tightly constrained estimate of the neutrino emission expected from the 'gammas in the solar atmosphere'?


                                                                                                                        In theory at least, a high resolution neutrino image based on standard theory would have a very compact core with very little else around it. That should be quite distinguishable from an external energy source which would be more apt to create an entire "surface effect" in the neutrino emission patterns. Shouldn't we be willing to make some predictions about neutrino images patterns based on our models? I'm willing right now to predict that high resolution neutrino images will show the moderately bright outline of a whole solar surface, even if there is another internal energy release process that emits neutrinos. Based on the limited resolution image I've seen thus far, I see nothing that resembles a strong "point source" for these neutrino emissions.

                                                                                                                        As I just said, the next step, in testing one or other hypothesis, would be to make a robust, ranged estimate of the expected neutrino emission (under that hypothesis).


                                                                                                                        Were I to make one of those kinds of postdicted "predictions", I would base it strictly upon the observations of the various types of neutrinos and I would assume no "oscillation" effect of any sort. In short, it would take a lot of cosmic rays to pull it off.

                                                                                                                        In the case of 'gammas in the solar atmosphere', I'm not aware of any such estimates - can you provide references to any please?


                                                                                                                        I'm not aware of any such estimates either.
                                                                                                                        ____________
                                                                                                                        It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                        Profile Mike Hewson
                                                                                                                        Forum moderator
                                                                                                                        Avatar
                                                                                                                        Send message
                                                                                                                        Joined: Dec 1 05
                                                                                                                        Posts: 3322
                                                                                                                        Credit: 27,290,402
                                                                                                                        RAC: 20,561
                                                                                                                        Message 79015 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 0:57:49 UTC - in response to Message 79008.

                                                                                                                          Unless you can explain to me why I would not expect to observe neutrino emissions from the high energy events in the solar atmosphere, I see no reason to believe that they do not occur there, or that I would not see surface related "hits" from such events. Lots of different kinds of high energy cosmic ray interactions might release neutrinos in the upper atmosphere of the sun. I could almost be logically certain to observe more than just a single point source of neutrinos from the sun's core.

                                                                                                                          Alas Michael, and I say this with genuine respect and kindness, the history of science is littered with faux pas based upon arguments of personal credulity. Unless your wording here is a mere literary device, that type of approach is not generally considered a convincing route to better definition of the physical world.

                                                                                                                          While all theories have some type of mental model within, the main virtue of their inner intellectual mechanics is to construct a framework for *quantitative* prediction. A terrific example is Tycho Brahe who was one of the first to suggest and enact our 'modern' program - to measure some phenomena to the best accuracy available, in order to then present a body of data as a benchmark for comparison of any candidate models that are presented as purporting to explain said phenomena.

                                                                                                                          A large slab of both theoretical and observational effort is devoted to 'radii of variation' - for measurement we call this observational error ( various categories ), and similiarly for theory. But data has prime place, as it is the razor that slices off any errant models that lie outside the radius. So if newer concepts are to displace any currently well performing ones ( that are within the radius ), they have the burden ( under this modern program ) of equalling or bettering any incumbents. To me it appears that the criticism of EU ( and not of yourself as a person ) in this thread seems to relate to whether it compares favourably to existing quantitative knowledge. I don't know if EU does or does not, I'm just pointing out that there may be differing assumptions hereabouts as to what is a valid standard of proof to judge that.

                                                                                                                          It can be quite amazing what turns up sometimes:

                                                                                                                          Feynman's path integral method, a very exacting calculational machine in quantum electrodynamics ( & later generalised ) specifies that all possible alternate ( but unseen ) event sequences are summated. The result are probabilities, including a normalised denominator - a non-trivial exercise of itself. That then leads to very exact testable quantitative predictions. The measurement of the electron's magnetic moment ( ratio of it's dipole strength to angular momentum ) disagreed with the QED number only after the ninth decimal place! This is despite that we really have no everday gut-feeling clue as to what it really means by all possible alternates summating. ( Note that the integral is of the behaviour of virtual particles ie. 'existing' only to suit the model ). But an arrow that accurate is going to be kept however weird it seems.

                                                                                                                          Einstein, as mentioned, deduced quantum entanglement as a consequence of QM as it then stood. He felt and openly declared that because entanglement 'must' be false/paradoxical then : EPR following from QM => QM invalid. Poor chap didn't have the benefit of later data - as likewise he didn't have Hubble's data on galaxy recession when proposing the cosmological constant to yield a static universe model.

                                                                                                                          Planck proposed quanta of energy to solve equilibrium radiation properties of 'black' bodies. A continuous integral of infinitesimal amounts gave an infinite answer, whereas a finite sum of discrete terms ( then subjected to a mathematical limit ) yielded not only a finite result but an experimentally agreeable one. It's quirky that while he is immortalised by the name of that constant, he never accepted quanta as 'real' and spent a goodly portion of his remaining work trying and failing to gain a workable classical explanation.

                                                                                                                          My reason for mentioning any of this is to point out the error we all make at one time or another - inappropriately firm generalisations. Well, assuming one respects the 'logical positivism' approach of science that is. Quantitative measurement and prediction, with a test of alignment between the two, rises above individual foibles. This is largely why reproducibility of experiment ( in the sense of controlling observable variables ) is considered a key property of scientific success ( eg. the cold fusion debacle ). Of course we frequently can't control or reproduce findings, there's certainly no dials on the Sun for us to twiddle. Poorer, but still effective substitutes if done carefully are surveys, sampling ( the more the merrier ), or simply watching and waiting, to name a few strategies.

                                                                                                                          To summarise : unfortunately without exacting predictions we can wind up with theories that are sufficiently vague as to explain everything, which is the same result as explaining nothing. String theories are in this bind at present.

                                                                                                                          and thanks to you for your contributing here .... :-)

                                                                                                                          Cheers, Mike.
                                                                                                                          ____________
                                                                                                                          "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short." - Blaise Pascal

                                                                                                                          Nereid
                                                                                                                          Send message
                                                                                                                          Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                          Posts: 79
                                                                                                                          Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                          RAC: 0
                                                                                                                          Message 79016 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 1:28:37 UTC - in response to Message 79012.

                                                                                                                            I didn't mean to imply that we were ... writing a history of an idea, especially one in what was then a purely observational science (in situ data wasn't collected until many decades after Birkeland's death), is quite tricky; for one thing, it is so easy to make revisionist mistakes, or slip in anachronisms (as in the Peratt article, for example).


                                                                                                                            The thing I like about Birkeland's work is that it *is* based on standard scientific methodologies, and it has certainly yielded very useful scientific predictions, starting with the idea that there are electrical currents flowing from the sun to the Earth. NASA has already confirmed the existence of a "magnetic rope" between the Sun and the Earth that carried massive amounts of electrical energy.

                                                                                                                            Michael, there are excellent records by what we might call 'Chinese astronomers' or 'Chinese observers' which clearly indicate that they 'knew' there was a solar wind (they concluded this from the appearance of comets).

                                                                                                                            And these records pre-date Birkeland, Maxwell, and (IIRC) Newton.

                                                                                                                            Should we conclude that they, not Birkeland, were first to correctly describe the nature of the IPM?

                                                                                                                            As I said in my previous post, you seem to be employing a logical fallacy called 'false dichotomy' ... the fact that Birkeland got some things (very) right does not preclude him having got some things (very) wrong.

                                                                                                                            And the nature of the IPM, and the specifics of how the mechanisms by which electrons give rise to aurorae, and ... are among those which Birkeland got wrong (as Peratt said).

                                                                                                                            From your comment, I would guess that your source is a NASA Press Release, and not the preprint(s)* associated with the team's work. In any case, how about we look at the actual paper(s)? I suspect a cool-headed comparison between the observational results presented there and what Birkeland wrote will show a more nuanced correspondence than your dramatic summary.
                                                                                                                            Now we can pick at his ideas if we like based on 20/20 hindsight. We can giggle about his lack of knowledge as it relates to emission wavelengths and how they relate to various ions. We can note that he didn't fully understand the nature of the solar wind, even though he said that space was filled with flying ions *of all kinds*, but in reality, he was way ahead of where "modern" astronomy is today IMO.

                                                                                                                            And of course you are entitled to your opinion, just as all of us are.

                                                                                                                            However, no matter what the details are of Birkeland's observations, the contemporary understanding of the magnetosphere and the IPM rests far more on the GB of in situ data from space missions (note too that those who study these are called 'space scientists', not 'astronomers', to reflect the huge difference between remote observations based solely on the detection of photons and data from in situ instruments).
                                                                                                                            But Michael, there's no doubt at all: many of the things in that >900 page tome of Birkeland's are just plain wrong! Even Peratt said so!!


                                                                                                                            But some of it was just plain right too Nereid. Now what?

                                                                                                                            We acknowledge Birkeland's fine pioneering work, in writing the history of this field of science, and return to getting on with making progress ... by designing new missions, collecting more data, testing and refining (tweaking) hypotheses, etc.
                                                                                                                            And isn't 'EU theory' just as much an anachronism as Peratt's mistake (about spiral galaxies)? Is this a term Birkeland himself uses, in his writing? Was it common in the relevant scientific community of the first decade of the 1900s?


                                                                                                                            No. Let's not get lost in semantics.

                                                                                                                            Every theory has it's "founders" and plasma cosmology theory/electric universe theory/Electromagnetic cosmology theory (I like the last name the best) has it's founder in Birkeland. He's the first guy to systematically experiment with, and describe the electromagnetic forces and how these forces affect objects in space. He tinkered with the variables, he played with the surface materials. He did all the "hands on" things that a scientist is supposed to do before pointing to the sky and claiming "my new idea did it"! Of course he worked with limited information, and of course he made mistakes. On the other hand it's been demonstrated now that Birkeland was right about the electromagnetic nature of physical reality

                                                                                                                            Nitpick: most of that work was done, up to centuries before, by many others ... leading to the classical unification (Maxwell's equations).
                                                                                                                            and how the electromagnetic forces of nature affect bodies in space.

                                                                                                                            And even if "it turns out he was right", much of the being "right" was little more than a lucky accident. There's nothing controversial, or demeaning, or condescending, or ... about this; it's a very common aspect of all of science, when examined across gulfs which span revolutions.


                                                                                                                            A lucky accident? Excuse me? His experiments were *methodical*. His methods of collecting data were *methodical*. His willingness to brave the elements of nature to take such measurement was above and beyond what most human beings would be willing to endure. There was absolutely nothing "lucky" about his work Nereid. It's called "sweat equity science" the way it's supposed to be done. Compare and contrast methodical effort and scientific controlled testing with Guth pointing down at a math formula he dreamed up one day and claiming "inflationdidit". Luck had nothing to do with Birkeland's work Nereid.

                                                                                                                            I think you are confusing effort with results ... thousands and thousands of scientists have done just as much "sweat equity science", only to find many of the conclusions they drew from their data overturned - even in their own working lifetimes.
                                                                                                                            FWIW, I think the biggest mistake one could make, when doing science, would be to place the work of some giant on a pedestal and not test, refine, re-test, re-refine, etc the ideas they proposed.


                                                                                                                            Sometimes I would agree with you.

                                                                                                                            Einstein provides an excellent example: GR ranks with Newton's work on gravitation and Darwin's on evolution as among the greatest. Yet Einstein, to the very end, did not embrace quantum mechanics. Not too long after his death, one of his most potent objections (the EPR paradox) was tested ... and the universe declared Einstein wrong.


                                                                                                                            Well, batting 999 out of 1000 ain't too bad.

                                                                                                                            But Michael, the universe doesn't do batting averages, nor keep track, nor even care ...
                                                                                                                            Then again, Einstein also never embraced "black holes" or the push-me-pull-you brand of Lambda-CDM theory either. I'll bet he wasn't wrong on those issues and you're still wrong, even with all your 20/20 hindsight.

                                                                                                                            And that's just my point ... whatever Einstein embraced, or didn't embrace, is now pretty much irrelevant; the primary test of any hypothesis is how well it accounts for good, reliable observations and experimental results (preferably independently verified, like the resolution of the EPR paradox).

                                                                                                                            Or do you think we should stick with Einstein's views, no matter what the data says?
                                                                                                                            I don't really understand this ... the theoretical underpinnings of his work are just Maxwell's equations, aren't they?


                                                                                                                            How about the practical underpinnings of his *real life experiments* Nereid? Theories always look good on paper. It's when we test them against what we observe in "reality" that separates good theoretical underpinnings from useless theoretical underpinnings. He did the lab work to tell the difference between a good theory and a bad one.

                                                                                                                            Perhaps you wrote too fast?

                                                                                                                            Here's what my comment was in response to (my bold): "You might be able to nitpick on a few details, but he was way ahead of where you are today as I see things, at least from a theoretical [...] perspective."

                                                                                                                            I addressed the second part ("[...] at least from a [...] physical testing perspective.") in my second question, which follows.
                                                                                                                            And the GB of in situ IPM and Earth's magnetosphere data are surely far more important than any lab simulation, aren't they?


                                                                                                                            Of course. That "magnetic rope" that NASA found "in situ" using THEMIS is important confirmation of Birkeland's theories. So were the satellite observations of Birkeland currents flowing into the the Earth from satellites of the 70's. Each step takes our understanding of electrical currents further out into the solar system and further out into deep space. Mainstream scientists of today however always act so surprised anytime they see something the involves the flow of current through objects in space. Birkeland already understood the "basics" over 100 years ago, and yet here we are 100 years later being "surprised" but "magnetic ropes" that flow from the sun to the Earth. They were all actual "predictions" that were made by Birkeland over 100 years ago. These predictions weren't "lucky guesses", there were based on sweat equity scientific research in a lab using controlled scientific methods, not pie-in-the-sky mathematical theories that can never be tested. Birkeland understood the mathematical theories he was working with, but he took the next step and applied his theories to "reality" and then he noted what he observed in his experiments. From there he made legitimate scientific "predictions" that are only now being "confirmed" by in-situ measurements.

                                                                                                                            The part that "irks" me about astronomers of today is that they aren't even aware of Birkeland's predictions, they've never read his work, and they are always "surprised" every time they find some electrical interaction in space.

                                                                                                                            That "surprise" from the mainstream is based on pure ignorance of a lot of sweat equity research that was done over 100 years ago. Plasma is a nearly perfect conductor of electrical current. Many things we've observed in space involve the flow of current. Therefore, it should not be a surprise to anyone that spacetime contains current flows and plasma threads containing current. Even still, every month there's some new story about a "surprised" astronomer that has observed a "twisted plasma filament" here, or a "magnetic rope" there. How silly. Birkeland would be utterly dismayed to see his hard work being so under appreciated by astronomers of today. He would think we all had amnesia or something.

                                                                                                                            If I may make a guess, I'd say you've not taken even an undergraduate course in space science, much less done a PhD in it.

                                                                                                                            May I suggest you spend some time on the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) School of Electrical Engineering Alfvén Laboratory website?

                                                                                                                            For a start, here's an extract from the main KTH EE Space and Plasma Physics page:
                                                                                                                            Our research deals with plasmas in space as well as in the laboratory. The vast majority of our universe is plasma. The only (although important) exception is cold solid bodies like planets, comets, and asteroids. Thus, plasma physics has universal applications.

                                                                                                                            The research profits from a fruitful combination of laboratory experiments and space experiments as well as theory and numerical simulation. We play an active role in a number of international space missions, building instruments, planning instrument operations, and analysing data.

                                                                                                                            I think you'll find the reality of the day-to-day work of space scientists, such as those at KTH, rather different from your characterisation above.

                                                                                                                            * It's possible the review process is complete by now, and the paper(s) published; however, I doubt it.

                                                                                                                            Nereid
                                                                                                                            Send message
                                                                                                                            Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                            Posts: 79
                                                                                                                            Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                            RAC: 0
                                                                                                                            Message 79017 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 1:55:06 UTC - in response to Message 79014.

                                                                                                                              In other words, you seem to be using the detection of gammas from the solar atmosphere as precluding any and every other possible source of solar neutrinos.


                                                                                                                              I don't need to "preclude" any energy source. Even a fusion reaction in the core isn't going to make those surface emissions go away. If standard theory is accurate about fusion reactions in the core, then I might expect to see a very bright dot in the core, but I would still see surface discharges from the gamma ray point sources and I would still see the effects on cosmic rays on these observations. I can't eliminate your model, but I can make somewhat different predictions about these emissions patterns based on an EU solar model.

                                                                                                                              Isn't this inconsistent with the uncertainty and tentativeness of your earlier post ("There are many possible options to choose from, and there is currently little if any way to determine how much of the total energy release is due to any of these potential influences.")?


                                                                                                                              Those gamma rays are observed in the solar atmosphere, irrespective of the energy sources involved in the total solar energy output. These gamma emissions should also emit neutrinos, irrespective of the energy sources involved.

                                                                                                                              Further, wouldn't any valid test of the hypothesis that at least some solar neutrinos come from the core require a robust, tightly constrained estimate of the neutrino emission expected from the 'gammas in the solar atmosphere'?


                                                                                                                              In theory at least, a high resolution neutrino image based on standard theory would have a very compact core with very little else around it. That should be quite distinguishable from an external energy source which would be more apt to create an entire "surface effect" in the neutrino emission patterns. Shouldn't we be willing to make some predictions about neutrino images patterns based on our models? I'm willing right now to predict that high resolution neutrino images will show the moderately bright outline of a whole solar surface, even if there is another internal energy release process that emits neutrinos. Based on the limited resolution image I've seen thus far, I see nothing that resembles a strong "point source" for these neutrino emissions.

                                                                                                                              As I just said, the next step, in testing one or other hypothesis, would be to make a robust, ranged estimate of the expected neutrino emission (under that hypothesis).


                                                                                                                              Were I to make one of those kinds of postdicted "predictions", I would base it strictly upon the observations of the various types of neutrinos and I would assume no "oscillation" effect of any sort. In short, it would take a lot of cosmic rays to pull it off.

                                                                                                                              In the case of 'gammas in the solar atmosphere', I'm not aware of any such estimates - can you provide references to any please?


                                                                                                                              I'm not aware of any such estimates either.

                                                                                                                              I'm confused again ...

                                                                                                                              Here's what you said, just a few posts ago, in this thread:
                                                                                                                              No internal power source [of the Sun] however could account for [...] that image of neutrino emissions I posted earlier.


                                                                                                                              Haven't you just stated, rather clearly, that:

                                                                                                                              a) an internal power source of the Sun *could* account for the Super-Kamiokande data (as summarised in the image)?

                                                                                                                              b) there are, in principle at least, some empirical tests (observations) by which we could estimate the origin(s) of solar neutrinos?

                                                                                                                              c) you know of no estimates of how many neutrinos should be expected from 'gammas in the solar atmosphere'?

                                                                                                                              The last is quite important ... if the number of neutrinos expected from 'gammas in the solar atmosphere' is, say, 10 orders of magnitude below what Super-K (etc) detected, wouldn't that pretty much rule out that hypothesised source?

                                                                                                                              Of course there will be some neutrinos from those gammas ... a key question is 'how many?'

                                                                                                                              Nereid
                                                                                                                              Send message
                                                                                                                              Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                              Posts: 79
                                                                                                                              Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                              RAC: 0
                                                                                                                              Message 79018 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 2:30:47 UTC - in response to Message 79001.


                                                                                                                                [snip]

                                                                                                                                One last note: I think I read, somewhere in those >900 pages, that Birkeland's hypothesis leads to the electrons which cause aurorae being (highly) relativistic, and that they take not much more time to get from the Sun to Earth than light does.


                                                                                                                                Hmmm, well not exactly. He suggested that there may be "beams" of energy (cathode rays) directed at the Earth from the sun. In those instances, particles might travel a significant portion of the speed of light, but I got the impression he also recognized a "background" flow of ions that was not necessarily traveling at very high speeds. Interesting enough we have seen CME events that have spewed heavier protons at a significant portion of the speed of light.

                                                                                                                                [snip]

                                                                                                                                I found the bit I remembered struck my eye as I skimmed ... it's on page 663 (767 of 994):
                                                                                                                                Thus these cathode rays will pass the earth, not with a velocity of 9 kilometres, but with a velocity very little short of that of light.

                                                                                                                                There follow some caveats, but the net is that Birkeland seems to have been very clear that the electrons will be (highly) relativistic (to use the modern term) near the Earth, and that they will take not much more than a small multiple of '500 seconds' going from Sun to Earth.

                                                                                                                                Of course, Birkeland may have qualified this elsewhere ...

                                                                                                                                Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                Send message
                                                                                                                                Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                Message 79021 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 3:14:57 UTC - in response to Message 79015.

                                                                                                                                  Unless you can explain to me why I would not expect to observe neutrino emissions from the high energy events in the solar atmosphere, I see no reason to believe that they do not occur there, or that I would not see surface related "hits" from such events. Lots of different kinds of high energy cosmic ray interactions might release neutrinos in the upper atmosphere of the sun. I could almost be logically certain to observe more than just a single point source of neutrinos from the sun's core.

                                                                                                                                  Alas Michael, and I say this with genuine respect and kindness, the history of science is littered with faux pas based upon arguments of personal credulity. Unless your wording here is a mere literary device, that type of approach is not generally considered a convincing route to better definition of the physical world.


                                                                                                                                  Well, I certainly respect the fact that my opinion is simply a logical and educated "guess" based on known physical processes (gamma rays) and their emission patterns (neutrinos). This "guess" lacks mathematical expression at this point in time so in the sense that it's not mathematically expressed, I'm sure it's not a particularly compelling argument to you right now.

                                                                                                                                  I personally think that one of the most difficult aspects of EU theory in a general sense is that it is extremely difficult to quantify. In many respects it is far more "complicated" than standard theory, and therefore it's harder to quantify EU theory in robust mathematical terms. I think that is why I get particularly dismayed when people like Nereid handwave away some of the best mathematical efforts to quantify EU theory.

                                                                                                                                  While all theories have some type of mental model within, the main virtue of their inner intellectual mechanics is to construct a framework for *quantitative* prediction.


                                                                                                                                  I hear you on this point loud and clear. That seems to be the whole intent behind Birkeland's work in fact. He experimented with a lot of different variables so that he could begin to quantify the processes and begin to quantify the amount of "flying electric ions" and electrons in his experiments so that he could begin to "predict" what that might equate to at large scales.

                                                                                                                                  A terrific example is Tycho Brahe who was one of the first to suggest and enact our 'modern' program - to measure some phenomena to the best accuracy available, in order to then present a body of data as a benchmark for comparison of any candidate models that are presented as purporting to explain said phenomena.


                                                                                                                                  Well, that is why I so profoundly appreciate the THEMIS program and other programs like it that attempt to quantify these electrical flow patterns. IMO that is the most important type of work that can be done to begin to quantify the electron flows within the plasmas of spacetime. The more we can learn about our own solar system, the more likely we will be able to predict the behaviors of other solar systems and other objects in space.

                                                                                                                                  A large slab of both theoretical and observational effort is devoted to 'radii of variation' - for measurement we call this observational error ( various categories ), and similiarly for theory. But data has prime place, as it is the razor that slices off any errant models that lie outside the radius. So if newer concepts are to displace any currently well performing ones ( that are within the radius ), they have the burden ( under this modern program ) of equalling or bettering any incumbents.


                                                                                                                                  This idea seem very logical to me until someone begins to insert placeholder terms into the mathematics to "explain" particular observations. Then the placeholder terms become suspect, and the mathematics becomes even more suspect. If we observe the acceleration of objects like solar wind particle or galaxies, is it scientifically acceptable to chalk up this acceleration to something that cannot be demonstrated to exist in nature? What if there are other forces of nature that might this acceleration process in plasma? This is where the "quantification only" approach to science has broken down as it relates to astronomy and astronomy theory IMO. While the basic idea is a noble one, in practical application in astronomy it has been abused by metaphysical constructs that have crept into the mathematical models.

                                                                                                                                  I suppose this is why Birkeland's work is much more appealing to me personally. It is based on theories that are derived from direct experimentation with real (empirically demonstrated) objects and real forces of nature. While plasma cosmology theory may not be well "quantified" at this point in time, Birkeland's overall set of theories is well "qualified" in a standard scientific manner and it involves no unknown, unproven forces of nature.

                                                                                                                                  To me it appears that the criticism of EU ( and not of yourself as a person ) in this thread seems to relate to whether it compares favourably to existing quantitative knowledge.


                                                                                                                                  Well, as we compare the value of qualitative and quantitative approaches toward science, let's keep in mind that quantitative numbers are not necessarily indicative of reality, nor indicative of how reality actually functions. Chapman's ideas were better quantified but Birkeland's ideas were better "qualified" in the lab, and they more accurately represented the way that reality functions. Mathematics can be misleading, as in the case of Chapman's theories.

                                                                                                                                  I do agree with you however that the mathematical quantification process sometimes offers us a non subjective method to eliminate or validate some aspects of some theories. I simply respect the fact that mathematics alone can never be used in place of a scientific qualification process.

                                                                                                                                  I don't know if EU does or does not, I'm just pointing out that there may be differing assumptions hereabouts as to what is a valid standard of proof to judge that.


                                                                                                                                  EU theory is very different from other astronomy theories in one very basic respect. It was originally developed by Birkeland to explain relatively "local" phenomenon, that he believed might also apply to a larger scale. It begins at the scale of an electron and proton and builds a bigger picture based on these tiny particles. EU theory as Birkeland approached it, was not intended as a "big picture" theory, but rather it is a "nuts and bolts" approach to scientific discovery that begins with studying local events and works outward toward a larger scale. That is very different than say Lambda-CMD theory that attempts to deal with astronomy from a "big picture" perspective. It therefore becomes very difficult to judge the validity or merit of many of the non empirically demonstrated aspects of Lambda-CDM theories in relationship to other theories, including EU theories and MOND theories, MECO theories, ect.

                                                                                                                                  It can be quite amazing what turns up sometimes:

                                                                                                                                  Feynman's path integral method, a very exacting calculational machine in quantum electrodynamics ( & later generalised ) specifies that all possible alternate ( but unseen ) event sequences are summated. The result are probabilities, including a normalised denominator - a non-trivial exercise of itself. That then leads to very exact testable quantitative predictions. The measurement of the electron's magnetic moment ( ratio of it's dipole strength to angular momentum ) disagreed with the QED number only after the ninth decimal place! This is despite that we really have no everday gut-feeling clue as to what it really means by all possible alternates summating. ( Note that the integral is of the behaviour of virtual particles ie. 'existing' only to suit the model ). But an arrow that accurate is going to be kept however weird it seems.


                                                                                                                                  Birkeland went through a very similar process as he attempted to integrate the path of electrons through plasma. He ended up with spiraling currents he couldn't fully explain, but indeed, electrical currents do tend to travel in spiraling paths in plasma. It sounds weird, but we observe that behavior today in magnetic ropes that extend at least 1 AU from the sun.

                                                                                                                                  Einstein, as mentioned, deduced quantum entanglement as a consequence of QM as it then stood. He felt and openly declared that because entanglement 'must' be false/paradoxical then : EPR following from QM => QM invalid. Poor chap didn't have the benefit of later data - as likewise he didn't have Hubble's data on galaxy recession when proposing the cosmological constant to yield a static universe model.


                                                                                                                                  Well, I agree that even great minds can make mistakes. Sometimes new data is required to "push things over the edge" so to speak and to get people to look at an idea in a new way. IMO that THEMIS data has that kind of potential for EU theory. It demonstrates via in situ measurements that there is an electrical link between suns and planets.

                                                                                                                                  Planck proposed quanta of energy to solve equilibrium radiation properties of 'black' bodies. A continuous integral of infinitesimal amounts gave an infinite answer, whereas a finite sum of discrete terms ( then subjected to a mathematical limit ) yielded not only a finite result but an experimentally agreeable one. It's quirky that while he is immortalised by the name of that constant, he never accepted quanta as 'real' and spent a goodly portion of his remaining work trying and failing to gain a workable classical explanation.

                                                                                                                                  My reason for mentioning any of this is to point out the error we all make at one time or another - inappropriately firm generalisations. Well, assuming one respects the 'logical positivism' approach of science that is. Quantitative measurement and prediction, with a test of alignment between the two, rises above individual foibles. This is largely why reproducibility of experiment ( in the sense of controlling observable variables ) is considered a key property of scientific success ( eg. the cold fusion debacle ).


                                                                                                                                  Well, this is where my primary criticism of standard theory comes from. Without any control mechanism, a pure observation cannot in and of itself tell us the actual 'cause' of that observation. In other words, if we see objects in an apparent spurt of acceleration, unless we can demonstrate that our proposed solution exists in controlled empirical ways, it is impossible to verify or falsify any quantification presented. In other words I might present you with a calculation of acceleration based on a "magic force". Simply by looking at the observation of acceleration, I cannot rule out "magic force" as the cause of that acceleration. I can't rule it in either. Only a controlled test could rule it in. I know from experimentation that EM fields are something like 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, so it could be that EM fields might accelerate objects. I do not know from experimentation if "dark energy" exists, so I have no way to verify or falsify that idea that "space"(however that is defined) can expand and thereby "resemble" acceleration. "Dark energy" may be better "quantified", but it is an unqualified solution, and an unfalsifiable solution to the observation of acceleration.

                                                                                                                                  Likewise when someone mentions 'magnetic reconnection' I can't help but wonder if they've ever read any of Alfven's work, and whether they have really even attempted to demonstrate this idea in a lab? Magnetic fields not make and break connections in Maxwell's formulas. Only current flows can do that.

                                                                                                                                  Of course we frequently can't control or reproduce findings, there's certainly no dials on the Sun for us to twiddle. Poorer, but still effective substitutes if done carefully are surveys, sampling ( the more the merrier ), or simply watching and waiting, to name a few strategies.


                                                                                                                                  Well, Birkeland did manage to create a "mini sun", or at least mimicked most of the obvious external behaviors of a sun, including those "magnetic ropes" we observed in THEMIS data. To my knowledge no one has ever created a sustained fusion reaction in hydrogen plasma, and I suspect if they ever do create a sustained fusion reaction it will involve the flow of a stable current through partially ionized plasma. What then is the value of Birkeland's electrical solar theories vs a standard solar theory? How do we objectively decide which theory is a better reflection of reality? My personal method of make such a choice came down to satellite data, heliosiesmology data and chemistry data.

                                                                                                                                  To summarise : unfortunately without exacting predictions we can wind up with theories that are sufficiently vague as to explain everything, which is the same result as explaining nothing. String theories are in this bind at present.


                                                                                                                                  Hmmmm. I would actually have to say (admit) that string theories seem well quantified to me, but the don't seem to very qualified when applied to particle physics, whereas I would say that EU theory is not very well quantified, but extremely well qualified in terms of laboratory experimentation and plasma physics.

                                                                                                                                  and thanks to you for your contributing here .... :-)

                                                                                                                                  Cheers, Mike.


                                                                                                                                  Thanks for having me Mike. I appreciate it. Cheers to you as well, and happy new year to everyone.

                                                                                                                                  ____________
                                                                                                                                  It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                  Nereid
                                                                                                                                  Send message
                                                                                                                                  Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                  Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                  Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                  RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                  Message 79023 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 4:20:30 UTC

                                                                                                                                    That "magnetic rope" that NASA found "in situ" using THEMIS ...

                                                                                                                                    Here is the abstract of the paper which the NASA/THEMIS PR seems to be based on (it is one of the Fall 2007 AGU conference presentations):

                                                                                                                                    Since its launch, on February 17 2007, the five-satellite (or -probe) THEMIS mission has been operating nominally in a 14.6Re apogee (low-perigee), near-equatorial orbit. Most instruments have been on since March 15. Electric field (EFI) instruments on three probes were turned on and operating nominally since mid-June. EFI instruments on the other two probes will be deployed in early winter. THEMIS nominal science operations commenced on July 1. In its early orbits through the dusk magnetotail, the THEMIS probes captured several substorms and a small storm at roughly radial alignments along the 20-23MLT meridian. The THEMIS first-light (a single orbit in nominal science mode during early operations) on March-23, was nature's welcome: Two substorm sequences were captured in fast survey mode: particle injections and dipolarization signatures were seen propagating from one probe to another. An Earthward flow pulse ahead of a predominantly duskward flow accompanied a strong field-aligned current pair signature at the THEMIS altitude. POLAR VIS,UVI imaged the global evolution of the aurora. The THEMIS GBO array captured the salient features of the largest intensification of the first substorm, concurrent with the most intense particle injection on THEMIS probes. FAST, whose orbit passed through the vicinity of the THEMIS footprints 3 min after the major intensification, made detailed observations of the field aligned currents, arc and outflowing ions. In July and August, the THEMIS probes repeatedly encountered the magnetopause and bow shock, observing FTEs, LLBL and boundary layers with the three inner, deployed-EFI-bearing probes (C,D,E) at 100-500km separations, and the two outer probes (B, A) at 5,000-10,000 km separations. Dissecting FTEs, providing evidence for simultaneous reconnection at both cusps for northward IMF orientation, and directly relating magnetopause and boundary layer motion to corresponding ULF waves in the magnetosphere, are some of the exciting findings from this dayside interlude. In September 2007 the probes commenced the series maneuvers that will place them into their final orbits with approximately 30Re, 20Re, 12Re (2) and 10Re apogees and orbital periods of 4, 2, and 1 days. In these orbits, they will be aligned along the Sun-Earth line in Earth's magnetotail in January - March 2008. Results obtained demonstrate the high data quality and the potential for scientific discovery, particularly when combined with existing ancillary data or campaigns.


                                                                                                                                    I think 'field aligned currents' in the Earth's magnetosphere are also called 'Birkeland currents', in honour of Birkeland's role in their discovery.

                                                                                                                                    Perhaps we could try to find one of the ~15,000 scientists who attended that conference, and ask them about this presentation?

                                                                                                                                    There are, it seems, at least seven other presentation at the conference, based on the THEMIS 'magnetic rope' event; perhaps Observation and modeling of the injection observed by THEMIS and LANL satellites during March 23rd, 2007 substorm event may be of pertinence to Michael's posts:
                                                                                                                                    AB: During the first encounter of a substorm on March 23rd, 2007, THEMIS constellation observed energetic particle injections and dipolarizations in the pre-midnight sector during the onset. Clear injection and dipolarization signatures were observed by three probes (A, B and D) in the region around 11 Re and 21:00 local time. THEMIS C, which was leading in the constellation at 8.3 Re, also observed a good injection signature, but the dipolarization is not so clear. From the timing based on these observations, a westward expanding ion injection and dipolarization front is identified. In combination with the energetic particle observations from LANL geosynchronous satellites, the particle injection seemed to initiate between LANL-97A (21 LT) and 1989-046 (1 LT). Ion injection can only be observed west of the center, whereas electron injections can only be seen east of the center. This event provides us an excellent opportunity to examine the dipolarization and particle injection processes beyond geosynchronous orbit. We model this injection event by sending an earthward dipolarization-like pulse at 23 local time and record the injected ions and electrons associated this pulse at the various satellite locations. Most of the basic features of the injected particles during the main injection are reproduced and the timing among satellites is consistent with observations. It is suggested from the model that the center of this substorm injection was initiated around 23 local time and located beyond 19 Re.


                                                                                                                                    That conference also had a presentation by Sibeck, Phan, and Omidi (the first two are, apparently, THEMIS team members), "Reconnection initiated in the magnetosheath: Comparing hybrid simulations and Cluster observations":
                                                                                                                                    Recent observations by the Cluster spacecraft have established the occurrence of magnetic reconnection in the magnetosheath. It was shown that reconnection occurs due to the interaction of a thick tangential discontinuity, with northward IMF at its leading edge and southward IMF at the trailing edge, with the bow shock. This interaction involves compression of the discontinuity by the bow shock to a thickness of about 10 ion skin depth. In this study, we use 2.5-dimensional global hybrid (kinetic ions, fluid electrons) simulations to show that the interaction of a thick tangential/rotational discontinuity with the bow shock leads to its compression and eventual onset of reconnection in the magnetosheath. The observed and simulated thickness of the discontinuity as well as reconnection rates and plasma and field signatures compare favorably. The reconnection in the simulation is quasi-steady with minimal level of island formation. These results are also compared to simulations with thinner discontinuities and different internal structures (e.g. polarization) which show highly time-dependent behavior with magnetic islands forming and evolving on varying scales. Implication of these results regarding steady state and time dependent reconnection is discussed. In addition, global scale consequences of this interaction and transformation of the magnetopause from northward to southward IMF is discussed.


                                                                                                                                    Pace Michael, it seems 'magnetic reconnection' is not only part of modern space science, but is being studied in situ (and quantitatively).

                                                                                                                                    Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                    Send message
                                                                                                                                    Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                    Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                    Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                    RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                    Message 79025 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 5:16:34 UTC - in response to Message 79023.

                                                                                                                                      Last modified: 5 Jan 2008 5:27:11 UTC

                                                                                                                                      That "magnetic rope" that NASA found "in situ" using THEMIS ...


                                                                                                                                      Definition of terms is important when it comes to science. Let's look at how a "magnetic rope" is defined in MHD theory according to the creator of that theory. From his book "Cosmic Plasma":

                                                                                                                                      However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities.


                                                                                                                                      A magnetic rope is a *current carrying* device that he specifically describes as a "Bennett pinch". That is how the creator of MHD theory defines a "magnetic rope".
                                                                                                                                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett_pinch
                                                                                                                                      A pinch is the compression of an electrically conducting filament by magnetic forces.


                                                                                                                                      Recent observations by the Cluster spacecraft have established the occurrence of magnetic reconnection in the magnetosheath. It was shown that reconnection occurs due to the interaction of a thick tangential discontinuity, with northward IMF at its leading edge and southward IMF at the trailing edge, with the bow shock. This interaction involves compression of the discontinuity by the bow shock to a thickness of about 10 ion skin depth. In this study, we use 2.5-dimensional global hybrid (kinetic ions, fluid electrons) simulations to show that the interaction of a thick tangential/rotational discontinuity with the bow shock leads to its compression and eventual onset of reconnection in the magnetosheath. The observed and simulated thickness of the discontinuity as well as reconnection rates and plasma and field signatures compare favorably. The reconnection in the simulation is quasi-steady with minimal level of island formation. These results are also compared to simulations with thinner discontinuities and different internal structures (e.g. polarization) which show highly time-dependent behavior with magnetic islands forming and evolving on varying scales. Implication of these results regarding steady state and time dependent reconnection is discussed. In addition, global scale consequences of this interaction and transformation of the magnetopause from northward to southward IMF is discussed.


                                                                                                                                      There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection". Let me quote Hannes Alfven himself from his book Cosmic Plasma:

                                                                                                                                      Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of 'magnetic merging' or of 'magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration. In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).

                                                                                                                                      Page 33, Chapter 2


                                                                                                                                      http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

                                                                                                                                      Alfven:

                                                                                                                                      “Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer. The most important criticism of the merging mechanism is that by Heikkila [21], who, with increasing strength, has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed, at the same time, an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept.

                                                                                                                                      I was naïve enough to believe that [magnetic recombination] would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred: ‘merging’ . . . seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group.?


                                                                                                                                      Pace Michael, it seems 'magnetic reconnection' is not only part of modern space science, but is being studied in situ (and quantitatively).


                                                                                                                                      It is pseudoscience according to the author of MHD theory. If you believe Alfven to be in error, perhaps you could explain the physical energy release process for us at a plasma physics level? What is the unique energy release process of "magnetic reconnection" that can be distinguished from ordinary electrical interactions in plasma? Don't tell me that this idea hasn't been lab tested and lab isolated like so many other parts of astronomy theory. This idea most certainly *can* be tested and isolated if in fact there is any such thing as "magnetic reconnection". All of Maxwell's equations treat magnetic fields as a full continuum, they don't make and break connections like an electrical circuit.

                                                                                                                                      ____________
                                                                                                                                      It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                      Profile Mike Hewson
                                                                                                                                      Forum moderator
                                                                                                                                      Avatar
                                                                                                                                      Send message
                                                                                                                                      Joined: Dec 1 05
                                                                                                                                      Posts: 3322
                                                                                                                                      Credit: 27,290,402
                                                                                                                                      RAC: 20,561
                                                                                                                                      Message 79026 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 5:30:22 UTC - in response to Message 79021.

                                                                                                                                        Last modified: 5 Jan 2008 5:49:11 UTC

                                                                                                                                        Well, I certainly respect the fact that my opinion is simply a logical and educated "guess" based on known physical processes (gamma rays) and their emission patterns (neutrinos). This "guess" lacks mathematical expression at this point in time so in the sense that it's not mathematically expressed, I'm sure it's not a particularly compelling argument to you right now.


                                                                                                                                        I guess there are levels of credulity depending on the stage/progress to date. I really wanted to find out whether you like the general sense of logical positivism or not. It isn't a panacea for all questions by any means, as some of the best ones are well outside it! But a scientific discussion with hidden and mixed assumptions can be a bit of a wally.... :-)

                                                                                                                                        I personally think that one of the most difficult aspects of EU theory in a general sense is that it is extremely difficult to quantify. In many respects it is far more "complicated" than standard theory, and therefore it's harder to quantify EU theory in robust mathematical terms. I think that is why I get particularly dismayed when people like Nereid handwave away some of the best mathematical efforts to quantify EU theory.


                                                                                                                                        Heck, while General Relativity can be summarised by a single tensor equation, solving it is another task again! I do get a bit annoyed when it's implicit depedencies ( aka horrible & non-linear ) are glossed over in describing it. The solutions which have given excellent fruit are in the weak field area ( Mercury's perihelion, Taylor-Hulse pulsar, 1919 eclipse .... ). It's a good start for sure, with no other serious competitor, but the numerical relativity groups are having a real wrestle with the close-in/high-mass scenarios.

                                                                                                                                        I hear you on this point loud and clear. That seems to be the whole intent behind Birkeland's work in fact. He experimented with a lot of different variables so that he could begin to quantify the processes and begin to quantify the amount of "flying electric ions" and electrons in his experiments so that he could begin to "predict" what that might equate to at large scales.


                                                                                                                                        Sounds like Edison, as he went through ~ 2000 materials in filament testing. I think one was grass! If I remember rightly he's the origin of the '1% inspiration, 99% perspiration' formula for genius. Personally I prefer the Woody Allen approach - '85% of success is just turning up' ! :-)

                                                                                                                                        Well, that is why I so profoundly appreciate the THEMIS program and other programs like it that attempt to quantify these electrical flow patterns. IMO that is the most important type of work that can be done to begin to quantify the electron flows within the plasmas of spacetime. The more we can learn about our own solar system, the more likely we will be able to predict the behaviors of other solar systems and other objects in space.


                                                                                                                                        Now there's an important fork in the road. One often unstated assumption is that physical 'laws' hereabouts ( in space and time ) are sufficiently similiar to distant space/time rules. Not a bad assumption, indeed it is the simplest option to choose. The dark matter issue began as an observation of only mildly reducing tangential velocities of stars with respect to the radial distance from galactic centres. The visible mass in the galaxy predicts a more Keplerian distribution. In our own solar system Newton/Kepler/Galileo give the radius-cubed/period-squared relation - and a more rapidly diminishing tangential velocity curve for those galaxies. The extreme version of the fork is: keep Newton et al but add dark matter, OR keep the observed mass but change gravity theory for that scale ( MOND ... ). ( GR is sufficiently close to Newton for these purposes here - weak field again ).

                                                                                                                                        This idea seem very logical to me until someone begins to insert placeholder terms into the mathematics to "explain" particular observations. Then the placeholder terms become suspect, and the mathematics becomes even more suspect. If we observe the acceleration of objects like solar wind particle or galaxies, is it scientifically acceptable to chalk up this acceleration to something that cannot be demonstrated to exist in nature? What if there are other forces of nature that might this acceleration process in plasma? This is where the "quantification only" approach to science has broken down as it relates to astronomy and astronomy theory IMO. While the basic idea is a noble one, in practical application in astronomy it has been abused by metaphysical constructs that have crept into the mathematical models.


                                                                                                                                        Yes, indeed. Point well made. Dark energy is such a place-holder. I saw another derivation of it a few weeks ago. I felt like asking what does a negative pressure in outer space really mean guys? The term in the equation which represents it *analogises* to our everyday meaning for sure, but it's presence there flips the sign of a gravitational energy term and then ..... expand away Mr. Universe. I guess there's a phenomenology/numerology approach here, but it would help us lesser mortals who are eavesdropping if that type of thinking was highlighted as being such.

                                                                                                                                        Inflationary theory has a similiar feel. A superluminal exponential expansion of spacetime flattens metrics, and separates the universe into causally disconnected regions ( which are now coming back within horizons ) thus freezing in homogenous features that we see now in the CMB. A terrific bit of work but we could leave out the 'face of God' stuff when variations from uniformity only appear four magnitudes down!

                                                                                                                                        However careful spotters will note that we haven't got a pre-inflation comparison data set here, merely a set of deductions ( consistent, yes ) extrapolating backwards from ~ 300Kyrs post BB ( the CMB sphere ). Since we postulate both uniformity and opacity prior to that time does it really matter what the 'inflaton' particle was that slowly rolled off some potential field? It is not ( and theory says will not ) be now measurable outside of 'relic' data, as the energy scale is humungous compared to current levels.

                                                                                                                                        I suppose this is why Birkeland's work is much more appealing to me personally. It is based on theories that are derived from direct experimentation with real (empirically demonstrated) objects and real forces of nature. While plasma cosmology theory may not be well "quantified" at this point in time, Birkeland's overall set of theories is well "qualified" in a standard scientific manner and it involves no unknown, unproven forces of nature.


                                                                                                                                        Well I'd say you are in good company there! I think that, like Feynman dipping an O-ring into ice-water, we all like a handle on the universe that we can grab onto and yank ... :-)

                                                                                                                                        Well, as we compare the value of qualitative and quantitative approaches toward science, let's keep in mind that quantitative numbers are not necessarily indicative of reality, nor indicative of how reality actually functions. Chapman's ideas were better quantified but Birkeland's ideas were better "qualified" in the lab, and they more accurately represented the way that reality functions. Mathematics can be misleading, as in the case of Chapman's theories.

                                                                                                                                        I do agree with you however that the mathematical quantification process sometimes offers us a non subjective method to eliminate or validate some aspects of some theories. I simply respect the fact that mathematics alone can never be used in place of a scientific qualification process.


                                                                                                                                        That's the both ends reaching to meet in the middle for sure, and generally we have the dichotomy of scientific labor into theory and experimentalist streams. Feynman once took a sabbatical into a bio-lab to get a break from his blackboard. Lisa Randall does an excellent job in her 'Warped Passages' book of illustrating this very point ... and others. ( It's a great all round book even if you have no formal background ).

                                                                                                                                        EU theory is very different from other astronomy theories in one very basic respect. It was originally developed by Birkeland to explain relatively "local" phenomenon, that he believed might also apply to a larger scale. It begins at the scale of an electron and proton and builds a bigger picture based on these tiny particles. EU theory as Birkeland approached it, was not intended as a "big picture" theory, but rather it is a "nuts and bolts" approach to scientific discovery that begins with studying local events and works outward toward a larger scale. That is very different than say Lambda-CMD theory that attempts to deal with astronomy from a "big picture" perspective. It therefore becomes very difficult to judge the validity or merit of many of the non empirically demonstrated aspects of Lambda-CDM theories in relationship to other theories, including EU theories and MOND theories, MECO theories, ect.


                                                                                                                                        The overlapping of and the extension of domains of applicability is a difficult synthetic process. Alas such 'sewing' is neither quite opposite, nor orthogonal, to reductionist inquisitions.

                                                                                                                                        Birkeland went through a very similar process as he attempted to integrate the path of electrons through plasma. He ended up with spiraling currents he couldn't fully explain, but indeed, electrical currents do tend to travel in spiraling paths in plasma. It sounds weird, but we observe that behavior today in magnetic ropes that extend at least 1 AU from the sun.


                                                                                                                                        It was a bothersome divergence in the summation I described earlier, which yielded infinites close in to the electron for QED. So by 'moving' within the cloud of virtual particles the coupling ( ~ strength of interaction, ~ probability of a vertex occurring ) increased. More and more of the previously ignored higher order terms ( diagrams ) dominated, these had been given upper bounds before that couldn't now apply. Feynman's solution was a simple fiat, subtract away the said infinity. So that yields : 'bare' charge + masking from a virtual cloud = observed charge. So if higher kinetic energies bring you closer in to an electron it won't be as per Coulomb. I think this is weird.

                                                                                                                                        Well, I agree that even great minds can make mistakes. Sometimes new data is required to "push things over the edge" so to speak and to get people to look at an idea in a new way. IMO that THEMIS data has that kind of potential for EU theory. It demonstrates via in situ measurements that there is an electrical link between suns and planets.


                                                                                                                                        Fair enough, let us await with interest.

                                                                                                                                        Well, this is where my primary criticism of standard theory comes from. Without any control mechanism, a pure observation cannot in and of itself tell us the actual 'cause' of that observation. In other words, if we see objects in an apparent spurt of acceleration, unless we can demonstrate that our proposed solution exists in controlled empirical ways, it is impossible to verify or falsify any quantification presented. In other words I might present you with a calculation of acceleration based on a "magic force". Simply by looking at the observation of acceleration, I cannot rule out "magic force" as the cause of that acceleration. I can't rule it in either. Only a controlled test could rule it in. I know from experimentation that EM fields are something like 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, so it could be that EM fields might accelerate objects. I do not know from experimentation if "dark energy" exists, so I have no way to verify or falsify that idea that "space"(however that is defined) can expand and thereby "resemble" acceleration. "Dark energy" may be better "quantified", but it is an unqualified solution, and an unfalsifiable solution to the observation of acceleration.


                                                                                                                                        Yup, I follow you there. See as above. One thing harder than hidden assumptions, is hidden circular arguments. This can of course depend upon the precision of language and care with definitions too. Try this : Galileo/Newton give inertia as a material property with frames defining forces as those influences which cause deviations from straight lines. Einstein gives straight lines devolving to those paths which light travels along ( SR or GR ). Now in cosmology a frequently used yardstick is 'co-moving distance', with a factor/ratio that scales 'real' distances to some co-ordinate system choice. But hang on, haven't we used some light ( path/speed ) type simultaneity program to lay out a grid in space to quantify our measurements? This *empirical* frame can't be BOTH the 'real distance' AND the co-ordinate frame! So choose it as representing one of them, and you will then leave the other as a pure abstraction. Expansion of space then is one-half mathematics only. The trouble is an old unresolved chestnut which is whether 'space' is defined by 'matter' or vice-versa. Yes GR connects the two but avoids nailing either. Similiarly Mach worried the hell out of the 'inertia' bit - see Newton's pail of water - and 'modern' resolution seems to involve the as yet unseen Higgs particle....

                                                                                                                                        Likewise when someone mentions 'magnetic reconnection' I can't help but wonder if they've ever read any of Alfven's work, and whether they have really even attempted to demonstrate this idea in a lab? Magnetic fields not make and break connections in Maxwell's formulas. Only current flows can do that.


                                                                                                                                        I've never understood the term 'magnetic reconnection'. :-(

                                                                                                                                        Well, Birkeland did manage to create a "mini sun", or at least mimicked most of the obvious external behaviors of a sun, including those "magnetic ropes" we observed in THEMIS data. To my knowledge no one has ever created a sustained fusion reaction in hydrogen plasma, and I suspect if they ever do create a sustained fusion reaction it will involve the flow of a stable current through partially ionized plasma. What then is the value of Birkeland's electrical solar theories vs a standard solar theory? How do we objectively decide which theory is a better reflection of reality? My personal method of make such a choice came down to satellite data, heliosiesmology data and chemistry data.


                                                                                                                                        Please don't forget all the min-suns that the particle physicists make as they do have relevance to plasmas. Have you read any of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books? If not, I implore you to do so, I reckon you'll love what goes on on in the High Energy Magic building. :-)

                                                                                                                                        Hmmmm. I would actually have to say (admit) that string theories seem well quantified to me, but the don't seem to very qualified when applied to particle physics, whereas I would say that EU theory is not very well quantified, but extremely well qualified in terms of laboratory experimentation and plasma physics.


                                                                                                                                        String theory currently has an embarrassment of riches, with no principle(s) to trim down the flock. There's a wide panoply of variants for those little curled up dimensions, the Calabi-Yau spaces. Their behaviour ( in theory ) gives our forces and fields in detail. Quantity yes, precision no.

                                                                                                                                        Thanks for having me Mike. I appreciate it. Cheers to you as well, and happy new year to everyone.


                                                                                                                                        Thanks indeed, so far the year is going well! :-)

                                                                                                                                        Cheers, Mike.

                                                                                                                                        ____________
                                                                                                                                        "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short." - Blaise Pascal

                                                                                                                                        Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                        Send message
                                                                                                                                        Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                        Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                        Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                        RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                        Message 79027 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 7:45:17 UTC - in response to Message 79016.

                                                                                                                                          Michael, there are excellent records by what we might call 'Chinese astronomers' or 'Chinese observers' which clearly indicate that they 'knew' there was a solar wind (they concluded this from the appearance of comets).

                                                                                                                                          And these records pre-date Birkeland, Maxwell, and (IIRC) Newton.

                                                                                                                                          Should we conclude that they, not Birkeland, were first to correctly describe the nature of the IPM?


                                                                                                                                          Sure, why not? Birkeland still would have been the first individual to describe the nature of the "solar wind".

                                                                                                                                          As I said in my previous post, you seem to be employing a logical fallacy called 'false dichotomy' ... the fact that Birkeland got some things (very) right does not preclude him having got some things (very) wrong.


                                                                                                                                          I'm not suggesting he got everything right, I'm only suggesting that he got *a lot* of things right. He understood the explicit and intimate physical relationship between observations of "structures" (like planetary rings) and electrical activity. I would personally suggest that he got more things right about astronomy than you have, even with your 100 years of 20/20 hindsight and advanced technologies. At least he acknowledge the electrical nature of spacetime, and he experimented with variable to begin to understand how it worked. I can't even get you to read Alfven's book yet, even after 2 years of yacking at you at cyberspace.

                                                                                                                                          And the nature of the IPM, and the specifics of how the mechanisms by which electrons give rise to aurorae, and ... are among those which Birkeland got wrong (as Peratt said).


                                                                                                                                          Unless I missed something, the only thing he got wrong is that he oversimplified the model a bit. That's not surprising since he was winging the whole theory, without the benefit of modern satellite technologies like THEMIS.

                                                                                                                                          From your comment, I would guess that your source is a NASA Press Release, and not the preprint(s)* associated with the team's work. In any case, how about we look at the actual paper(s)? I suspect a cool-headed comparison between the observational results presented there and what Birkeland wrote will show a more nuanced correspondence than your dramatic summary.


                                                                                                                                          That's sounds fine by me. How about starting with a physical description of the energy release mechanisms that are unique to magnetic reconnection so that we can compare that to ordinary electrical interactions in plasma.

                                                                                                                                          And of course you are entitled to your opinion, just as all of us are.

                                                                                                                                          However, no matter what the details are of Birkeland's observations, the contemporary understanding of the magnetosphere and the IPM rests far more on the GB of in situ data from space missions (note too that those who study these are called 'space scientists', not 'astronomers', to reflect the huge difference between remote observations based solely on the detection of photons and data from in situ instruments).


                                                                                                                                          Sure Nereid, but he didn't have access to that kind of data now did he? If he had, he could probably put both of us to shame in his explanations of what we're actually observing in these high tech images and he could show us the relationships to his laboratory tests.

                                                                                                                                          We acknowledge Birkeland's fine pioneering work, in writing the history of this field of science, and return to getting on with making progress ...


                                                                                                                                          Return to what? Dark matter? Dark energy? Inflation? Magnetic reconnection? How did those ideas *ever* get published without any laboratory testing done to demonstrate they actually exist and have some unique effect on nature?

                                                                                                                                          by designing new missions, collecting more data, testing and refining (tweaking) hypotheses, etc.


                                                                                                                                          Shouldn't we be trying to refine *his* model, *his* tests and *his* hypothesis?

                                                                                                                                          Nitpick: most of that work was done, up to centuries before, by many others ... leading to the classical unification (Maxwell's equations).


                                                                                                                                          I think your criticism is irrelevant. He applied these equations to objects in space and showed how the directly related to observations from space.

                                                                                                                                          [quote[and how the electromagnetic forces of nature affect bodies in space.

                                                                                                                                          I think you are confusing effort with results ...


                                                                                                                                          No, I think you are confusing mathematical theories with reality and scientific tests of reality.

                                                                                                                                          thousands and thousands of scientists have done just as much "sweat equity science", only to find many of the conclusions they drew from their data overturned - even in their own working lifetimes.


                                                                                                                                          I'm sure that's true. I'm sure Birkeland knew that this was true which is why he constructed these experiments in the first place. He wanted to make sure his ideas worked in a lab before developing a whole mathematical theory about it.

                                                                                                                                          You are not acknowledging the difference in sweat equity science that was done by Birkeland to test his theories, vs. the kinds of things done to support inflation, or dark energy which are based upon theoretical projections upon simple observations without any benefit of a control mechanism.

                                                                                                                                          But Michael, the universe doesn't do batting averages, nor keep track, nor even care ...


                                                                                                                                          It doesn't care about math either. It does it's thing in it's own way, irrespective of what mathematical presentations we make on paper. Magnetic reconnection might look mathematically beautiful and elegant on paper, but it doesn't work in the lab! That's why the say "one test is worth a thousand expert opinions." It was Alfven's opinion (after a lot of lab work) that magnetic reconnection theories were nonsense. Today they've been resurrected in mathematical models. How do we decide who is right and who is wrong? We do to a lab and and we test the theories. Since you can't even define the physical (atomic) energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" there isn't even a method to test your theory in any controlled test of the concept. The whole thing is paper (mathematical) mythology.

                                                                                                                                          And that's just my point ... whatever Einstein embraced, or didn't embrace, is now pretty much irrelevant; the primary test of any hypothesis is how well it accounts for good, reliable observations and experimental results (preferably independently verified, like the resolution of the EPR paradox).


                                                                                                                                          Well, like I said, I've seen many folks claim to be smarter than Einstein (Lambda proponents) and yet they can't produce any empirical evidence that "dark energy" has any effect on matter or space or spacetime or anything in a controlled scientific test.

                                                                                                                                          Likewise I've seen plenty of folks claim to know more about MHD theory than Alfven, but I've never seen any of them demonstrate this point in a laboratory experiment. Talk is cheap. Science requires sweat equity science like Birkeland did, not more elegant math formulas. Someone has to role up their sleeves and get their hands dirty to find out if "magnetic reconnection" is actually taking place in plasma in a controlled test before pointing to plasma in sky and claiming "magneticreconnnectiondidiit". Every time I read a paper on some proposed citing of magnetic reconnection in space, it has twisted filaments and obvious electrical aspects. There is no such thing as magnetic reconnection which is why Alfven crusaded against the idea and nobody has ever described the physical energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection". It's a paper concept based on math, not a real thing that exists in reality.

                                                                                                                                          Or do you think we should stick with Einstein's views, no matter what the data says?


                                                                                                                                          I think we should not be stuffing metaphysics related to acceleration into a theory about the gravitational attraction of mass to other forms of mass without first demonstrating that they are in any way related to Einstein's concept of gravity.

                                                                                                                                          The last drink I had is starting to kick in now, so I think I'll stop here. The point here is that scientific experimentation is the only way to determine if ideas have merit or they do not. You can't tell how many pixies fit on the head of pin via a mathematical presentation. Likewise you can't tell how much energy "magnetic reconnection" can account for until you show that it can do something in a lab, and you can show what that "something" is. Astronomers today have a very bad habit of stuffing metaphysical concepts into an otherwise perfectly good mathematical model. The problem with that approach is that one cannot ever know if the metaphysical entity has any effect on nature based only on a math formula. To know whether there is a unique energy release mechanism (that also defies the laws of physics) called "magnetic reconnection", one has to identify the unique feature of magnetic reconnection and show that it is uniquely different from ordinary electrical reconnection.

                                                                                                                                          The other key issue is addressed in detail by Don Scott in that link I provided. He is an electrical engineer and as such, he is familiar with Maxwell's equations and how they are applied to physics here on Earth. In no way do Maxwell's equations, or MHD theory support the idea that magnetic connections make and break contact like electrical circuits. In fact we know that they do not make and break connections like electrical circuits, but rather they form full a continuum. They are not open ended either. The whole basis for promoting "magnetic reconnection' theory is because the mainstream is allergic to the words "current flow" when it comes to plasma. There is no scientific basis for magnetic reconnection theory. It's just another example of the pure metaphysics that is promoted by astronomers that has never been tested and confirmed in a lab. Birkeland confirmed that his ideas worked in a lab before he ever took up paper to write down a mathematical theory to explain what he observed. Nobody ever did that with magnetic reconnection, dark energy, non baryionic dark matter, or inflation. All these things are metaphysical constructs that lack qualitative support.
                                                                                                                                          ____________
                                                                                                                                          It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                          Nereid
                                                                                                                                          Send message
                                                                                                                                          Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                          Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                          Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                          RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                          Message 79030 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 12:37:04 UTC - in response to Message 79027.


                                                                                                                                            And the nature of the IPM, and the specifics of how the mechanisms by which electrons give rise to aurorae, and ... are among those which Birkeland got wrong (as Peratt said).

                                                                                                                                            [snip]


                                                                                                                                            Unless I missed something, the only thing he got wrong is that he oversimplified the model a bit. That's not surprising since he was winging the whole theory, without the benefit of modern satellite technologies like THEMIS.


                                                                                                                                            From reading a bit more of the 994 pages, my impression is, increasingly, that Peratt was rather kind to Birkeland, in regard to his actual achievements.

                                                                                                                                            This part is particularly good: "Birkeland could see that bunches of electrons curved down and toward the Earth's poles. While the actual process is somewhat more complicated than he envisioned [...] his results were surprisingly good."

                                                                                                                                            However, re the IPM, he got a great deal wrong - relativistic electrons, the role of the ions (mostly protons), coronium, (and geocoronium!), and most of the actual plasma mechanisms, to name just a few.

                                                                                                                                            Further, it seems by so aggressively extrapolating from his lab results, he came up with a whole lot of things that are even more wrong - the nature of planetary rings (Saturn's were the only ones known at the time), the formation of the solar system ("the origin of the worlds"), ... and how the Sun shines.

                                                                                                                                            All the more reason to not put him on a pedestal.


                                                                                                                                            We acknowledge Birkeland's fine pioneering work, in writing the history of this field of science, and return to getting on with making progress ...


                                                                                                                                            Return to what? Dark matter? Dark energy? Inflation? Magnetic reconnection? How did those ideas *ever* get published without any laboratory testing done to demonstrate they actually exist and have some unique effect on nature?


                                                                                                                                            I don't follow this at all ... as far as I know, no one has proposed that dark energy, dark matter, inflation, or magnetic reconnection play any role in how the Sun shines (if you do know of any such proposals, would you mind referencing them?)

                                                                                                                                            The point I was making is that, no matter how fantastic the scientific work Birkeland did, the tools and techniques that have been developed since he died should be used, and that the construction and testing of hypotheses and theories (both old and new) is how we make progress. After all, this is what he himself did!

                                                                                                                                            by designing new missions, collecting more data, testing and refining (tweaking) hypotheses, etc.


                                                                                                                                            Shouldn't we be trying to refine *his* model, *his* tests and *his* hypothesis?

                                                                                                                                            [snip]


                                                                                                                                            I don't think so ... as Peratt noted, there's too much that he got wrong - his models and hypotheses have mostly been tested, found wanting, tweaked, refined, etc; his tests are now of secondary importance to the in situ data (though I think you'll see, from the KTH website, that lab capabilities have advanced far beyond Birkeland's, and are, of course, used to test contemporary models).


                                                                                                                                            thousands and thousands of scientists have done just as much "sweat equity science", only to find many of the conclusions they drew from their data overturned - even in their own working lifetimes.


                                                                                                                                            I'm sure that's true. I'm sure Birkeland knew that this was true which is why he constructed these experiments in the first place. He wanted to make sure his ideas worked in a lab before developing a whole mathematical theory about it.

                                                                                                                                            You are not acknowledging the difference in sweat equity science that was done by Birkeland to test his theories, vs. the kinds of things done to support inflation, or dark energy which are based upon theoretical projections upon simple observations without any benefit of a control mechanism.

                                                                                                                                            [snip]


                                                                                                                                            Again, aren't we discussing how the Sun shines?

                                                                                                                                            Nereid
                                                                                                                                            Send message
                                                                                                                                            Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                            Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                            Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                            RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                            Message 79031 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 12:59:13 UTC - in response to Message 79025.

                                                                                                                                              That "magnetic rope" that NASA found "in situ" using THEMIS ...


                                                                                                                                              Definition of terms is important when it comes to science. Let's look at how a "magnetic rope" is defined in MHD theory according to the creator of that theory. From his book "Cosmic Plasma":

                                                                                                                                              However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities.


                                                                                                                                              A magnetic rope is a *current carrying* device that he specifically describes as a "Bennett pinch". That is how the creator of MHD theory defines a "magnetic rope".
                                                                                                                                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett_pinch
                                                                                                                                              A pinch is the compression of an electrically conducting filament by magnetic forces.



                                                                                                                                              Indeed ... and so the best way to determine the extent to which the THEMIS data is consistent with Alfvén's definition is to read the AGU presentation, and, if necessary, download the raw data and perform our own analyses.

                                                                                                                                              But in any case, I think we can agree that press releases should not be used.

                                                                                                                                              Recent observations by the Cluster spacecraft have established the occurrence of magnetic reconnection in the magnetosheath. It was shown that reconnection occurs due to the interaction of a thick tangential discontinuity, with northward IMF at its leading edge and southward IMF at the trailing edge, with the bow shock. This interaction involves compression of the discontinuity by the bow shock to a thickness of about 10 ion skin depth. In this study, we use 2.5-dimensional global hybrid (kinetic ions, fluid electrons) simulations to show that the interaction of a thick tangential/rotational discontinuity with the bow shock leads to its compression and eventual onset of reconnection in the magnetosheath. The observed and simulated thickness of the discontinuity as well as reconnection rates and plasma and field signatures compare favorably. The reconnection in the simulation is quasi-steady with minimal level of island formation. These results are also compared to simulations with thinner discontinuities and different internal structures (e.g. polarization) which show highly time-dependent behavior with magnetic islands forming and evolving on varying scales. Implication of these results regarding steady state and time dependent reconnection is discussed. In addition, global scale consequences of this interaction and transformation of the magnetopause from northward to southward IMF is discussed.


                                                                                                                                              There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection". Let me quote Hannes Alfven himself from his book Cosmic Plasma:

                                                                                                                                              Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of 'magnetic merging' or of 'magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration. In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).

                                                                                                                                              Page 33, Chapter 2


                                                                                                                                              http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

                                                                                                                                              Alfven:

                                                                                                                                              “Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer. The most important criticism of the merging mechanism is that by Heikkila [21], who, with increasing strength, has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed, at the same time, an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept.

                                                                                                                                              I was naïve enough to believe that [magnetic recombination] would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred: ‘merging’ . . . seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group.?


                                                                                                                                              Pace Michael, it seems 'magnetic reconnection' is not only part of modern space science, but is being studied in situ (and quantitatively).


                                                                                                                                              It is pseudoscience according to the author of MHD theory. If you believe Alfven to be in error, perhaps you could explain the physical energy release process for us at a plasma physics level? What is the unique energy release process of "magnetic reconnection" that can be distinguished from ordinary electrical interactions in plasma? Don't tell me that this idea hasn't been lab tested and lab isolated like so many other parts of astronomy theory. This idea most certainly *can* be tested and isolated if in fact there is any such thing as "magnetic reconnection". All of Maxwell's equations treat magnetic fields as a full continuum, they don't make and break connections like an electrical circuit.


                                                                                                                                              Hmm ... perhaps you're putting Alfvén on a pedestal? Shouldn't we let actual lab experiments and in situ observations trump his theory (in the spirit of Birkeland)?

                                                                                                                                              Maybe a trip to the Alfvén Laboratory in Sweden might help ...
                                                                                                                                              MSc Thesis Project: Influence of ion mass on plasma penetration across magnetic barriers
                                                                                                                                              Different mechanisms, like impulsive penetration and magnetic reconnection, have in the past few decades been suggested as possible means for the shocked solar wind plasma in the magnetosheath to enter the magnetosphere. Recent measurements from the Cluster spacecraft have shown that plasma indeed does penetrate the magnetopause. At KTH a series of experiments have been performed using a plasma gun that shoots a plasma at a transverse magnetic field. The plasma penetrates the barrier and enters the transverse field region. While doing so it generates waves in the lower hybrid frequency range.
                                                                                                                                              Waves at lower hybrid frequencies have also been measured on the inside of the magnetopause by the Cluster spacecraft.

                                                                                                                                              The objective of this project is to study how the ion gyro radius affects the experimental results. The plasma gun that was used in the experiments at KTH has been moved to West Virginia University where, at present, it is being reassembled and and modernised. The experimentalist is expected to make characterising measurements of the penetration across the magnetic barrier for plasmas with different ion species. The different species have different mass, and hence the ion gyro radius will differ. In this way the influence of the ion gyro radius on the penetration process can be assessed.

                                                                                                                                              The project is carried out at West Virginia University (WVU) in the USA.

                                                                                                                                              Research leader and scientific advisor at WVU is Dr. Herbert Gunell.
                                                                                                                                              (source)

                                                                                                                                              Nereid
                                                                                                                                              Send message
                                                                                                                                              Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                              Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                              Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                              RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                              Message 79033 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 13:19:53 UTC

                                                                                                                                                I'm curious about one thing Michael, are you the same Michael Mozina who is listed as an author of the arXiv preprint, Isotopes Tell Origin and Operation of the Sun?

                                                                                                                                                If so, in light of your posts in this thread, would you mind providing references for the Birkeland-like lab work done on the process which the paper states "generates > 57% of solar luminosity", namely "neutron emission from the [collapsed supernova] solar core, <n> -> n + ~10-22 MeV"?

                                                                                                                                                Also, I recall reading a later paper, perhaps with a Michael Mozina as an author, that presents an idea concerning the fragmentation of a (super massive) neutron star, created by a supernova, to many smaller neutron stars, which become the cores of Sun-like stars.

                                                                                                                                                If so, would you mind providing references for the Birkeland-like lab work done on this neutron star fragmentation process?

                                                                                                                                                Nereid
                                                                                                                                                Send message
                                                                                                                                                Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                                Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                                Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                                RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                Message 79036 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 15:59:50 UTC - in response to Message 79021.

                                                                                                                                                  (my bold)

                                                                                                                                                  Unless you can explain to me why I would not expect to observe neutrino emissions from the high energy events in the solar atmosphere, I see no reason to believe that they do not occur there, or that I would not see surface related "hits" from such events. Lots of different kinds of high energy cosmic ray interactions might release neutrinos in the upper atmosphere of the sun. I could almost be logically certain to observe more than just a single point source of neutrinos from the sun's core.

                                                                                                                                                  Alas Michael, and I say this with genuine respect and kindness, the history of science is littered with faux pas based upon arguments of personal credulity. Unless your wording here is a mere literary device, that type of approach is not generally considered a convincing route to better definition of the physical world.


                                                                                                                                                  Well, I certainly respect the fact that my opinion is simply a logical and educated "guess" based on known physical processes (gamma rays) and their emission patterns (neutrinos). This "guess" lacks mathematical expression at this point in time so in the sense that it's not mathematically expressed, I'm sure it's not a particularly compelling argument to you right now.

                                                                                                                                                  I personally think that one of the most difficult aspects of EU theory in a general sense is that it is extremely difficult to quantify. In many respects it is far more "complicated" than standard theory, and therefore it's harder to quantify EU theory in robust mathematical terms. I think that is why I get particularly dismayed when people like Nereid handwave away some of the best mathematical efforts to quantify EU theory.

                                                                                                                                                  While all theories have some type of mental model within, the main virtue of their inner intellectual mechanics is to construct a framework for *quantitative* prediction.


                                                                                                                                                  I hear you on this point loud and clear. That seems to be the whole intent behind Birkeland's work in fact. He experimented with a lot of different variables so that he could begin to quantify the processes and begin to quantify the amount of "flying electric ions" and electrons in his experiments so that he could begin to "predict" what that might equate to at large scales.

                                                                                                                                                  A terrific example is Tycho Brahe who was one of the first to suggest and enact our 'modern' program - to measure some phenomena to the best accuracy available, in order to then present a body of data as a benchmark for comparison of any candidate models that are presented as purporting to explain said phenomena.


                                                                                                                                                  Well, that is why I so profoundly appreciate the THEMIS program and other programs like it that attempt to quantify these electrical flow patterns. IMO that is the most important type of work that can be done to begin to quantify the electron flows within the plasmas of spacetime. The more we can learn about our own solar system, the more likely we will be able to predict the behaviors of other solar systems and other objects in space.

                                                                                                                                                  [snip]



                                                                                                                                                  One of the THEMIS-related presentations at the AGU meeting is OpenGGCM Simulation of the March 23, 2007 Substorm Observed by THEMIS:
                                                                                                                                                  On March 23, 2007 the 5 THEMIS spacecraft observed the onset of a substorm while located in the dusk flank of the magnetoshere. The substorm was also observed in ground-based data and in Polar UVI images. Using Wind data to drive the OpenGGCM we conducted a simulation study of this substorm. The simulation clearly shows the substorm characteristics, such as the current wedge and expansion of the aurora. In this paper we compare the OpenGGCM simulation with observations, address the magnetic mapping between THEMIS and the auroral features, and investigate whether this substorm was triggered by a sharp northward turn of the IMF.


                                                                                                                                                  What is "OpenGGCM"?

                                                                                                                                                  The Open Geospace General Circulation Model is:
                                                                                                                                                  The centerpiece of the NSF/GEM, program is the development of a Geospace General Circulation Model (GGCM), to be used as a research tool as well as a prototype for space weather forecasting models.

                                                                                                                                                  It was originally envisioned that the assembly of a GGCM would take place near the end of the GEM program, and that this GGCM would codify the progress that had been made during the GEM campaigns. However, in the late 90's it has become clear that such an approach may not be feasable. First of all, there are several possible approaches for constructing a GGCM, ranging from a strictly modular approach in which several regional models are coupled together, to approaches that builds on existing global MHD models. Second, no one model will fit all needs. What is required is rather a hierarchy of models of different sophistication and strengths. Third, and perhaps most important, the existing global MHD based models have improved dramatically such that they have become close to the envisioned GGCM. These developments have lead to the current three-phase plan for the GGCM implementation, which at this point abandons the idea of a grand unified GGCM in favor of a more flexible strategy that allows the parallel development of different approaches to a GGCM. These developments are documented in more detail in the GGCM Status Report.

                                                                                                                                                  The OpenGGCM is derived from the "UCLA Global MHD Model", originally developed by Jimmy Raeder at UCLA, and the NOAA/SEC CTIM (Coupled Thermosphere Ionosphere Model), originally developed by Tim Fuller-Rowell (while some of its components have a much longer heritage.) The OpenGGCM is now housed at the Space Science Center of the University of New Hampshire. It is considered a "Community Model." Potential users can request model runs from the Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC) at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. The latest version is V3.0.


                                                                                                                                                  Are you familiar with this, Michael?

                                                                                                                                                  It would seem that it aims to model the observable behaviour of the Earth's magnetosphere - just what Birkeland set out to do* - based on contemporary plasma physics (which, of course, owes much to Alfvén and MHD, but also extends it, to take account of discoveries and developments after Alfvén ceased his scientific career).

                                                                                                                                                  Its outputs are:
                                                                                                                                                  1. Magnetosphere: 3d fields of magnetic field, electric field, plasma density, flow velocity vector, and temperature or pressure. 2D fileds of the same quantities at prescribed planes (this allows for much higher cadence).
                                                                                                                                                  2. Ionosphere: Filed aligned currents, potential, Hall and Pedersen conductane, e- precipitation energy flux and mean energy.
                                                                                                                                                  3. Ground: magnetic peerturbations at mid- and high latitudes.
                                                                                                                                                  4. CTIM: 3D fields of various e-, ion, and neutral parameters: Ne, NfM2, hFm2, winds, ion/neutral temperature, N/O ratio, etc.


                                                                                                                                                  There's a paper by Ping Zhu on that website that you might find particularly interesting Michael ("Multiscale MHD Modelings of Substorm Onset in Earth's Magnetotail").

                                                                                                                                                  Would you mind taking a look at some of this material (including the code, if you're interested; it's open source), and commenting on the extent to which you feel it incorporates the 'right' parts of Birkeland's work? Also, if you feel any of the underlying physics is not 'qualified', would you mind outlining what, and why you feel it isn't?

                                                                                                                                                  * though, of course, he didn't know anything about the distinction between the magnetosphere and the IPM; nonetheless, all the astronomical and geophysical observables he sought to explain and model relate directly to the magnetosphere (except for visual waveband observations of the Sun, including the corona)

                                                                                                                                                  Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                                  Send message
                                                                                                                                                  Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                                  Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                                  Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                                  RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                  Message 79041 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 20:13:44 UTC - in response to Message 79031.

                                                                                                                                                    Last modified: 5 Jan 2008 20:19:07 UTC

                                                                                                                                                    Indeed ... and so the best way to determine the extent to which the THEMIS data is consistent with Alfvén's definition is to read the AGU presentation, and, if necessary, download the raw data and perform our own analyses.


                                                                                                                                                    Ok, but you missed a step as it relates to "magnetic reconnection". This is what concerns me about "modern" astronomers. They seem to think that they can derive information about the forces of nature from *uncontrolled* observations. That is *not* how science works. If one intends to show that there is a unique energy release mechanism called "magnetic reconnection", one must demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" is a unique form of energy release that is not related to electrical current flows that "reconnect" inside plasma. The only way one could do that is in a lab using *control mechanisms". *If* one can demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" isn't a figment of collective imagination, *then* one can look at the THEMIS data and try to do some comparisons of the THEMIS data between Alfven's ideas, and your new lab measurements of "magnetic reconnection". Simply pointing to an uncontrolled observation will not demonstrate that validity of any theory, not Alfven's theories, or your own. Simply pointing to the observation and claiming it is consistent with "magnetic reconnection" is absurd, because no one can even explain what is unique about "magnetic reconnection" in the first place, and the author of MHD theory called the idea nonsense. More importantly, magnetic fields have been studied in a lab over and over again, and they never "reconnection" in any controlled test on earth.

                                                                                                                                                    Hmm ... perhaps you're putting Alfvén on a pedestal? Shouldn't we let actual lab experiments and in situ observations trump his theory (in the spirit of Birkeland)?


                                                                                                                                                    First of all, when one is attempting to learn about a theory, in this case MHD theory, the Nobel prize winning author of the that theory is typically a good source and a reliable source of information. Obviously anyone *can* be wrong, but before we *assume* Alfven was wrong about magnetic reconnection, show me a controlled lab test that demonstrates "magnetic reconnection". In situ measurements won't tell us anything about the nature of "magnetic reconnection", but lab tests might. Maybe you're not giving Alfven enough credit?

                                                                                                                                                    If and when you come up with an physical (not metaphysical) explanation of the energy release in plasma that is unique to "magnetic reconnection", and you can identify and isolate what is different from magnetic reconnection and ordinary electrical interactions in plasma, and you can demonstrate that magnetic reconnection is responsible for some types of energy release *and* you can demonstrate that unique energy release signature is present in uncontrolled observations, *then* you can claim "magneticreconnectiondidiit". Without the lab work, it's pointless to point to an uncontrolled observation and claim "mynifitymathforumuladidiit".

                                                                                                                                                    Maybe a trip to the Alfvén Laboratory in Sweden might help ...


                                                                                                                                                    So what did they decide was the unique energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" that is uniquely and observationally different from ordinary electrical interactions in plasma?

                                                                                                                                                    MSc Thesis Project: Influence of ion mass on plasma penetration across magnetic barriers


                                                                                                                                                    You mean like using electricity to shoot charged particles at double layers? Ever heard of induction Nereid?

                                                                                                                                                    Different mechanisms, like impulsive penetration


                                                                                                                                                    That would simply be an induction event as far as I can tell.

                                                                                                                                                    and magnetic reconnection,


                                                                                                                                                    What is magnetic reconnection? Describe it physically for us at an atomic physics level. What is the unique energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection"?

                                                                                                                                                    have in the past few decades been suggested as possible means for the shocked solar wind plasma in the magnetosheath to enter the magnetosphere. Recent measurements from the Cluster spacecraft have shown that plasma indeed does penetrate the magnetopause.


                                                                                                                                                    In other words, charged particles come streaming off the sun and pass through the Earth's series of current carrying double layers? How is that at all consistent with "magnetic reconnection"?

                                                                                                                                                    At KTH a series of experiments have been performed using a plasma gun that shoots a plasma at a transverse magnetic field.


                                                                                                                                                    A plasma gun? That uses *lots* of electricity to fire charged ions. How is that an example of "magnetic reconnection" as an energy source for these events?
                                                                                                                                                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gun
                                                                                                                                                    The [b]charged bank of electrical capacitors (also called a Marx bank or Marx generator) is switched onto the anode.[b] The gas breaks down. [b]A rapidly rising electric current flows across the backwall electrical insulator,[b] axisymmetrically, as depicted by the path (labeled 1) as shown in the Fig 1. The axisymmetric sheath of plasma current lifts off the insulator [b]due to the interaction of the current with its own magnetic field (J×B force).[b] The plasma sheath is accelerated axially, to position 2, and then to position 3, ending the axial phase of the device.

                                                                                                                                                    The whole process proceeds at many times the speed of sound in the ambient gas. As the current sheath continues to move axially, the portion in contact with the anode slides across the face of the anode, axisymmetrically. When the imploding front of the shock wave coalesces onto the axis, a reflected shock front emanates from the axis until it meets the driving current sheath which then forms the axisymmetric boundary of the 'pinched' or focused hot plasma column.


                                                                                                                                                    Notice the way it works Nereid? It uses *electricity* to accelerate charged particles. That in no way lends any support to "magnetic reconnection" being a unique form of energy release.

                                                                                                                                                    The plasma penetrates the barrier and enters the transverse field region. While doing so it generates waves in the lower hybrid frequency range.
                                                                                                                                                    Waves at lower hybrid frequencies have also been measured on the inside of the magnetopause by the Cluster spacecraft.


                                                                                                                                                    That's called *induction". It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection". Both your transmission end *and* your receiving end of this energy transfer process involves the use of electricity to accelerate charged particles, and this kinetic movement is turned back into electrical current at the receiving end. How in the world can any such experiment by used to justify "magnetic reconnection" as any sort of unique energy release mechanism?

                                                                                                                                                    The objective of this project is to study how the ion gyro radius affects the experimental results. The plasma gun that was used in the experiments at KTH has been moved to West Virginia University where, at present, it is being reassembled and and modernised. The experimentalist is expected to make characterising measurements of the penetration across the magnetic barrier for plasmas with different ion species. The different species have different mass, and hence the ion gyro radius will differ. In this way the influence of the ion gyro radius on the penetration process can be assessed.


                                                                                                                                                    In other words, bigger atoms generate more electrical induction in the plasma at the receiving end. Big deal. This whole experimental approach does nothing at all to demonstrated "magnetic reconnection' is a unique form of energy transfer. Nothing about a plasma gun supports the idea that "magnetic reconnection" can accelerate ions, and nothing about induction in double layers supports "magnetic reconnection" as a unique form of energy. The whole thing is related to the use of electrical current to generate kinetic energy, which is then turned back into current at the receiving end, generating auroral currents in the Earth's atmosphere. In no possible way could this type of experiment ever be used to support "magnetic reconnection" as a unique form of energy transfer.

                                                                                                                                                    The project is carried out at West Virginia University (WVU) in the USA.


                                                                                                                                                    It sounds suspiciously like a political pork barrel spending program if you ask me.

                                                                                                                                                    Research leader and scientific advisor at WVU is Dr. Herbert Gunell.
                                                                                                                                                    (source)

                                                                                                                                                    [/quote]

                                                                                                                                                    Perhaps you could get Dr. Herbert Gunell to explain to us exactly which phase of this plasma gun energy transfer process represents a unique form of energy that is attributable to "magnetic reconnection"? I see absolutely nothing about this experimental idea that even remotely resembles a unique form of energy transfer. All I can see in this experiment is electrical current being used to accelerate charged particles and charged particles generating induction based electrical currents once the fast moving particles run into a stationary electromagnetic field at the other end. Nothing about this energy transfer process even remotely resembles a unique form of energy release, or energy transfer.
                                                                                                                                                    ____________
                                                                                                                                                    It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                                    Nereid
                                                                                                                                                    Send message
                                                                                                                                                    Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                                    Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                                    Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                                    RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                    Message 79044 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 21:44:48 UTC - in response to Message 79015.



                                                                                                                                                      Unless you can explain to me why I would not expect to observe neutrino emissions from the high energy events in the solar atmosphere, I see no reason to believe that they do not occur there, or that I would not see surface related "hits" from such events. Lots of different kinds of high energy cosmic ray interactions might release neutrinos in the upper atmosphere of the sun. I could almost be logically certain to observe more than just a single point source of neutrinos from the sun's core.


                                                                                                                                                      Alas Michael, and I say this with genuine respect and kindness, the history of science is littered with faux pas based upon arguments of personal credulity. Unless your wording here is a mere literary device, that type of approach is not generally considered a convincing route to better definition of the physical world.

                                                                                                                                                      While all theories have some type of mental model within, the main virtue of their inner intellectual mechanics is to construct a framework for *quantitative* prediction. A terrific example is Tycho Brahe who was one of the first to suggest and enact our 'modern' program - to measure some phenomena to the best accuracy available, in order to then present a body of data as a benchmark for comparison of any candidate models that are presented as purporting to explain said phenomena.

                                                                                                                                                      A large slab of both theoretical and observational effort is devoted to 'radii of variation' - for measurement we call this observational error ( various categories ), and similiarly for theory. But data has prime place, as it is the razor that slices off any errant models that lie outside the radius. So if newer concepts are to displace any currently well performing ones ( that are within the radius ), they have the burden ( under this modern program ) of equalling or bettering any incumbents. To me it appears that the criticism of EU ( and not of yourself as a person ) in this thread seems to relate to whether it compares favourably to existing quantitative knowledge. I don't know if EU does or does not, I'm just pointing out that there may be differing assumptions hereabouts as to what is a valid standard of proof to judge that.

                                                                                                                                                      It can be quite amazing what turns up sometimes:

                                                                                                                                                      Feynman's path integral method, a very exacting calculational machine in quantum electrodynamics ( & later generalised ) specifies that all possible alternate ( but unseen ) event sequences are summated. The result are probabilities, including a normalised denominator - a non-trivial exercise of itself. That then leads to very exact testable quantitative predictions. The measurement of the electron's magnetic moment ( ratio of it's dipole strength to angular momentum ) disagreed with the QED number only after the ninth decimal place! This is despite that we really have no everday gut-feeling clue as to what it really means by all possible alternates summating. ( Note that the integral is of the behaviour of virtual particles ie. 'existing' only to suit the model ). But an arrow that accurate is going to be kept however weird it seems.

                                                                                                                                                      [snip]


                                                                                                                                                      Your comment MikeH may be juxtaposed with this, from one of Michael's posts:


                                                                                                                                                      It [the universe] doesn't care about math either. It does it's thing in it's own way, irrespective of what mathematical presentations we make on paper.


                                                                                                                                                      While rather heavy, Quantum Theory and Relativity, by Arthur Jaffe, a recent review, struck me as highly pertinent (the link is to a PDF).

                                                                                                                                                      In particular, re the electron's magnetic moment:


                                                                                                                                                      This non-linear field theory gave rise to rules of calculation in perturbation theory. One computed that the electromagnetic field interacted with and modified the magnetic moment of the electron. In 1947 Kusch, working at Columbia University, measured the change in the magnetic moment. It agreed precisely with the calculated effect that is first-order in the square of the electric
                                                                                                                                                      charge, namely

                                                                                                                                                      μKusch = κμDirac , where κ = 1.001 . (II.3)

                                                                                                                                                      This tiny increase of only 0.1 percent compared with the Dirac value could be measured, and ever since one puts great credence in quantum field theory.
                                                                                                                                                      Over the intervening years, the measurements of μ and other related quantities has been refined by many persons, especially Dehmelt and his student Gabrielse. Likewise the calculations have undergone enormous progress. In order to take the accuracy to terms proportional to e4, one required enormous computer power just to simplify the algebra required to multiply 4 × 4 matrices and calculate the relevant traces, much less compute the many integrals of rational functions Feynman diagrams). A great expert who carried out much of the theoretical work is T. Kinoshita.

                                                                                                                                                      On this 60th-anniversary of the 1947 measurement, one can test the value of μ to unbelievable accuracy. The latest result, see [43, 15], cited by the American Institute of Physics as the “outstanding physics achievement of 2006,? gives

                                                                                                                                                      μ = κ60 μDirac , where κ60 = 1.001 159 652 180 85(±76) . (II.4)

                                                                                                                                                      The calculations and theory agree completely to this extent. And the accuracy of this test astounds the human mind.


                                                                                                                                                      (That's 12 decimal places MikeH, and no disagreement).

                                                                                                                                                      Then there's the General Theory of Relativity (GR).

                                                                                                                                                      What would Birkeland, let alone Newton or Archimedes, have made of (a loudspeaker, a dab of radioactive iron, a transparent crystal, and a tower) and (the brightening then fading of a completely unremarkable, if very faint, star, followed six years later by finding the star had become two stars, one red and one blue)? We need to assume that we could somehow explain everything in each bracket to all three ancient worthies, except for the tower and (for Birkeland) the loudspeaker*.

                                                                                                                                                      What possible connection could there be between these two sets of things?

                                                                                                                                                      The first sketches the famous Pound-Rebka experiment; the second the gravitational lensing of a Large Magellanic Cloud (blue) star by a 'local' red dwarf star. The connection between the two is GR - the first is a landmark terrestrial experimental verification of GR; the second an application of GR to estimate the mass of an isolated star.

                                                                                                                                                      Keep in mind that the only physical data we have to work with is some time-ordered outputs from some gadgets attached to telescopes; only our assumptions about the (mathematically expressed) relationship between 'reality' and (mathematically expressed) physics theories lets us blithely talk about 'detecting photons'.

                                                                                                                                                      The universe may not care about math ... but it sure seems to behave as if it does, to a mind-boggling degree.

                                                                                                                                                      * the techniques involved in obtaining even images of the star(s), let alone spectra, would be quite unknown to all, except for the 'Newtonian' telescope design!

                                                                                                                                                      Nereid
                                                                                                                                                      Send message
                                                                                                                                                      Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                                      Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                                      Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                                      RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                      Message 79046 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 22:20:37 UTC - in response to Message 79041.

                                                                                                                                                        Indeed ... and so the best way to determine the extent to which the THEMIS data is consistent with Alfvén's definition is to read the AGU presentation, and, if necessary, download the raw data and perform our own analyses.


                                                                                                                                                        Ok, but you missed a step as it relates to "magnetic reconnection". This is what concerns me about "modern" astronomers. They seem to think that they can derive information about the forces of nature from *uncontrolled* observations. That is *not* how science works. If one intends to show that there is a unique energy release mechanism called "magnetic reconnection", one must demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" is a unique form of energy release that is not related to electrical current flows that "reconnect" inside plasma. The only way one could do that is in a lab using *control mechanisms". *If* one can demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" isn't a figment of collective imagination, *then* one can look at the THEMIS data and try to do some comparisons of the THEMIS data between Alfven's ideas, and your new lab measurements of "magnetic reconnection". Simply pointing to an uncontrolled observation will not demonstrate that validity of any theory, not Alfven's theories, or your own. Simply pointing to the observation and claiming it is consistent with "magnetic reconnection" is absurd, because no one can even explain what is unique about "magnetic reconnection" in the first place, and the author of MHD theory called the idea nonsense. More importantly, magnetic fields have been studied in a lab over and over again, and they never "reconnection" in any controlled test on earth.

                                                                                                                                                        [snip]


                                                                                                                                                        It seems I have not done a good job of communicating what I meant; let me try again.

                                                                                                                                                        The 23 March, 2007 data from THEMIS seems to have been the trigger for the NASA PR, a link to which you posted on New Year's Day.

                                                                                                                                                        That PR uses the term "magnetic rope"; however, the abstract of what seems to be most pertinent AGU meeting presentation doesn't (perhaps the full presentation, and eventually the paper, will; sadly, we have neither available to us to check).

                                                                                                                                                        Neither PR nor the part of the AGU presentation abstract that refers to the 23 March event mentions 'magnetic reconnection'.

                                                                                                                                                        Is there a reason - good or not - why 'magnetic rope' is not mentioned in the abstract? Are the terms actually used ('substorms', 'a small storm', 'substorm sequences', 'particle injections and dipolarization signatures', 'Earthward flow pulse ahead of a predominantly duskward flow accompanied a strong field-aligned current pair signature', 'field aligned currents, arc and outflowing ions') merely extended descriptions of 'magnetic rope'? How do the terms actually used in the abstract relate to Alfvén's definition?

                                                                                                                                                        And so on.

                                                                                                                                                        To repeat: the part of my post that you are quoting does not mention 'magnetic reconnection', nor does the the NASA PR, nor does the part of the AGU abstract that refers to the 23 March event(s).

                                                                                                                                                        I trust that this clarifies what I said, and if you don't mind, I'd like to get back to discussing how the Sun shines.

                                                                                                                                                        To do that, perhaps you would be patient enough to walk through how the THEMIS data (and the POLAR data, and the FAST data) - as reported in the AGU meeting presentation (not the NASA PR) - is consistent with the 'EU theory' explanation/account of how the Sun shines?

                                                                                                                                                        Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                                        Send message
                                                                                                                                                        Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                                        Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                                        Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                                        RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                        Message 79048 - Posted 5 Jan 2008 22:42:46 UTC - in response to Message 79026.

                                                                                                                                                          Last modified: 5 Jan 2008 22:45:06 UTC

                                                                                                                                                          I guess there are levels of credulity depending on the stage/progress to date. I really wanted to find out whether you like the general sense of logical positivism or not. It isn't a panacea for all questions by any means, as some of the best ones are well outside it! But a scientific discussion with hidden and mixed assumptions can be a bit of a wally.... :-)


                                                                                                                                                          Agreed. I often think the same thing about "magnetic reconnection" theory. It seems to presume that magnetic fields of a massive magnitude can exist in extremely light plasma in the absence of current flow, and that magnetic fields have been shown to make and break connections. That seems like quite a wally to me. :)

                                                                                                                                                          Heck, while General Relativity can be summarised by a single tensor equation, solving it is another task again! I do get a bit annoyed when it's implicit depedencies ( aka horrible & non-linear ) are glossed over in describing it. The solutions which have given excellent fruit are in the weak field area ( Mercury's perihelion, Taylor-Hulse pulsar, 1919 eclipse .... ). It's a good start for sure, with no other serious competitor, but the numerical relativity groups are having a real wrestle with the close-in/high-mass scenarios.


                                                                                                                                                          I hear you. Life tends to be a lot more complicated than it seems at first glance.

                                                                                                                                                          Sounds like Edison, as he went through ~ 2000 materials in filament testing. I think one was grass! If I remember rightly he's the origin of the '1% inspiration, 99% perspiration' formula for genius. Personally I prefer the Woody Allen approach - '85% of success is just turning up' ! :-)


                                                                                                                                                          It seems to me that Birkeland certainly approached his experiments in the standard scientific manner, with a standard scientific intent. He obviously was trying to producing useful mathematical models that could be applied to real life observations using control mechanisms to see how different variable would affect his experiments. He was certainly interested in quantifying astronomical observations based on what he learned by tinkering with the control variables and then "guessing" at how them might apply to what he could observe in space. He seems like he was the quintessential scientist to me. Of course he didn't have the benefits of in situ measurements to then use to fine tune his theories, but he did try to quantify what he saw in space based on what he learned in his lab.

                                                                                                                                                          Now there's an important fork in the road. One often unstated assumption is that physical 'laws' hereabouts ( in space and time ) are sufficiently similiar to distant space/time rules. Not a bad assumption, indeed it is the simplest option to choose.


                                                                                                                                                          Well, we will have to make some assumptions along the way no matter which fork in the road we choose. It seems logical to assume that plasma physics here on Earth is not really different than plasma physics anywhere else. The basic premises of EU theory are derived from the basic properties of plasma. We all seem to expect to find plasma pretty much everywhere in spacetime. There are scaling aspects to plasma physical oriented theories (or any theory) that may not ever be "lab tested", but the basic principles of plasma cosmology come from the basic properties of plasma and how it behaves in controlled laboratory conditions. I'd have to say that's probably the best we can hope to do with any theory that attempts to define the behaviors of a universe that is mostly made of plasma. I agree that we will have to make some assumptions along the way, but I don't see any way of avoiding that particular pitfall no matter which forks we choose.

                                                                                                                                                          The dark matter issue began as an observation of only mildly reducing tangential velocities of stars with respect to the radial distance from galactic centres. The visible mass in the galaxy predicts a more Keplerian distribution. In our own solar system Newton/Kepler/Galileo give the radius-cubed/period-squared relation - and a more rapidly diminishing tangential velocity curve for those galaxies. The extreme version of the fork is: keep Newton et al but add dark matter, OR keep the observed mass but change gravity theory for that scale ( MOND ... ). ( GR is sufficiently close to Newton for these purposes here - weak field again ).


                                                                                                                                                          Yet there isn't really an obvious way to determine the validity of MOND theory vs. "dark matter" theory or EU theory based on only the movement patterns of a galaxies. The lensing aspects of these observations however does at least offer us another possible mechanism to distinguish between these various theories. Dark matter theories have been around as long as I can remember and were mentioned even when I was in college. MACHO types of DM theories seem quite viable to me personally, but I have never seen any empirical evidence that non baryonic forms of dark matter exist in nature, with the exception of neutrinos. Because we can empirically demonstrate that baryonic forms of mass, and neutrinos exist in nature, I can't really complain much when these ideas are put into a mathematical presentation. It's only when people start talking about WIMP and SUSY theory related particles that I tend to cry fowl. There is a need IMO to empirically demonstrate such forms of matter before trying to claim they have some effect on nature.

                                                                                                                                                          This idea seem very logical to me until someone begins to insert placeholder terms into the mathematics to "explain" particular observations. Then the placeholder terms become suspect, and the mathematics becomes even more suspect. If we observe the acceleration of objects like solar wind particle or galaxies, is it scientifically acceptable to chalk up this acceleration to something that cannot be demonstrated to exist in nature? What if there are other forces of nature that might this acceleration process in plasma? This is where the "quantification only" approach to science has broken down as it relates to astronomy and astronomy theory IMO. While the basic idea is a noble one, in practical application in astronomy it has been abused by metaphysical constructs that have crept into the mathematical models.


                                                                                                                                                          Yes, indeed. Point well made. Dark energy is such a place-holder. I saw another derivation of it a few weeks ago. I felt like asking what does a negative pressure in outer space really mean guys?


                                                                                                                                                          Exactly. That's exactly the right question IMO as well.

                                                                                                                                                          The term in the equation which represents it *analogises* to our everyday meaning for sure, but it's presence there flips the sign of a gravitational energy term and then ..... expand away Mr. Universe. I guess there's a phenomenology/numerology approach here, but it would help us lesser mortals who are eavesdropping if that type of thinking was highlighted as being such.


                                                                                                                                                          Now I'd feel a lot better if someone could show that "dark energy" actually exists and has some effect on nature in a controlled experiment. I an explain the acceleration of mostly plasma and iron objects with EM fields. I don't need any exotic forms of energy to explain why objects might accelerate. I can see how EM fields could "flip the sign" of the gravitational energy too. I just don't see any way to validate the notion that dark energy has anything at all to do with making objects expand or accelerate. It may look mathematically elegant, but without some empirical confirmation, it's difficult then to compare this metaphysical idea to any other idea in an objective manner.

                                                                                                                                                          Inflationary theory has a similiar feel. A superluminal exponential expansion of spacetime flattens metrics, and separates the universe into causally disconnected regions ( which are now coming back within horizons ) thus freezing in homogenous features that we see now in the CMB. A terrific bit of work but we could leave out the 'face of God' stuff when variations from uniformity only appear four magnitudes down!


                                                                                                                                                          My "beef" with inflation is exactly pretty much the same as it is for dark matter. It's never been shown to actually exist in nature, and no other scalar or vector field that is known to exist in nature acts like inflation. No other field will retain near constant density over several exponential increases in volume. It is therefore impossible for me to judge the validity of a theory that relies upon a truly "supernatural" concept. If we're leaving out the face of God ideas, then we should be leaving out all supernatural ideas IMO.

                                                                                                                                                          However careful spotters will note that we haven't got a pre-inflation comparison data set here, merely a set of deductions ( consistent, yes ) extrapolating backwards from ~ 300Kyrs post BB ( the CMB sphere ). Since we postulate both uniformity and opacity prior to that time does it really matter what the 'inflaton' particle was that slowly rolled off some potential field? It is not ( and theory says will not ) be now measurable outside of 'relic' data, as the energy scale is humungous compared to current levels.


                                                                                                                                                          Well, there's a more basic issue here to consider. While we can plot the basic concept of expansion backwards in time, we cannot be certain that all matter and all energy was ever collected to a "point". Finding even a "tiny relic" of inflation in a lab would make the idea seem less "supernatural", but without it, and without any real knowledge of what the universe looked like 13.7 billion years ago, I can't for life of me figure out a legitimate way to test this concept.

                                                                                                                                                          Well I'd say you are in good company there! I think that, like Feynman dipping an O-ring into ice-water, we all like a handle on the universe that we can grab onto and yank ... :-)


                                                                                                                                                          I like scientists that roll up their sleeves and test their ideas in controlled ways. To me at least, that is what real science is all about. Now of course astronomy presents us with some serious challenges in the sense that we cannot "control" what goes on in space, but we can at least put control mechanisms and basic forces that relate to plasma to the test in a lab. While many idea in astronomy today cannot be tested, "magnetic reconnection" could and should be tested in controlled experiments.

                                                                                                                                                          That's the both ends reaching to meet in the middle for sure, and generally we have the dichotomy of scientific labor into theory and experimentalist streams. Feynman once took a sabbatical into a bio-lab to get a break from his blackboard. Lisa Randall does an excellent job in her 'Warped Passages' book of illustrating this very point ... and others. ( It's a great all round book even if you have no formal background ).


                                                                                                                                                          I'll keep that book in mind the next time I'm looking for reading material. At the moment I'm reading a book by Anthony Peratt and it's a bit slow going for me personally. I suspect I'll be at it awhile.

                                                                                                                                                          The overlapping of and the extension of domains of applicability is a difficult synthetic process. Alas such 'sewing' is neither quite opposite, nor orthogonal, to reductionist inquisitions.


                                                                                                                                                          Indeed. I agree. I just like the "hands on" approach to science, because that is what I was taught in school and I was taught it applied to all realms of science. I can see that there are special problems in astronomy that don't apply to say electrical engineering, but most if not all aspects of Birkelands ideas were lab tested before he ever formally proposed them. That seems like a good step in the right direction.

                                                                                                                                                          It was a bothersome divergence in the summation I described earlier, which yielded infinites close in to the electron for QED. So by 'moving' within the cloud of virtual particles the coupling ( ~ strength of interaction, ~ probability of a vertex occurring ) increased. More and more of the previously ignored higher order terms ( diagrams ) dominated, these had been given upper bounds before that couldn't now apply. Feynman's solution was a simple fiat, subtract away the said infinity. So that yields : 'bare' charge + masking from a virtual cloud = observed charge. So if higher kinetic energies bring you closer in to an electron it won't be as per Coulomb. I think this is weird.


                                                                                                                                                          I think it's weird too, and Chapman probably did too. Unfortunately we can't rule out ideas because they are "weird" to our conscious mind, which goes back to your first point as well. We also can't be sure something is going to happen because is "seems" logical. That is why the testing of even weird ideas is so very important.

                                                                                                                                                          Fair enough, let us await with interest.


                                                                                                                                                          It has certainly peaked my interest. :)

                                                                                                                                                          Yup, I follow you there. See as above. One thing harder than hidden assumptions, is hidden circular arguments. This can of course depend upon the precision of language and care with definitions too.


                                                                                                                                                          I agree with that point 100 percent.

                                                                                                                                                          Try this : Galileo/Newton give inertia as a material property with frames defining forces as those influences which cause deviations from straight lines. Einstein gives straight lines devolving to those paths which light travels along ( SR or GR ). Now in cosmology a frequently used yardstick is 'co-moving distance', with a factor/ratio that scales 'real' distances to some co-ordinate system choice. But hang on, haven't we used some light ( path/speed ) type simultaneity program to lay out a grid in space to quantify our measurements? This *empirical* frame can't be BOTH the 'real distance' AND the co-ordinate frame! So choose it as representing one of them, and you will then leave the other as a pure abstraction. Expansion of space then is one-half mathematics only. The trouble is an old unresolved chestnut which is whether 'space' is defined by 'matter' or vice-versa. Yes GR connects the two but avoids nailing either. Similiarly Mach worried the hell out of the 'inertia' bit - see Newton's pail of water - and 'modern' resolution seems to involve the as yet unseen Higgs particle....


                                                                                                                                                          That was an interesting way to explain it. I appreciate that explanation. It does demonstrate the difficult nature of figuring out "reality" and how reality functions. Our own assumptions and arguments can easily lead us astray.

                                                                                                                                                          I've never understood the term 'magnetic reconnection'. :-(


                                                                                                                                                          Me either. I think that is because nobody has ever actually defined the physical energy release process that is unique to "magnetic reconnection" and no self respecting electrical engineer talks about magnetic fields making and breaking connections. More importantly no one has ever demonstrated that "magnetic reconnection" works in a lab. In this particular instance, that is unacceptable. There is absolutely no scientific reason this idea should not be put to a test. I the father of MHD theory doesn't buy the idea, then I'll need to see some evidence that it exists and has the effects it claims to have on plasma. I see nothing from controlled testing that leads me to believe that magnetic reconnection occurs in nature. That's a *big* problem IMO.

                                                                                                                                                          Please don't forget all the min-suns that the particle physicists make as they do have relevance to plasmas. Have you read any of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books? If not, I implore you to do so, I reckon you'll love what goes on on in the High Energy Magic building. :-)


                                                                                                                                                          No, I've not read his books yet. Your enthusiasm is so noted. Terry's book sounds more interesting to me personally so that book will go to the top of my "to read" list. :)

                                                                                                                                                          String theory currently has an embarrassment of riches, with no principle(s) to trim down the flock. There's a wide panoply of variants for those little curled up dimensions, the Calabi-Yau spaces. Their behaviour ( in theory ) gives our forces and fields in detail. Quantity yes, precision no.


                                                                                                                                                          Well, I'm definitely not a believer in string theory, so I have to agree with you on this point.

                                                                                                                                                          ____________
                                                                                                                                                          It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                                          Profile Mike Hewson
                                                                                                                                                          Forum moderator
                                                                                                                                                          Avatar
                                                                                                                                                          Send message
                                                                                                                                                          Joined: Dec 1 05
                                                                                                                                                          Posts: 3322
                                                                                                                                                          Credit: 27,290,402
                                                                                                                                                          RAC: 20,561
                                                                                                                                                          Message 79051 - Posted 6 Jan 2008 1:10:56 UTC - in response to Message 79044.

                                                                                                                                                            Last modified: 6 Jan 2008 10:38:38 UTC

                                                                                                                                                            While rather heavy, Quantum Theory and Relativity, by Arthur Jaffe, a recent review, struck me as highly pertinent (the link is to a PDF).

                                                                                                                                                            Thanks for that link, I'll have a crack at it.. :-)

                                                                                                                                                            In particular, re the electron's magnetic moment:


                                                                                                                                                            This non-linear field theory gave rise to rules of calculation in perturbation theory.........
                                                                                                                                                            μ = κ60 μDirac , where κ60 = 1.001 159 652 180 85(±76) . (II.4)

                                                                                                                                                            The calculations and theory agree completely to this extent. And the accuracy of this test astounds the human mind.


                                                                                                                                                            (That's 12 decimal places MikeH, and no disagreement).

                                                                                                                                                            Nice one! :-) I was recalling a late 1970's lecture by Feynman, so it's been drilled down even further since.

                                                                                                                                                            Keep in mind that the only physical data we have to work with is some time-ordered outputs from some gadgets attached to telescopes; only our assumptions about the (mathematically expressed) relationship between 'reality' and (mathematically expressed) physics theories lets us blithely talk about 'detecting photons'.


                                                                                                                                                            This deserves a quote from Lisa Randall ( Warped Passages p9 ):
                                                                                                                                                            As physics evolved in the twentieth century, it moved away from things that can be directly observed with the naked eye to things that can be "seen" only through measurements coupled with a theoretical train of logic.


                                                                                                                                                            I once heard a physicist use the phrase 'the electron abstraction', and when I queried that he asked if I'd ever seen one. He was predominantly an experimenter and made me focus on the whole shebang of measurement. He didn't really disbelieve in electrons. He was teaching us to be sure as we can about what we think we are detecting. While dear Schroedinger's cat gets killed ( recurrently, it would seem! ) by an alpha particle triggered event sequence that climbs up the distance scales - for which entity did you put a saucer of milk down? The high energy physics ( terrestrial colliders ) program has been terrific in resolving smaller scale detail. But like repeatedly blowing up houses to count doorknob fragments I get a feeling we are missing some important subtler issues - like whether you twist the knob to the left or right to open the bathroom door. Alas we can't do an Alice ( or an Edwin Abbott ) and vary our personal sensory granularity to suit. So we have to make do with effective ( scale dependent ) theories.

                                                                                                                                                            The really weird thing is that sometimes the math is well ahead of us. The neutrino was proposed long before it's discovery, due to energy budgets not agreeing. The positron likewise, as it popped out as an alternate solution to Dirac's QM treatment of the electron. Also Gelmann's 'eight-fold way' tamed the particle zoo and preceeded actual detection of the hard sub-nucleon-size mass concentrations we now call quarks. Oh, and not to forget Uranus and Neptune being emitted ( with some luck too ) by the numerical orreries of classical celestial mechanics. Penrose has a lot to say on this area. ( I am on my third attempt at plowing into 'The Road To Reality' ).

                                                                                                                                                            Cheers, Mike.

                                                                                                                                                            ( edit ) NB Gell-Mann
                                                                                                                                                            ____________
                                                                                                                                                            "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short." - Blaise Pascal

                                                                                                                                                            Nereid
                                                                                                                                                            Send message
                                                                                                                                                            Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                                            Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                                            Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                                            RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                            Message 79052 - Posted 6 Jan 2008 1:44:54 UTC

                                                                                                                                                              I know this is off-topic, but I'm very curious.

                                                                                                                                                              Michael Mozina (MM) has made many statements, in this thread, about what he apparently regards as the inviolable criterion for any theory of physics.

                                                                                                                                                              Some examples:

                                                                                                                                                              I love math, but only when it is applied to real physics and controlled empirical evidence.

                                                                                                                                                              Physical science requires empirical physical evidence.

                                                                                                                                                              I've seen many folks claim to be smarter than Einstein (Lambda proponents) and yet they can't produce any empirical evidence that "dark energy" has any effect on matter or space or spacetime or anything in a controlled scientific test.

                                                                                                                                                              It may look mathematically elegant, but without some empirical confirmation, it's difficult then to compare this metaphysical idea to any other idea in an objective manner.


                                                                                                                                                              I have already asked Michael several questions concerning the consistency between these 'no shades of grey' statements and his (apparent) explicit endorsement of hypotheses which incorporate, at their core, ideas which seem to be coloured deepest grey.

                                                                                                                                                              Here I would like to engage in a preliminary exploration of the (for now loosely worded) hypothesis that MM applies his oft-stated fundamental criterion in a very selective way, to wit: it is applied exclusively to 'non-baryonic dark matter', 'dark energy', and 'inflation'.

                                                                                                                                                              To test this hypothesis, I shall use as input all MM posts in this thread, to date, as they relate to MOND.

                                                                                                                                                              At the outset, I should note that the test *assumes* that MM is well aware that all internally consistent MOND proposals, published to date^, cannot be empirically tested, under controlled conditions, anywhere closer than ~10kpc from the solar system, even in principle. Of course, should independently verifiable, objective evidence emerge that MM was not, before now, aware of this central feature of such MOND proposals, the test (below) becomes moot.

                                                                                                                                                              There are, I think, four substantive statements, by MM, on MOND, in this thread:

                                                                                                                                                              I actually do entertain MOND type theories, but I personally tend to suspect that the "missing mass" is located inside mostly Iron and Nickel suns.

                                                                                                                                                              I personally tend to favor "MACHO" oriented "dark matter" explanations for these observations, but IMO it is premature to rule out MOND theory at this time. Some of these observations are quite new and require some time to work though when it comes to explaining these events from a modified gravity perspective.

                                                                                                                                                              It therefore becomes very difficult to judge the validity or merit of many of the non empirically demonstrated aspects of Lambda-CDM theories in relationship to other theories, including EU theories and MOND theories, MECO theories, ect.

                                                                                                                                                              Yet there isn't really an obvious way to determine the validity of MOND theory vs. "dark matter" theory or EU theory based on only the movement patterns of a galaxies. The lensing aspects of these observations however does at least offer us another possible mechanism to distinguish between these various theories. Dark matter theories have been around as long as I can remember and were mentioned even when I was in college. MACHO types of DM theories seem quite viable to me personally, but I have never seen any empirical evidence that non baryonic forms of dark matter exist in nature, with the exception of neutrinos. Because we can empirically demonstrate that baryonic forms of mass, and neutrinos exist in nature, I can't really complain much when these ideas are put into a mathematical presentation. It's only when people start talking about WIMP and SUSY theory related particles that I tend to cry fowl. There is a need IMO to empirically demonstrate such forms of matter before trying to claim they have some effect on nature.


                                                                                                                                                              In addition there is this:

                                                                                                                                                              Well, this is where my primary criticism of standard theory comes from. Without any control mechanism, a pure observation cannot in and of itself tell us the actual 'cause' of that observation. In other words, if we see objects in an apparent spurt of acceleration, unless we can demonstrate that our proposed solution exists in controlled empirical ways, it is impossible to verify or falsify any quantification presented. In other words I might present you with a calculation of acceleration based on a "magic force". Simply by looking at the observation of acceleration, I cannot rule out "magic force" as the cause of that acceleration. I can't rule it in either. Only a controlled test could rule it in.


                                                                                                                                                              While this does not, explicitly, mention MOND, there can surely be no doubt that "magic force" fits MOND perfectly - it's an ad hoc, arbitrary modification of Newtonian gravity; as a "proposed solution", we cannot "demonstrate that [it] exists in controlled empirical ways"; and so on.

                                                                                                                                                              Note too that MM states - unequivocally - that this is "where my primary criticism of standard theory comes from".

                                                                                                                                                              It would thus seem, based on the empirical evidence, presented above, that the (admittedly loosely-worded) hypothesis is:

                                                                                                                                                              a) not falsified
                                                                                                                                                              b) explicitly verified.

                                                                                                                                                              ^ check out the lists of publications ('scientific literature') on the MOND Pages website (http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/).

                                                                                                                                                              Nereid
                                                                                                                                                              Send message
                                                                                                                                                              Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                                              Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                                              Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                                              RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                              Message 79055 - Posted 6 Jan 2008 2:13:49 UTC - in response to Message 79051.


                                                                                                                                                                [snip]

                                                                                                                                                                Keep in mind that the only physical data we have to work with is some time-ordered outputs from some gadgets attached to telescopes; only our assumptions about the (mathematically expressed) relationship between 'reality' and (mathematically expressed) physics theories lets us blithely talk about 'detecting photons'.


                                                                                                                                                                This deserves a quote from Lisa Randall ( Warped Passages p9 ):
                                                                                                                                                                As physics evolved in the twentieth century, it moved away from things that can be directly observed with the naked eye to things that can be "seen" only through measurements coupled with a theoretical train of logic.


                                                                                                                                                                I once heard a physicist use the phrase 'the electron abstraction', and when I queried that he asked if I'd ever seen one. He was predominantly an experimenter and made me focus on the whole shebang of measurement. He didn't really disbelieve in electrons. He was teaching us to be sure as we can about what we think we are detecting. While dear Schroedinger's cat gets killed ( recurrently, it would seem! ) by an alpha particle triggered event sequence that climbs up the distance scales - for which entity did you put a saucer of milk down? The high energy physics ( terrestrial colliders ) program has been terrific in resolving smaller scale detail. But like repeatedly blowing up houses to count doorknob fragments I get a feeling we are missing some important subtler issues - like whether you twist the knob to the left or right to open the bathroom door. Alas we can't do an Alice ( or an Edwin Abbott ) and vary our personal sensory granularity to suit. So we have to make do with effective ( scale dependent ) theories.


                                                                                                                                                                Thanks MikeH! :-)

                                                                                                                                                                In other fora, I've been banging on about this for quite some time, and while I've read Randall's book (more than once actually), I missed that gem; thanks.

                                                                                                                                                                One aspect that attracts me to Einstein@Home (and LIGO and GW detectors in general) is the imminent possibility of having another, non-electromagnetic, window on the universe beyond our solar system. And equally fascinating is the possibility of iron-clad null results, with all that will entail for GR.

                                                                                                                                                                Even better: already one new window is, very slightly ajar - ultra-high energy cosmic rays ... and a third should open within the next decade - neutrino astronomy.

                                                                                                                                                                The 'we observe the universe only through the filter of theory' is doubly applicable to astronomy (beyond the solar system) - no Earthly lab will ever be able to do controlled experiments on an object with a mass of a few million sols and a radius of < 100,000 km (for those who may miss this, that's a not-too-inaccurate description of something astronomers call SgrA*), for example, and we only know of the existence of such objects via a doubly lengthy chain of theory-laden measurements.


                                                                                                                                                                The really weird thing is that sometimes the math is well ahead of us. The neutrino was proposed long before it's discovery, due to energy budgets not agreeing. The positron likewise, as it popped out as an alternate solution to Dirac's QM treatment of the electron. Also Gelmann's 'eight-fold way' tamed the particle zoo and preceeded actual detection of the hard sub-nucleon-size mass concentrations we now call quarks. Oh, and not to forget Uranus and Neptune being emitted ( with some luck too ) by the numerical orreries of classical celestial mechanics. Penrose has a lot to say on this area. ( I am on my third attempt at plowing into 'The Road To Reality' ).

                                                                                                                                                                Cheers, Mike.


                                                                                                                                                                IIRC, Gell-Mann himself didn't intend quarks to be 'real' but rather a very neat application of math that merely *described* the behaviour of (real) protons, neutrons, pi mesons, etc!

                                                                                                                                                                To your list I think you might add the experiments which tested the EPR paradox - the (math-based) predictions preceded the experiments by decades, for all the deeply discomforting implications of a 'QM 1, Einstein 0' result.

                                                                                                                                                                It's also very easy to overlook the hundreds and hundreds of 'downstream' particle discoveries, which flowed from the Standard Model ... Psi/J get star billing (because it was the first), but it's so easy to forget that even one 'blank cell' in the huge table would have caused a great deal of head-scratching. My personal favourite is the tau neutrino, alongside the determination of the width of the Z (or was it the W?), which thus ruled out any other, 'light', 'non-sterile' neutrinos.

                                                                                                                                                                Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                                                Send message
                                                                                                                                                                Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                                                Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                                                Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                                                RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                Message 79070 - Posted 6 Jan 2008 20:00:35 UTC - in response to Message 79046.

                                                                                                                                                                  Last modified: 6 Jan 2008 20:15:58 UTC

                                                                                                                                                                  It seems I have not done a good job of communicating what I meant; let me try again.

                                                                                                                                                                  The 23 March, 2007 data from THEMIS seems to have been the trigger for the NASA PR, a link to which you posted on New Year's Day.

                                                                                                                                                                  That PR uses the term "magnetic rope"; however, the abstract of what seems to be most pertinent AGU meeting presentation doesn't (perhaps the full presentation, and eventually the paper, will; sadly, we have neither available to us to check).


                                                                                                                                                                  Well, let's look at the verbiage they did use in the press release:


                                                                                                                                                                  A magnetic rope is a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner's rope. Spacecraft have detected hints of these ropes before, but a single spacecraft was insufficient to map their 3D structure. THEMIS' five identical micro-satellites were able to perform the feat.


                                                                                                                                                                  That sure sounds like Alfven's description of a magnetic rope to me.

                                                                                                                                                                  THEMIS also has observed a number of small explosions in Earth's magnetic bow shock. "The bow shock is like the bow wave in front of a boat," explained Sibeck. "It is where the solar wind first feels the effects of Earth's magnetic field. Sometimes a burst of electrical current within the solar wind will hit the bow shock and—Bang! We get an explosion."


                                                                                                                                                                  Bangs from electrical currents in the solar wind Nereid? How can you simply ignore the implications of this statement? It's an *electric* universe Nereid. Even our friends at NASA are noting this fact. Are you going to just ignore this data or what?

                                                                                                                                                                  Neither PR nor the part of the AGU presentation abstract that refers to the 23 March event mentions 'magnetic reconnection'.


                                                                                                                                                                  No, but you claimed that we were studying "magnetic reconnection" with in-situ measurements!

                                                                                                                                                                  Pace Michael, it seems 'magnetic reconnection' is not only part of modern space science, but is being studied in situ (and quantitatively).


                                                                                                                                                                  That statement is ridiculous Nereid. We can't "study" something from space in uncontrolled observations. We could only hope to demonstrate that Alfven was incorrect about "magnetic reconnection" in a lab, we could never do so in pure observations from space. You can't even explain what is unique about "magnetic reconnection" energy releases, and therefore it is absolutely impossible to you to study it in space or in a lab.

                                                                                                                                                                  Is there a reason - good or not - why 'magnetic rope' is not mentioned in the abstract?


                                                                                                                                                                  Is there a reason that you personally need to deny what they said in their press releases? Are you hoping these field aligned currents are something other than a 'magnetic ropes'? What else is going to form those twisted rope structures in light plasma, transfer that much energy through light plasma, and create those "bangs" they were talking about?

                                                                                                                                                                  To repeat: the part of my post that you are quoting does not mention 'magnetic reconnection', nor does the the NASA PR, nor does the part of the AGU abstract that refers to the 23 March event(s).


                                                                                                                                                                  I'm directly questioning your personal statement about how we were "studying" magnetic reconnection. NASA press release said absolutely nothing that I could find fault with. They even talked about the electrical currents in the solar wind. NASA seems to be openly discussing the electrical currents in space, whereas you continue to deny it's role in astronomy. If you aren't careful Nereid, you'll be the last individual on the planet to notice what everyone else has already noticed. The universe is electric. Evidently the universe itself is 'against the mainstream' too. I guess you'll just have to ban the whole universe from BAUT. ;)
                                                                                                                                                                  ____________
                                                                                                                                                                  It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                                                  Profile Chipper Q
                                                                                                                                                                  Avatar
                                                                                                                                                                  Send message
                                                                                                                                                                  Joined: Feb 20 05
                                                                                                                                                                  Posts: 1568
                                                                                                                                                                  Credit: 708,571
                                                                                                                                                                  RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                  Message 79073 - Posted 6 Jan 2008 21:55:15 UTC - in response to Message 79070.

                                                                                                                                                                    Last modified: 6 Jan 2008 22:02:55 UTC

                                                                                                                                                                    It seems I have not done a good job of communicating what I meant; let me try again.

                                                                                                                                                                    The 23 March, 2007 data from THEMIS seems to have been the trigger for the NASA PR, a link to which you posted on New Year's Day.

                                                                                                                                                                    That PR uses the term "magnetic rope"; however, the abstract of what seems to be most pertinent AGU meeting presentation doesn't (perhaps the full presentation, and eventually the paper, will; sadly, we have neither available to us to check).


                                                                                                                                                                    Well, let's look at the verbiage they did use in the press release:


                                                                                                                                                                    A magnetic rope is a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner's rope. Spacecraft have detected hints of these ropes before, but a single spacecraft was insufficient to map their 3D structure. THEMIS' five identical micro-satellites were able to perform the feat.


                                                                                                                                                                    That sure sounds like Alfven's description of a magnetic rope to me.

                                                                                                                                                                    THEMIS also has observed a number of small explosions in Earth's magnetic bow shock. "The bow shock is like the bow wave in front of a boat," explained Sibeck. "It is where the solar wind first feels the effects of Earth's magnetic field. Sometimes a burst of electrical current within the solar wind will hit the bow shock and—Bang! We get an explosion."


                                                                                                                                                                    Bangs from electrical currents in the solar wind Nereid? How can you simply ignore the implications of this statement? It's an *electric* universe Nereid. Even our friends at NASA are noting this fact. Are you going to just ignore this data or what?

                                                                                                                                                                    Neither PR nor the part of the AGU presentation abstract that refers to the 23 March event mentions 'magnetic reconnection'.


                                                                                                                                                                    No, but you claimed that we were studying "magnetic reconnection" with in-situ measurements!

                                                                                                                                                                    Pace Michael, it seems 'magnetic reconnection' is not only part of modern space science, but is being studied in situ (and quantitatively).


                                                                                                                                                                    That statement is ridiculous Nereid. We can't "study" something from space in uncontrolled observations. We could only hope to demonstrate that Alfven was incorrect about "magnetic reconnection" in a lab, we could never do so in pure observations from space. You can't even explain what is unique about "magnetic reconnection" energy releases, and therefore it is absolutely impossible to you to study it in space or in a lab.

                                                                                                                                                                    Is there a reason - good or not - why 'magnetic rope' is not mentioned in the abstract?


                                                                                                                                                                    Is there a reason that you personally need to deny what they said in their press releases? Are you hoping these field aligned currents are something other than a 'magnetic ropes'? What else is going to form those twisted rope structures in light plasma, transfer that much energy through light plasma, and create those "bangs" they were talking about?

                                                                                                                                                                    To repeat: the part of my post that you are quoting does not mention 'magnetic reconnection', nor does the the NASA PR, nor does the part of the AGU abstract that refers to the 23 March event(s).


                                                                                                                                                                    I'm directly questioning your personal statement about how we were "studying" magnetic reconnection. NASA press release said absolutely nothing that I could find fault with. They even talked about the electrical currents in the solar wind. NASA seems to be openly discussing the electrical currents in space, whereas you continue to deny it's role in astronomy. If you aren't careful Nereid, you'll be the last individual on the planet to notice what everyone else has already noticed. The universe is electric. Evidently the universe itself is 'against the mainstream' too. I guess you'll just have to ban the whole universe from BAUT. ;)


                                                                                                                                                                    http://www.pppl.gov/polImage.cfm?doc_Id=29&size_code=Doc
                                                                                                                                                                    --PPPL Collaboration Yields Important Fusion Energy
                                                                                                                                                                    Science Advance – on the 'sawtooth' instability plasma phenomenon and magnetic reconnection.

                                                                                                                                                                    Professor Drake and his current focus on magnetic reconnection - “Key discoveries in magnetic reconnection made by Dr. Drake and his colleagues center around the role of whistler waves in driving and controlling magnetic reconnection. Traditionally it was believed that the Alfven wave played the key role in driving reconnection. At small scales, however, electron and ion motion decouple and the dynamics is controlled by whistler waves. ?

                                                                                                                                                                    Magentic reconnection - “Magnetic reconnection is a phenomenon which is of particular importance in solar system plasmas. In the solar corona, it results in the rapid release to the plasma of energy stored in the large-scale structure of the coronal magnetic field, an effect which is thought to give rise to solar flares. Small scale reconnection may play a role in heating the corona, and, thereby, driving the outflow of the solar wind. In the Earth's magnetosphere, magnetic reconnection in the magnetotail is thought to be the precursor for auroral sub-storms....?

                                                                                                                                                                    Mangetic reconnection region larger than 2.5 million km found in solar wind - “Using the ESA Cluster spacecraft and the NASA Wind and ACE satellites, a team of American and European scientists have discovered the largest jets of particles created between the Earth and the Sun by magnetic reconnection... ?

                                                                                                                                                                    Direct observation of 3D magnetic reconnection - “...multipoint measurements by the Cluster mission reveals, for the first time, a direct observation of a 3D magnetic field topology at the magnetopause, resulting from magnetic reconnection at multiple sites...?

                                                                                                                                                                    Double Star and Cluster witness pulsated reconnection for several hours - “...These results improve our knowledge on how, where and under which conditions the solar wind manages to penetrate the Earth's magnetic shield on the flank of the magnetosphere... ? (emphasis added)

                                                                                                                                                                    I dunno Michael, biggest cosmological mystery to me right now is how anyone can say the universe is electric instead of electromagnetic....

                                                                                                                                                                    And here's another example of a solar model, and not just some observations and educated guesses. If you indeed had a working solar model, then it would be possible to show how it's equivalent to the standard one, because the standard one works, and is successful at reproducing observations over the course of a star's lifetime, as well as producing scenarios of stellar interiors that agree with both standard physics *and* subsequent measurements, so then by comparing the variables in your model to those in the standard one, it would be possible to make great strides, I would think....

                                                                                                                                                                    Standard Solar Model
                                                                                                                                                                    Please pay particular attention to Fig. 3, showing that “most stellar energy production occurs in the core.? (Too bad there is no other model [that I'm aware of] showing that most energy can be produced in any other region other than the core, but then there's a lot of physics to consider besides electricity....)

                                                                                                                                                                    Profile Mike Hewson
                                                                                                                                                                    Forum moderator
                                                                                                                                                                    Avatar
                                                                                                                                                                    Send message
                                                                                                                                                                    Joined: Dec 1 05
                                                                                                                                                                    Posts: 3322
                                                                                                                                                                    Credit: 27,290,402
                                                                                                                                                                    RAC: 20,561
                                                                                                                                                                    Message 79075 - Posted 7 Jan 2008 0:44:08 UTC - in response to Message 79055.

                                                                                                                                                                      Last modified: 7 Jan 2008 1:39:08 UTC

                                                                                                                                                                      One aspect that attracts me to Einstein@Home (and LIGO and GW detectors in general) is the imminent possibility of having another, non-electromagnetic, window on the universe beyond our solar system. And equally fascinating is the possibility of iron-clad null results, with all that will entail for GR.

                                                                                                                                                                      Absolutely! I also like it that the interferometers are essentially classical devices.

                                                                                                                                                                      Even better: already one new window is, very slightly ajar - ultra-high energy cosmic rays ... and a third should open within the next decade - neutrino astronomy.


                                                                                                                                                                      Yeah, we had a little incidental taste of that with SN1987A ....

                                                                                                                                                                      IIRC, Gell-Mann himself didn't intend quarks to be 'real' but rather a very neat application of math that merely *described* the behaviour of (real) protons, neutrons, pi mesons, etc!

                                                                                                                                                                      To your list I think you might add the experiments which tested the EPR paradox - the (math-based) predictions preceded the experiments by decades, for all the deeply discomforting implications of a 'QM 1, Einstein 0' result.

                                                                                                                                                                      It's also very easy to overlook the hundreds and hundreds of 'downstream' particle discoveries, which flowed from the Standard Model ... Psi/J get star billing (because it was the first), but it's so easy to forget that even one 'blank cell' in the huge table would have caused a great deal of head-scratching. My personal favourite is the tau neutrino, alongside the determination of the width of the Z (or was it the W?), which thus ruled out any other, 'light', 'non-sterile' neutrinos.


                                                                                                                                                                      The Z decay modes put a limit to 3 ( interacting ) electroweak families. It's as well to point out that there's a huge pile of theory results ( pre- or post- dicting ) which fail experiment/observation.

                                                                                                                                                                      A 'good' theory should :

                                                                                                                                                                      - explain all extant data.
                                                                                                                                                                      - NOT contradict extant data ( like predicting a particle that WOULD have been observed ).
                                                                                                                                                                      - preferably account/predict/suggest some new observations.
                                                                                                                                                                      - comfortably abut with other theory domains at the borders.

                                                                                                                                                                      where 'explain' means the radii of measurement and the radii of theory overlap ie. there is an intersecting region.

                                                                                                                                                                      The second requirement has oft been ignored .... an early gravity theory explained the inverse square law by ubiquitous particles permeating space and colliding with material bodies from all directions. The Sun facing side of a planet would experience fewer hits due to the Sun's absorption of said particles. A net impulse toward the Sun would result. This would vary with the solid angle subtended by the Sun at the planet's position and thus be deducible as inverse square behaviour. However ( like running into the rain ) more hits would occur on the side facing the instantaneous direction of travel - tangential to the orbit - causing a significant retardation along that line. The result is a spiralling in toward the Sun ie. unstable solar system. Note that the level of the effect ( strength of interaction of the particles with matter ) required to produce the observed magnitude of gravity forces ALAS also imply an amount of retardation that yields a solar system longevity several orders of magnitude below other orthogonal indicators. The devil is truly in the details, and alot of theoretical sweat is in the self-criticism department. Hence my gentle point to Michael M about 'emotive force' being insufficient against reality ... :-)

                                                                                                                                                                      Gell-Mann was ( still is! ) quite clever, having re-derived most of the Lie group math on his own ( and in a room opposite Feynman's, who worked on 'partons' ). His 'Quark & Jaguar' book speaks beautifully of the classical correspondence across scales with quantum events.

                                                                                                                                                                      Cheers, Mike.
                                                                                                                                                                      ____________
                                                                                                                                                                      "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short." - Blaise Pascal

                                                                                                                                                                      Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                                                      Send message
                                                                                                                                                                      Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                                                      Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                                                      Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                                                      RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                      Message 79077 - Posted 7 Jan 2008 2:57:27 UTC - in response to Message 79073.

                                                                                                                                                                        Last modified: 7 Jan 2008 3:15:59 UTC

                                                                                                                                                                        Which of those papers will provide me with a physical description of the unique energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection"? Which of these papers includes empirical laboratory evidence that magnetic fields make and break connection? The Drake link is based on two fallacies I see immediately, there is no such thing as a "frozen" magnetic field in a resistive plasma. There is no such thing as a "perfect" plasma conductor. They will all support an electric field, so they will not support a "frozen" magnetic field. Furthermore, I've yet to see anyone ever demonstrate that magnetic fields make and break connection. That's the key issue here Nereid. Where will I find the physical empirical laboratory evidence that magnetic fields make and break connections like electrical circuits in the papers you provided? How does that process actually lead to energy releases that defy the laws of physics? Null points have no magnetic energy, they are zero points in the magnetic field, nothing more, nothing less. There is no way to get free energy from a zero point in a magnetic field.


                                                                                                                                                                        ____________
                                                                                                                                                                        It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                                                        Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                                                        Send message
                                                                                                                                                                        Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                                                        Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                                                        Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                                                        RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                        Message 79078 - Posted 7 Jan 2008 5:07:17 UTC - in response to Message 79073.

                                                                                                                                                                          Last modified: 7 Jan 2008 5:12:31 UTC

                                                                                                                                                                          I dunno Michael, biggest cosmological mystery to me right now is how anyone can say the universe is electric instead of electromagnetic....


                                                                                                                                                                          This is an ironic comment from my perspective, particularly when it comes to "magnetic reconnection" theory. In electrical engineering, magnetic fields are always, not sometimes, but always treated a full continuum. They cannot make and break connections like an electrical circuit. Magnetic fields are usually associated with an electrical flow, particularly when describing "strong" EM fields around an excellent conductor like copper wire or plasma.

                                                                                                                                                                          IMO the mainstream seems to be stubbornly unwilling embrace the "electro" part of electromagnetic theory. Instead, the mainstream astronomers are trying to make "magnetic" fields do things that only electron flows can do, namely make and break connections to change the electrical flow patterns and the magnetic field arrangements.

                                                                                                                                                                          When we point Rhessi at earth, we observe x-rays and gamma-rays coming from the Earth's atmosphere and we note that it is caused by "electrical discharges" in the Earth's atmosphere. We turn that same piece of equipment at the Sun and people start claiming that the x-rays and gamma-rays we observe in the solar atmosphere are due to "magnetic reconnection". It's like there is some logical disconnect between high energy emissions here on Earth that are created with electrical discharges, and high energy events anywhere else in space. The most logical explanation for those x-ray and gamma-rays from the solar atmosphere is that it comes from "electrical discharges" in the solar atmosphere. That logical flow of electricity part seems to get lost somewhere between the Earth and the Sun.

                                                                                                                                                                          The obvious flaws that astronomers perpetuate are the notions that magnetic fields form "lines" that can make and break connection. They cannot. They form a full continuum. There is no basis for any other claim to be found in Maxwell's equations. Electrical circuits however *can* make and break connections, and they will create powerful magnetic fields in light plasma.

                                                                                                                                                                          It is not however even the least bit scientifically tenable that magnetic fields make and break connections, or that the magnetic fields form "open" lines, or that magnetic fields "store" energy in light plasma. The only energy that can be stored in light plasmas like we might find in the corona are kinetic energies from the flowing ions and flowing electrons. There is not magical "stored" magnetic energy in the corona. That is a complete misunderstanding of the intimate relationship between electricity and magnetism.

                                                                                                                                                                          In a very real way, you are absolutely correct, it is an "electromagnetic" universe. In a very real way however, astronomers are intentionally or unintentionally trying to make "magnetics" do what only "electricity" can do, and all the links you provided seem to be a great example of the fact that astronomers do not properly understand electricity and magnetism. Magnetic fields always form a full and complete continuum. Electrical circuits often "reconnect". Magnetic fields do not "reconnect", and thus far I've seen no evidence to suggest that magnetic fields "reconnect" like electrical circuits. Since Hannes Alfven (who wrote MHD theory) claimed that "magnetic reconnection" was not a possible energy source for high energy particle emissions, it becomes beholden on the mainstream to produce laboratory evidence to the contrary. Thus far, I see lots in the way of computer models and uncontrolled observations being chalked up to "magnetic reconnection", and absolutely nothing from a controlled test that validates that claim. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary support. In an "electromagnetic" universe, electrical flows "reconnect" and magnetic fields change their shape and direction accordingly.

                                                                                                                                                                          The reaction I'm having to "magnetic reconnection" in solar discharge activity, is the same reaction I would have if someone were trying to tell me that the current change observed in copper wire is due to "magnetic reconnection". There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection" in MHD theory. It is a false concept with no basis in empirical testing according to the creator of MHD theory:

                                                                                                                                                                          “Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer. The most important criticism of the merging mechanism is that by Heikkila [21], who, with increasing strength, has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all
                                                                                                                                                                          this, we have witnessed, at the same time, an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept.

                                                                                                                                                                          I was naïve enough to believe that [magnetic recombination] would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred: ‘merging’ . . . seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group.?


                                                                                                                                                                          I don't know how it is possible to suggest that we live in an 'electromagnetic' universe, yet not fully recognize the role of electricity in that process, but that is exactly what's happening in astronomy today. Electrons will seek a path of least resistance and they will "reconnect" from time to time, but magnetic fields not not "reconnect". They always form a full continuum, and they are always treated as a continuum in Maxwell's equations. Don Scott has explained many of the misconceptions about the role of magnetism that have been perpetuated by the astronomical community. The "electro" part of "electromagnetic" theory seems to be very poorly understood by mainstream astronomers, as well as the role of "magnetics" in electromagnetic theory. Electricity and magnetism are intimately related, but each of them has a role and each of them has a function. The mainstream is trying to assign properties to magnetic fields that only apply to electron flows within the plasma, not the magnetic fields that surround the electrons. The electrons will "reconnect" and the field will change accordingly. Astronomer point to that magnetic field change and claim "magnetic reconnection did it". That is illogical. It is indeed an electromagnetic universe, but magnetic fields do not 'reconnect' like electrons will reconnect with ions.

                                                                                                                                                                          http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf
                                                                                                                                                                          ____________
                                                                                                                                                                          It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                                                          Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                                                          Send message
                                                                                                                                                                          Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                                                          Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                                                          Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                                                          RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                          Message 79079 - Posted 7 Jan 2008 5:37:27 UTC - in response to Message 79073.

                                                                                                                                                                            From ChipperQ's link:

                                                                                                                                                                            http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~france/PAPERS/solmodel.pdf

                                                                                                                                                                            The third assumption of the model is that thermonuclear reactions are the only source of energy production inside the star (3).


                                                                                                                                                                            The final assumption of the standard solar model is that the sun was initially of a homogeneous, primordial composition, and highly convective at its main sequence turn on.


                                                                                                                                                                            These are the two assumptions that are false, and therefore they are the two assumptions that make standard gas model theory "false".

                                                                                                                                                                            While the third assumption is at least a logical assumption, the behaviors of the solar wind (acceleration) and the behaviors of the corona demonstrate that it is false. The sun is electrically "wired" to it's heliosheath and it electrically interacts with it's heliosheath just as the Earth is connected to it's magnetosphere and electrically interacts with the magnetosphere via the aurora.

                                                                                                                                                                            The forth assumption is show stopper IMO. Elements tend to mass separate in large gravity wells, and there is a "stratification subsurface" sitting smack dab in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone. This assumption is falsified by satellite evidence.

                                                                                                                                                                            http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

                                                                                                                                                                            I certainly didn't see any "prediction" in that standard solar theory paper that suggested we would find a stratification subsurface sitting at .995R that tends block the up drafting and down drafting of plasmas. That tends to shoot a giant hole in the "mixed by convection" concept. When we observe that LMSAL running difference image, we can see heavy materials fly up from the CME event and fall back down to the "surface" as coronal rain.

                                                                                                                                                                            Homogeneous mixing of elements is not even a logical assumption to begin with IMO since we have ample evidence that plasmas tend to mass separate in the presence of strong gravitational and EM fields. The sun has both of these in abundant quantities.

                                                                                                                                                                            These are the two key "assumptions" of standard solar theory that cannot be supported by recent evidence, and that are in fact falsified by recent satellite evidence. Coronal rain can be seen falling back to the sun, even while hydrogen atoms stream off it's surface. There is no way that iron and nickel ions will stay "mixed" in a homogeneous fashion in a gravity well as powerful as the sun.
                                                                                                                                                                            ____________
                                                                                                                                                                            It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                                                            Profile Mike Hewson
                                                                                                                                                                            Forum moderator
                                                                                                                                                                            Avatar
                                                                                                                                                                            Send message
                                                                                                                                                                            Joined: Dec 1 05
                                                                                                                                                                            Posts: 3322
                                                                                                                                                                            Credit: 27,290,402
                                                                                                                                                                            RAC: 20,561
                                                                                                                                                                            Message 79080 - Posted 7 Jan 2008 6:01:36 UTC - in response to Message 79077.

                                                                                                                                                                              Last modified: 7 Jan 2008 6:34:13 UTC

                                                                                                                                                                              Which of those papers will provide me with a physical description of the unique energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection"? Which of these papers includes empirical laboratory evidence that magnetic fields make and break connection? The Drake link is based on two fallacies I see immediately, there is no such thing as a "frozen" magnetic field in a resistive plasma. There is no such thing as a "perfect" plasma conductor. They will all support an electric field, so they will not support a "frozen" magnetic field. Furthermore, I've yet to see anyone ever demonstrate that magnetic fields make and break connection. That's the key issue here Nereid. Where will I find the physical empirical laboratory evidence that magnetic fields make and break connections like electrical circuits in the papers you provided? How does that process actually lead to energy releases that defy the laws of physics? Null points have no magnetic energy, they are zero points in the magnetic field, nothing more, nothing less. There is no way to get free energy from a zero point in a magnetic field.


                                                                                                                                                                              My guess is that matters would be a lot clearer if 'electromagnetic' replaced 'magnetic' here. Magnetism is the relativistic component that appears with electric charges in motion. The total force between two charges thus has a Coulomb component ( radially directed, inverse square ) and a velocity dependent ( magnitude and direction ) aspect which both summate to then act upon a charge.

                                                                                                                                                                              You can make and break 'magnetic' fields simply by removing relative motion ( current ) - electric supply utilities do this routinely. Energy calculations then must account for this if the EM interaction is to be divided as such into static and kinetic parts. From the static component you can define a scalar potential which only depends upon position ( not path ), for magnetic fields not so ( velocity dependence ). Thus while electrostatic fields are 'conservative', magnetic are 'dissipative'. It all works out in the end, via Maxwell if you like, as any current change tends to produce a magnetic field change that acts to oppose said current change. Hence large circuit breakers at your local substation!

                                                                                                                                                                              Magnetic field lines define those paths which, if followed by a moving charge, would not experience a magnetic component to the EM force. I'm assuming 'frozen' magnetic field refers to such lines not being altered, which then refers back to the charge distribution ( and movements ) that produce the summated field at any given point. It's probably simpler English to say that magnetic fields lines cannot cross/combine/fork simply because whatever the charge arrangements are : the total field sum is always a *unique* function of that.

                                                                                                                                                                              You can in fact 'store' electromagnetic energy, in the sense that light itself is perpetually cycling between the two fields - each regenerating the other via Maxwell. In a sense you can 'slosh' energy back and forth between the electric and magnetic parts by a frame change. I have a funny idea that the dynamic but relatively slowly changing ( compared to a typical photon's frequency ) aspect of electromagnetic field behaviour might be getting the label of 'magnetic', or that the full electromagnetic treatment isn't being disclosed.

                                                                                                                                                                              Cheers, Mike.

                                                                                                                                                                              ( edit ) All this is somewhat moot anyhow, as regards the question of 'why does the sun shine'. If I assume that question refers to accounting for an energy source that replaces what is being radiated, then in the absence of actual ( not null or default ) evidence of net energy flow into the volume of the Sun from elsewhere then : your only choice is conversion from another energy type within. Thus far the nuclear forces are the only ones that come close to supplying the prodigious and sustained emissions of stars. Due to the excellent work begun by Gamow et al the hard numbers do predict what is seen very well. Electromagnetic ( and electroweak ) mechanisms then become the carriers of energy outwards. 'Sustained' is an important qualifier here - this meaning billions of years - and that is a requirement on theory that really weeds out lesser attempts.
                                                                                                                                                                              ____________
                                                                                                                                                                              "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short." - Blaise Pascal

                                                                                                                                                                              Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                                                              Send message
                                                                                                                                                                              Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                                                              Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                                                              Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                                                              RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                              Message 79081 - Posted 7 Jan 2008 6:51:12 UTC - in response to Message 79080.

                                                                                                                                                                                My guess is that matters would be a lot clearer if 'electromagnetic' replaced 'magnetic' here.


                                                                                                                                                                                I would tend to agree.

                                                                                                                                                                                Magnetism is the relativistic component that appears with electric charges in motion.


                                                                                                                                                                                Indeed. That's why I can't understand why there seems to be confusion about the source of heat in the corona. It's magnetic fields, and therefore it's electrical component, stick out like a sore thumb. It is simply easier to "measure" the magnetic fields strengths than it is to "measure" the current flow from space. Such strong fields in plasma however could only be produced by current flowing through it.

                                                                                                                                                                                The total force between two charges thus has a Coulomb component ( radially directed, inverse square ) and a velocity dependent ( magnitude and direction ) aspect which both summate to then act upon a charge.


                                                                                                                                                                                Ok.

                                                                                                                                                                                You can make and break 'magnetic' fields simply by removing relative motion ( current ) - electric supply utilities do this routinely.


                                                                                                                                                                                Hmmm. Well, let's be careful about terminology here. We can "create" and "destroy" magnetic fields by turning on and off the current, but the magnetic field is not "reconnecting" to any other "line" in the magnetic field during that process. The notion here of "magnetic line reconnection" is a specific claim about magnetic fields actually changing line connections in some way. While I agree we can turn them on and off, we don't see them make and break connection, they just form when current is present and they dissolve or dissipate (kinetic energy in plasma) when it stops.

                                                                                                                                                                                Energy calculations then must account for this if the EM interaction is to be divided as such into static and kinetic parts. From the static component you can define a scalar potential which only depends upon position ( not path ), for magnetic fields not so ( velocity dependence ). Thus while electrostatic fields are 'conservative', magnetic are 'dissipative'. It all works out in the end, via Maxwell if you like, as any current change tends to produce a magnetic field change that acts to oppose said current change. Hence large circuit breakers at your local substation!


                                                                                                                                                                                As long as we all recognize that they are "electrical" circuit breakers, I'm fine with that idea. They are not however "magnetic" circuit breakers. There's a big difference between these two ideas. There is a "cause and effect" relationship here, and the current flow "causes" the magnetic fields to form, while turning off the current flow "causes" the magnetic field to dissolve and causes the kinetic energy in the plasma to dissipate. The current is the energy source that generates the field. The current can be broken and turned off, but the magnetic field cannot be turned off independently from the current.

                                                                                                                                                                                Magnetic field lines define those paths which, if followed by a moving charge, would not experience a magnetic component to the EM force. I'm assuming 'frozen' magnetic field refers to such lines not being altered, which then refers back to the charge distribution ( and movements ) that produce the summated field at any given point.


                                                                                                                                                                                The ions and electrons are moving inside the plasma. There is a kinetic energy component to what goes on inside a plasma ball, which is actually more dense than the sun's corona. Any powerful magnetic field in such light plasma could only be explained with large quantities of current flowing through that light plasma. The only energy "stored" in light plasma is the kinetic energy of the moving ions and electrons. Once the current is broken, that kinetic energy dissipates almost instantly. There is certainly no independent energy source inside the magnetic field that surrounds the current flow.

                                                                                                                                                                                It's probably simpler English to say that magnetic fields lines cannot cross/combine/fork simply because whatever the charge arrangements are : the total field sum is always a *unique* function of that.


                                                                                                                                                                                But then that leaves us with only one way to explain a "reconnection" process, and it involves the changing of the path of the electrons, not the reconnection of the magnetic field to some other part of the field. The current flow is the "cause" of the change in the magnetic field. Again, there is a definite cause and effect relationship in "electromagnetic" theory.

                                                                                                                                                                                You can in fact 'store' electromagnetic energy, in the sense that light itself is perpetually cycling between the two fields - each regenerating the other via Maxwell.


                                                                                                                                                                                That seems like a technicality that could not be applied to light plasmas in the solar atmosphere. How would one "store" magnetic energy inside of a plasma ball?

                                                                                                                                                                                In a sense you can 'slosh' energy back and forth between the electric and magnetic parts by a frame change. I have a funny idea that the dynamic but relatively slowly changing ( compared to a typical photon's frequency ) aspect of electromagnetic field behaviour might be getting the label of 'magnetic', or that the full electromagnetic treatment isn't being disclosed.

                                                                                                                                                                                Cheers, Mike.


                                                                                                                                                                                I think you're right that the full "electromagnetic" process is not being disclosed in "magnetic reconnection". There is no "reconnection" process other than the ions and the electrons that are *electrically* connecting and reconnecting. There is no "magnetic" reconnection, but technically there is such a thing as "electromagnetic reconnection", as long as we recognize the cause and effect relationship between the electron flows and the creation of the magnetic field. They go hand in hand, but it is the electron flow that generates the field inside the light plasmas of the corona.

                                                                                                                                                                                Your position in general, and ChipperQ's comment about us living in an "electromagnetic" universe seems very rational to me, whereas I can't even seem to find any common ground with Nereid's position. Some folks just seem to understand electromagnetic theory, and some just do not. Those that do understand EM theory tend to have a difficult time buying into "magnetic reconnection" theory, whereas those that do not seem to understand EM theory tend to be more ignorant of the basics of how EM fields are treated in EM theory. Alfven was intimately familiar with Maxwell's equations and how they applied to the behaviors of plasma. He literally wrote the book on MHD theory, and he also wrote the book on plasma cosmology theory. It's interesting that astronomers today embrace his MHD theories, but refuse to recognize the electrical aspect of MHD theory and the electrical aspect of EM theory as well.

                                                                                                                                                                                In both MHD theory (as Alfven taught it) and EM theory, magnetic fields are always treated as a continuum. While the can be created and destroyed, they cannot make and break connections with other parts of the magnetic field and thereby release energy. That's just not how it works.
                                                                                                                                                                                ____________
                                                                                                                                                                                It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                                                                Profile Mike Hewson
                                                                                                                                                                                Forum moderator
                                                                                                                                                                                Avatar
                                                                                                                                                                                Send message
                                                                                                                                                                                Joined: Dec 1 05
                                                                                                                                                                                Posts: 3322
                                                                                                                                                                                Credit: 27,290,402
                                                                                                                                                                                RAC: 20,561
                                                                                                                                                                                Message 79083 - Posted 7 Jan 2008 7:32:11 UTC - in response to Message 79081.

                                                                                                                                                                                  Hmmm, I wonder ( being generous now to those that use the term ) whether this 'magnetic reconnection' is MHD-speak for : 'some difficult/complex reconfiguration of the electromagnetic field that is glossed over by mentioning only field states at discrete times'. Thus intermediate snapshots or states aren't really followed in the infinitesimal sense of integration along a time axis. Like editing a film you take out 'bridging' scenes at the price of possibly losing the thread of the plot. If so, this would 'mulch' alot of detailed information about the charge distribution changes and ( like classical thermodynamics ) leave one in the situation of only being able to legitimately comment in generalities ( conserved quantities, increasing entropy ... ).

                                                                                                                                                                                  Hmmmm ?

                                                                                                                                                                                  Cheers, Mike.
                                                                                                                                                                                  ____________
                                                                                                                                                                                  "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short." - Blaise Pascal

                                                                                                                                                                                  Nereid
                                                                                                                                                                                  Send message
                                                                                                                                                                                  Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                                                                  Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                                                                  Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                                                                  RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                                  Message 79093 - Posted 7 Jan 2008 16:20:29 UTC - in response to Message 79070.

                                                                                                                                                                                    It seems I have not done a good job of communicating what I meant; let me try again.

                                                                                                                                                                                    The 23 March, 2007 data from THEMIS seems to have been the trigger for the NASA PR, a link to which you posted on New Year's Day.

                                                                                                                                                                                    That PR uses the term "magnetic rope"; however, the abstract of what seems to be most pertinent AGU meeting presentation doesn't (perhaps the full presentation, and eventually the paper, will; sadly, we have neither available to us to check).


                                                                                                                                                                                    Well, let's look at the verbiage they did use in the press release:


                                                                                                                                                                                    A magnetic rope is a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner's rope. Spacecraft have detected hints of these ropes before, but a single spacecraft was insufficient to map their 3D structure. THEMIS' five identical micro-satellites were able to perform the feat.


                                                                                                                                                                                    That sure sounds like Alfven's description of a magnetic rope to me.

                                                                                                                                                                                    THEMIS also has observed a number of small explosions in Earth's magnetic bow shock. "The bow shock is like the bow wave in front of a boat," explained Sibeck. "It is where the solar wind first feels the effects of Earth's magnetic field. Sometimes a burst of electrical current within the solar wind will hit the bow shock and—Bang! We get an explosion."


                                                                                                                                                                                    Bangs from electrical currents in the solar wind Nereid? How can you simply ignore the implications of this statement? It's an *electric* universe Nereid. Even our friends at NASA are noting this fact. Are you going to just ignore this data or what?

                                                                                                                                                                                    Neither PR nor the part of the AGU presentation abstract that refers to the 23 March event mentions 'magnetic reconnection'.


                                                                                                                                                                                    No, but you claimed that we were studying "magnetic reconnection" with in-situ measurements!

                                                                                                                                                                                    Pace Michael, it seems 'magnetic reconnection' is not only part of modern space science, but is being studied in situ (and quantitatively).


                                                                                                                                                                                    That statement is ridiculous Nereid. We can't "study" something from space in uncontrolled observations. We could only hope to demonstrate that Alfven was incorrect about "magnetic reconnection" in a lab, we could never do so in pure observations from space. You can't even explain what is unique about "magnetic reconnection" energy releases, and therefore it is absolutely impossible to you to study it in space or in a lab.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Is there a reason - good or not - why 'magnetic rope' is not mentioned in the abstract?


                                                                                                                                                                                    Is there a reason that you personally need to deny what they said in their press releases? Are you hoping these field aligned currents are something other than a 'magnetic ropes'? What else is going to form those twisted rope structures in light plasma, transfer that much energy through light plasma, and create those "bangs" they were talking about?

                                                                                                                                                                                    To repeat: the part of my post that you are quoting does not mention 'magnetic reconnection', nor does the the NASA PR, nor does the part of the AGU abstract that refers to the 23 March event(s).


                                                                                                                                                                                    I'm directly questioning your personal statement about how we were "studying" magnetic reconnection. NASA press release said absolutely nothing that I could find fault with. They even talked about the electrical currents in the solar wind. NASA seems to be openly discussing the electrical currents in space, whereas you continue to deny it's role in astronomy. If you aren't careful Nereid, you'll be the last individual on the planet to notice what everyone else has already noticed. The universe is electric. Evidently the universe itself is 'against the mainstream' too. I guess you'll just have to ban the whole universe from BAUT. ;)


                                                                                                                                                                                    Last time I looked, this was characterised as the 'Science' message board, here at Einstein@Home.

                                                                                                                                                                                    The primary source to be used in science is good experimental and observational data.

                                                                                                                                                                                    The secondary source is papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Tertiary sources include preprints, and conference and workshop proceedings.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Press Releases are not, and should not be, used as legitimate sources in science (except, perhaps, in fields such as linguistics).

                                                                                                                                                                                    If supporters of 'EU theory' claim that they are doing science, then let's see the data they use, and the papers they have published.

                                                                                                                                                                                    If you claim the THEMIS (etc) data on the 23 March 2007 event(s) supports some aspect of 'EU theory' - of relevance to the theme of this thread, how the Sun shines - by all means go ahead, present it!

                                                                                                                                                                                    If you can't make such a case - because you don't have access to the data - by all means go ahead and make the case based on relevant papers by the THEMIS team.

                                                                                                                                                                                    If you can't make such a case - because you don't have access to those papers (perhaps because they are not yet published) - by all means go ahead and make the case based on relevant conference proceedings by the THEMIS team.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Otherwise, it would seem that this discussion will go nowhere, at least from the perspective of doing any science.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                                                                    Send message
                                                                                                                                                                                    Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                                                                    Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                                                                    Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                                                                    RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                                    Message 79095 - Posted 7 Jan 2008 17:02:17 UTC - in response to Message 79093.

                                                                                                                                                                                      Last modified: 7 Jan 2008 17:11:58 UTC

                                                                                                                                                                                      If you can't make such a case - because you don't have access to the data - by all means go ahead and make the case based on relevant papers by the THEMIS team.


                                                                                                                                                                                      Ok, let's start with some earlier published papers from the THEMIS data.

                                                                                                                                                                                      http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702060v1

                                                                                                                                                                                      Our calculations indicate that deceleration of the proton beam with initial power-law energy distribution together with increased electron and proton densities in the H-alpha forming layers lead to a negligible line polarization. Thus the proton beams seem not to be a good candidate for explanation of the observed polarization degree. On the other hand, the effect of electric return currents could perhaps provide a better explanation of the observed linear polarization. We report the new calculations of this effect.


                                                                                                                                                                                      Are you really intending to be the last mainstreamer to embrace EU theory Nereid? Do you have any idea how embarrassing that would be, particularly with it recorded on the internet for all the world to see for whole of time? You could be as publicly infamous as the last "flat Earther". :)
                                                                                                                                                                                      ____________
                                                                                                                                                                                      It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                                                                      Nereid
                                                                                                                                                                                      Send message
                                                                                                                                                                                      Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                                                                      Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                                                                      Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                                                                      RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                                      Message 79103 - Posted 7 Jan 2008 21:47:42 UTC - in response to Message 79095.

                                                                                                                                                                                        If you can't make such a case - because you don't have access to the data - by all means go ahead and make the case based on relevant papers by the THEMIS team.


                                                                                                                                                                                        Ok, let's start with some earlier published papers from the THEMIS data.

                                                                                                                                                                                        http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702060v1


                                                                                                                                                                                        Did you mean to link to this paper?

                                                                                                                                                                                        It seems to have nothing to do with the THEMIS mission, or data; J. Stepan (the author) is not on the THEMIS team; the paper makes no reference to THEMIS at all; and the topic is solar flares, which THEMIS observes only in the most indirect fashion.

                                                                                                                                                                                        Our calculations indicate that deceleration of the proton beam with initial power-law energy distribution together with increased electron and proton densities in the H-alpha forming layers lead to a negligible line polarization. Thus the proton beams seem not to be a good candidate for explanation of the observed polarization degree. On the other hand, the effect of electric return currents could perhaps provide a better explanation of the observed linear polarization. We report the new calculations of this effect.


                                                                                                                                                                                        What has this got to do with either THEMIS or 'EU theory'?

                                                                                                                                                                                        The 'electric return currents' referred to have been a part of the standard model of solar flares for what, 2-3 decades now? AFAIK, they have nothing to do with the ISM, or even the IPM (except, perhaps, very indirectly). In terms of energy sources of the Sun, they'd most assuredly count as 'internal', per the definitions earlier in this thread.

                                                                                                                                                                                        Would you mind elaborating please?

                                                                                                                                                                                        Are you really intending to be the last mainstreamer to embrace EU theory Nereid? Do you have any idea how embarrassing that would be, particularly with it recorded on the internet for all the world to see for whole of time? You could be as publicly infamous as the last "flat Earther". :)


                                                                                                                                                                                        Well, I must say it's a bit difficult to 'embrace', in a scientific sense, something that's not a theory (in a scientific sense), that is not published in any relevant peer-reviewed journal, and so on.

                                                                                                                                                                                        Thanks for your concern over my scientific well-being, but I'm happy to continue to not embrace something which does not exist.

                                                                                                                                                                                        Profile Mike Hewson
                                                                                                                                                                                        Forum moderator
                                                                                                                                                                                        Avatar
                                                                                                                                                                                        Send message
                                                                                                                                                                                        Joined: Dec 1 05
                                                                                                                                                                                        Posts: 3322
                                                                                                                                                                                        Credit: 27,290,402
                                                                                                                                                                                        RAC: 20,561
                                                                                                                                                                                        Message 79104 - Posted 7 Jan 2008 21:56:53 UTC - in response to Message 79095.

                                                                                                                                                                                          Err ... Michael, I be curious as to what precisely is your point here. This article merely discusses radiative transfer mechanisms in the outer layers of the Sun. They are talking of how to interpret observed data with a view to accounting for transverse electric field polarizations of some spectral lines. Their disclosed calculations use standard mainstream electromagnetism as applied to a complex scenario. Your emboldened quote refers, in the paper's body, to their modelling that inward electron trajectories fit better than outward proton ones. By extension they are curious as to whether said spectral qualities can be used as an accurate indicator of patterns of charge movement, as a future observational tool. There is nothing ground breaking here, simply whether some characteristics of hydrogen line excitations can be better explained by collisions with protons vs collisions with electrons, in the presence of considerable randomizing effects on those chosen polarisations from other mechanisms. While we ought perhaps applaud them for attempting to model what is clearly a difficult calculational problem I can't see anything in their approach that warrants a round vs flat earth comparison. Since the basis and machinery of their modelling is quite bland EM theory, is there an aspect that you would identify as EU-ish ( whatever that would mean )?

                                                                                                                                                                                          Also is there a *quantitative* prediction for the scenario from EU theory - that we could enjoin in a comparison of fitness of alternate theories/models? In the absence of such a quantified theoretical result, as Nereid indicated, we are not in the realm of scientific discourse in the modern sense described earlier. That wouldn't be a shocking problem for EU, but simply a signal that it needs to spruce up, mature or whatever, in order to do so.

                                                                                                                                                                                          Cheers, Mike.
                                                                                                                                                                                          ____________
                                                                                                                                                                                          "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short." - Blaise Pascal

                                                                                                                                                                                          Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                                                                          Send message
                                                                                                                                                                                          Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                                                                          Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                                                                          Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                                                                          RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                                          Message 79152 - Posted 8 Jan 2008 20:43:58 UTC - in response to Message 79104.

                                                                                                                                                                                            Err ... Michael, I be curious as to what precisely is your point here.


                                                                                                                                                                                            Well, my original point is that this technique may provide us with a logical way to determine the direction of the current flow. The polarization techniques could tell us whether electrons are causing these effects or protons are causing emissions. That kind of got lost on my post however now that I read what I wrote. I really need to do more proof reading and be more specific in my statements. I'm sorry for suggesting this was *from* the THEMIS data, I meant to suggest that this paper allows us to *interpret* the current flow direction from the THEMIS data. I got busy and didn't actually proofread what I wrote. Sorry about any confusion on my part.

                                                                                                                                                                                            This article merely discusses radiative transfer mechanisms in the outer layers of the Sun. They are talking of how to interpret observed data with a view to accounting for transverse electric field polarizations of some spectral lines. Their disclosed calculations use standard mainstream electromagnetism as applied to a complex scenario. Your emboldened quote refers, in the paper's body, to their modelling that inward electron trajectories fit better than outward proton ones. By extension they are curious as to whether said spectral qualities can be used as an accurate indicator of patterns of charge movement, as a future observational tool. There is nothing ground breaking here, simply whether some characteristics of hydrogen line excitations can be better explained by collisions with protons vs collisions with electrons, in the presence of considerable randomizing effects on those chosen polarisations from other mechanisms. While we ought perhaps applaud them for attempting to model what is clearly a difficult calculational problem I can't see anything in their approach that warrants a round vs flat earth comparison. Since the basis and machinery of their modelling is quite bland EM theory, is there an aspect that you would identify as EU-ish ( whatever that would mean )?


                                                                                                                                                                                            First of all, let me acknowledge that my terse and flippant response was poorly worded, inaccurate, and misleading. My bad.

                                                                                                                                                                                            I do applaud them on two counts, both for the technique itself (which seems very logical) and for the mathematical model they present us with.

                                                                                                                                                                                            According to almost all theories I'm reading about "magnetic reconnection", the basic concept seems to relate to energy streaming down from the corona and slamming into the chromosphere and photosphere. In other words there is energy come down into the sun from higher areas of the atmosphere. This "method" they outline will allow us to determine the directly on the current flows in that magnetic rope. The idea here was to set the stage for determining the direction of the electron flows inside the rope. In theory we should also be able to use a "right hand rule" approach as well, and we should be able to verify the current flow patterns inside the THEMIS rope with the method outlined by the authors.

                                                                                                                                                                                            Also is there a *quantitative* prediction for the scenario from EU theory - that we could enjoin in a comparison of fitness of alternate theories/models?


                                                                                                                                                                                            Well, I suppose we could take the THEMIS press release and 'postdict' something after the fact, but that seems like cheating at this point. :) Besides, I don't really know what the voltages might be, so determining the amperage is going to be a pain in the neck. :) I hear you on this point however. I'll have to think about it.

                                                                                                                                                                                            In the absence of such a quantified theoretical result, as Nereid indicated, we are not in the realm of scientific discourse in the modern sense described earlier. That wouldn't be a shocking problem for EU, but simply a signal that it needs to spruce up, mature or whatever, in order to do so.

                                                                                                                                                                                            Cheers, Mike.


                                                                                                                                                                                            Well Mike, I wholeheartedly agree that EU theory needs a lot of work on the quantification side of life. It's an extremely well 'qualified' theory IMO, but it is still very poorly quantified, even to an EU enthusiast like me. I do believe however that by putting THEMIS data together with magnetic field measurements from Hinode, we should be able to reconstruct the flows patterns between the sun and the Earth and trace them all the way down to the corona, chromosphere and photosphere. This seems like a very logical way to begin to "quantify" EU ideas, and I look forward to reading the Themis papers to see what techniques they are using to measure the energy exchanges.

                                                                                                                                                                                            IMO these are very exciting times for EU theory. A lot of new technologies are coming online now, and the kinds of techniques that we might use to determine the current flow patterns in the solar atmosphere are becoming much better defined. I do think you'll see EU theory become better quantified over the next few years. It seems to me that the biggest "unknown" in EU theory is what the voltage difference is between the photosphere and the heliosphere, and how much current flows through the sun. Now if we could just run a long wire from the photosphere to the heliosphere..... :)

                                                                                                                                                                                            ____________
                                                                                                                                                                                            It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                                                                            Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                                                                            Send message
                                                                                                                                                                                            Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                                                                            Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                                                                            Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                                                                            RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                                            Message 79153 - Posted 8 Jan 2008 21:32:03 UTC - in response to Message 79103.

                                                                                                                                                                                              Last modified: 8 Jan 2008 21:32:34 UTC

                                                                                                                                                                                              Did you mean to link to this paper?


                                                                                                                                                                                              [embarrassment]Well, yes, but I didn't mean to attribute this particular paper *TO* the THEMIS team. I should have said "related to the THEMIS data", not "from" the THEMIS data. Sorry about that.[/embarrassment] :)

                                                                                                                                                                                              It seems to have nothing to do with the THEMIS mission, or data; J. Stepan (the author) is not on the THEMIS team; the paper makes no reference to THEMIS at all; and the topic is solar flares, which THEMIS observes only in the most indirect fashion.


                                                                                                                                                                                              I agree that my statement was both confusing and misleading. My bad.

                                                                                                                                                                                              What has this got to do with either THEMIS or 'EU theory'?


                                                                                                                                                                                              As I explained to Mike, I was simply trying to offer us a way to determine the current flow direction inside of the magnetic rope.

                                                                                                                                                                                              The 'electric return currents' referred to have been a part of the standard model of solar flares for what, 2-3 decades now?


                                                                                                                                                                                              Well, those electric return currents were not seen inside a magnetic rope that was seen to flow between the sun and the Earth. If we use the technique from this paper we should be able to determine which direction the electrons are traveling. Between high resolution Hinode images and the THEMIS data, we should be able to track that current flow through the solar atmosphere and through the magnetic rope that connects the sun to the Earth and visa versa.

                                                                                                                                                                                              AFAIK, they have nothing to do with the ISM, or even the IPM (except, perhaps, very indirectly). In terms of energy sources of the Sun, they'd most assuredly count as 'internal', per the definitions earlier in this thread.[quote]

                                                                                                                                                                                              Well, that was before we found current carrying ropes flowing between planets and the sun. Which direction is that current flowing? Is Birkeland correct that electrons flow from the sun to the Earth in these ropes, or do the electrons flow into the sun from the Earth? These kinds of mathematical techniques would allow us to determine the direction of the current flow into and out of the solar atmosphere.

                                                                                                                                                                                              [quote]Well, I must say it's a bit difficult to 'embrace', in a scientific sense, something that's not a theory (in a scientific sense), that is not published in any relevant peer-reviewed journal, and so on.


                                                                                                                                                                                              Alfven
                                                                                                                                                                                              Peratt
                                                                                                                                                                                              Scott

                                                                                                                                                                                              Birkeland published his work. Alfven published his work. Peratt published his work. Bruce published his work too. You keep making statements that are easily demonstrated to be false. While the peer review process is useful, reality doesn't care what humans publish. It does what it does, irrespective of what we publish.

                                                                                                                                                                                              Every single aspect of EU theory was developed in a 'classical' manner. It was developed from information gained in controlled scientific testing, in controlled scientific experiments. Experimentation is a key element of many branches of science, including EU theory.

                                                                                                                                                                                              There is a legitimate "qualification" vs. "quantification" issue here. Standard theory is well quantified, but many aspects of standard theory (like magnetic reconnection theory) have never been "qualified" in laboratory tests. The reverse is true of EU theory. It is extremely well "qualified" in every scientific sense, but it lacks quantification. Which is "better" from a scientific perspective?

                                                                                                                                                                                              IMO the answer to that question is found in the Chapman vs. Birkeland debate from the 30's(?)- early 1970's. All throughout that timeline, Chapman's ideas were considered "superior" because they were better quantified. Reality didn't care one bit how well "quantified" Chapman's theories were. In the end, Birkeland's "classic" use of standard scientific methods won the debate, and history has a tendency to repeat itself.

                                                                                                                                                                                              So it will be with EU theory vs. standard theories of today IMO. Over time, Birkeland's ideas will triumph because every key aspect of EU theory has been tested in a real lab, with real plasma in real controlled scientific tests. As they say, one test is worth a thousand expert opinions, and one test is also worth a thousand mathematical models.

                                                                                                                                                                                              FYI, I find it equally difficult to "embrace" a quantified theory that lacks qualification in any standard scientific sense. Therein lies the rub for me personally. I can't just ignore the weaknesses of standard theory now that my eyes have been opened to the work of Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt and many others. Their ideas may still not have the same mathematical elegance of standard theory, but their ideas work in the real world in real tests, with real plasma. I've never seen anyone move plasma in a controlled test using dark energy, or inflation, so I can't help be remain a skeptic when it comes to DE and inflation (and non baryonic forms of "dark matter").

                                                                                                                                                                                              Thanks for your concern over my scientific well-being, but I'm happy to continue to not embrace something which does not exist.


                                                                                                                                                                                              Birkeland's ideas and Alfven's mathematical theories and ideas exist and have been published Nereid. Your denial of their existence won't make them go away.

                                                                                                                                                                                              More importantly, Chapman's mathematical models, elegant as they were, just could not make reality change it's nature at the end of the day. At the end of the day, it will be shown that this is an "electromagnetic" universe, filled with current flows of all kinds. We can see the magnetic fields around these current flows form between the Sun and the Earth. We can observe them in distance clouds of plasma, and we can see the effect of these electrical currents on the solar atmosphere as it heats the coronal to millions of degrees, and accelerates the solar wind particles.
                                                                                                                                                                                              ____________
                                                                                                                                                                                              It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                                                                              Nereid
                                                                                                                                                                                              Send message
                                                                                                                                                                                              Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                                                                              Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                                                                              Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                                                                              RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                                              Message 79165 - Posted 9 Jan 2008 10:07:03 UTC - in response to Message 79079.

                                                                                                                                                                                                From ChipperQ's link:

                                                                                                                                                                                                http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~france/PAPERS/solmodel.pdf

                                                                                                                                                                                                The third assumption of the model is that thermonuclear reactions are the only source of energy production inside the star (3).


                                                                                                                                                                                                The final assumption of the standard solar model is that the sun was initially of a homogeneous, primordial composition, and highly convective at its main sequence turn on.


                                                                                                                                                                                                These are the two assumptions that are false, and therefore they are the two assumptions that make standard gas model theory "false".

                                                                                                                                                                                                While the third assumption is at least a logical assumption, the behaviors of the solar wind (acceleration) and the behaviors of the corona demonstrate that it is false. The sun is electrically "wired" to it's heliosheath and it electrically interacts with it's heliosheath just as the Earth is connected to it's magnetosphere and electrically interacts with the magnetosphere via the aurora.

                                                                                                                                                                                                [snip]


                                                                                                                                                                                                I think you have misunderstood the logic of the paper, Michael.

                                                                                                                                                                                                It sets out to present the standard solar model, and that model does indeed include this assumption.

                                                                                                                                                                                                It also is very clear about how the model should be tested - its outputs match the observables, quantitatively; or, in the paper's own words "If the model can accurately predict what is observed, then it is reasonable to assume that it can accurately tell astronomers about what they cannot observe, both inside the Sun and its behavior at other epochs."

                                                                                                                                                                                                There's a table near the bottom of page 2 that gives an example of what two other authors regard as acceptable, wrt 'accurately predict': solar luminosity, age, and radius within (rather narrow) ranges. Note that the behaviour of the solar wind and the corona are not in that table. While I can't speak for the author (Kevin France), I'd say your comment goes to the scope of the model - if it does not seek to address the solar wind or corona, there's no surprise that it doesn't account for all aspects of observations of each.

                                                                                                                                                                                                But your comments reminded me: have your found those papers - by Alfven and/or Peratt - which describe the details of the hypothesis that "the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons)" and which include estimates of what that energy is?

                                                                                                                                                                                                I'll address the rest of your post (the [snipped] part) later.

                                                                                                                                                                                                Nereid
                                                                                                                                                                                                Send message
                                                                                                                                                                                                Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                                                                                Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                                                                                Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                                                                                RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                                                Message 79166 - Posted 9 Jan 2008 10:21:37 UTC - in response to Message 79153.


                                                                                                                                                                                                  [snip]

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Well, I must say it's a bit difficult to 'embrace', in a scientific sense, something that's not a theory (in a scientific sense), that is not published in any relevant peer-reviewed journal, and so on.


                                                                                                                                                                                                  Alfven
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Peratt
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Scott

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Birkeland published his work. Alfven published his work. Peratt published his work. Bruce published his work too. You keep making statements that are easily demonstrated to be false. While the peer review process is useful, reality doesn't care what humans publish. It does what it does, irrespective of what we publish.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Every single aspect of EU theory was developed in a 'classical' manner. It was developed from information gained in controlled scientific testing, in controlled scientific experiments. Experimentation is a key element of many branches of science, including EU theory.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  There is a legitimate "qualification" vs. "quantification" issue here. Standard theory is well quantified, but many aspects of standard theory (like magnetic reconnection theory) have never been "qualified" in laboratory tests. The reverse is true of EU theory. It is extremely well "qualified" in every scientific sense, but it lacks quantification. Which is "better" from a scientific perspective?

                                                                                                                                                                                                  IMO the answer to that question is found in the Chapman vs. Birkeland debate from the 30's(?)- early 1970's. All throughout that timeline, Chapman's ideas were considered "superior" because they were better quantified. Reality didn't care one bit how well "quantified" Chapman's theories were. In the end, Birkeland's "classic" use of standard scientific methods won the debate, and history has a tendency to repeat itself.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  So it will be with EU theory vs. standard theories of today IMO. Over time, Birkeland's ideas will triumph because every key aspect of EU theory has been tested in a real lab, with real plasma in real controlled scientific tests. As they say, one test is worth a thousand expert opinions, and one test is also worth a thousand mathematical models.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  FYI, I find it equally difficult to "embrace" a quantified theory that lacks qualification in any standard scientific sense. Therein lies the rub for me personally. I can't just ignore the weaknesses of standard theory now that my eyes have been opened to the work of Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt and many others. Their ideas may still not have the same mathematical elegance of standard theory, but their ideas work in the real world in real tests, with real plasma. I've never seen anyone move plasma in a controlled test using dark energy, or inflation, so I can't help be remain a skeptic when it comes to DE and inflation (and non baryonic forms of "dark matter").


                                                                                                                                                                                                  Perhaps I misunderstood again; I thought a key aspect of 'EU theory' was that "the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons)"; am I mistaken?

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Somewhat off-topic: to what extent are the various O. Manuel papers consistent with 'EU theory'?

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Finally, are you claiming that all of Birkeland's ideas are essential parts of 'EU theory'?

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Oh, and have you "seen anyone move plasma in a controlled test using" MOND?

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Thanks for your concern over my scientific well-being, but I'm happy to continue to not embrace something which does not exist.


                                                                                                                                                                                                  Birkeland's ideas and Alfven's mathematical theories and ideas exist and have been published Nereid. Your denial of their existence won't make them go away.


                                                                                                                                                                                                  True, they do exist.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  The question is, what constitutes 'EU theory'?

                                                                                                                                                                                                  More importantly, Chapman's mathematical models, elegant as they were, just could not make reality change it's nature at the end of the day. At the end of the day, it will be shown that this is an "electromagnetic" universe, filled with current flows of all kinds. We can see the magnetic fields around these current flows form between the Sun and the Earth. We can observe them in distance clouds of plasma, and we can see the effect of these electrical currents on the solar atmosphere as it heats the coronal to millions of degrees, and accelerates the solar wind particles.


                                                                                                                                                                                                  Indeed.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  However, for now, I'm focussed on how the Sun shines, and the extent to which 'EU theory' (whatever that is) can account for the the Sun's present energy output, the stability of that output over the past ~30 years, and also over the past ~4 billion years.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Can we please get back to discussing this?

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Nereid
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Send message
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                                                                                  RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Message 79180 - Posted 9 Jan 2008 18:43:18 UTC - in response to Message 79079.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Continued ...

                                                                                                                                                                                                    From ChipperQ's link:

                                                                                                                                                                                                    http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~france/PAPERS/solmodel.pdf

                                                                                                                                                                                                    [snip]

                                                                                                                                                                                                    The final assumption of the standard solar model is that the sun was initially of a homogeneous, primordial composition, and highly convective at its main sequence turn on.


                                                                                                                                                                                                    These are the two assumptions that are false, and therefore they are the two assumptions that make standard gas model theory "false".

                                                                                                                                                                                                    [snip]

                                                                                                                                                                                                    The forth assumption is show stopper IMO. Elements tend to mass separate in large gravity wells, and there is a "stratification subsurface" sitting smack dab in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone. This assumption is falsified by satellite evidence.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

                                                                                                                                                                                                    I certainly didn't see any "prediction" in that standard solar theory paper that suggested we would find a stratification subsurface sitting at .995R that tends block the up drafting and down drafting of plasmas. That tends to shoot a giant hole in the "mixed by convection" concept. When we observe that LMSAL running difference image, we can see heavy materials fly up from the CME event and fall back down to the "surface" as coronal rain.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Homogeneous mixing of elements is not even a logical assumption to begin with IMO since we have ample evidence that plasmas tend to mass separate in the presence of strong gravitational and EM fields. The sun has both of these in abundant quantities.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    These are the two key "assumptions" of standard solar theory that cannot be supported by recent evidence, and that are in fact falsified by recent satellite evidence. Coronal rain can be seen falling back to the sun, even while hydrogen atoms stream off it's surface. There is no way that iron and nickel ions will stay "mixed" in a homogeneous fashion in a gravity well as powerful as the sun.


                                                                                                                                                                                                    For some reason the link to the paper didn't work for me, so I'm relying on a cached copy (which is 'v1').

                                                                                                                                                                                                    First, one of the authors of astro-ph/0510111 is 'Michael Mozina' - is that you Michael?

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Assuming you are, and assuming that you have applied the 'qualifying science' criteria you describe in several of your posts in this thread to a paper of which you are an author, would you mind providing references to relevant papers which report "controlled scientific testing, in controlled scientific experiments" of the following (quotes are from that paper, unless otherwise noted):

                                                                                                                                                                                                    * "repulsive interactions in super-massive neutron stars [as a possible] energy source that fragments cosmic matter to create clusters of galaxies, galaxies of stars, and planetary systems"

                                                                                                                                                                                                    * "at Z/A = 0 repulsive interactions between neutrons [...] generate solar luminosity"

                                                                                                                                                                                                    * "compact, neutron-rich stellar objects with A > ≈ 10^57 amu ≈ 1 solar mass (Mo)"

                                                                                                                                                                                                    * "Elements tend to mass separate in large gravity wells" and "plasmas tend to mass separate in the presence of strong gravitational and EM fields" (this post)

                                                                                                                                                                                                    I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of the energy transport mechanism, from postulated neutron star core source to the surface. If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?

                                                                                                                                                                                                    I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of the density, composition, or temperature profiles - whether 1D (radial), 2D, or 3D - that would be consistent with the proposed model. If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?

                                                                                                                                                                                                    I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of how - quantitatively - the proposed energy mechanisms generate the observed solar luminosity (as far as I can tell, they work backwards: Sun's luminosity is X, observed electron neutrino flux suggests Y, so the two other mechanisms proposed must account for the difference, X - Y). If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?

                                                                                                                                                                                                    I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of consistency with 'EU theory'. If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?

                                                                                                                                                                                                    I did not read, in this paper or any that it cites, any mention of analyses of helioseimology data incorporating propagation of sound through "rigid, iron-rich structures that Mozina [16] noticed below the Sun’s fluid photosphere in images from the SOHO and TRACE satellites" (as far as I know, [19]'s conclusion that there is "stratification at a relatively shallow depth beneath the visible photosphere, at about 0.5% solar radii (about 0.005 Ro)" depends critically upon assumptions that the medium through which the sound is propagating is a fluid). If I did miss it, would you be kind enough to point us to which paper it's in?

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Send message
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                                                                                    RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Message 79232 - Posted 10 Jan 2008 18:50:22 UTC - in response to Message 79166.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Last modified: 10 Jan 2008 19:26:12 UTC

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Perhaps I misunderstood again; I thought a key aspect of 'EU theory' was that "the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons)"; am I mistaken?


                                                                                                                                                                                                      That would probably depend on whom you ask. If you ask Oliver, I suspect he'll say no. If you ask me, I'll probably be inclined to answer "probably". Unfortunately there is no definite answer on how much energy is internally generated and how much is externally generated. If the core for instance is a neutron core that spins rapidly inside the shell, then induction forces will play a role. Neutron ejections from the core will play a role in that scenario as well. If the core contains a lot of fissionable material, that may also produce energy locally. I think the only "consensus" you could make is that "most" EU proponents believe that the majority of the energy comes from the flow of currents through the universe, but most of open to other forms of energy emissions at a local level as well.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Somewhat off-topic: to what extent are the various O. Manuel papers consistent with 'EU theory'?


                                                                                                                                                                                                      I would say that they are consistent with EU theory in that his theories would result in electrical suns that pretty much powered the universal currents of the universe. In other words his model makes a local sun it's own generator of electrical current. It's a bit inconsistent with EU theory in a larger sense, because it doesn't necessarily require an external energy source, and there does seem to be an external energy source involved.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Finally, are you claiming that all of Birkeland's ideas are essential parts of 'EU theory'?


                                                                                                                                                                                                      I would say that all his core theories are essential parts of EU theory that need to be confirmed the way Birkeland went about confirming things, namely with in situ measurements. The difference between Chapman's math and Birkeland's math were based on the fact that Birkeland specifically tested his idea, and he specifically and meticulously (at risk to his life) took in-situ measurements in the most hostile environment on the planet so that he could compare his experiments to real life measurements in the field. Chapman just sort of did his thing on paper and never really bothered to take the time to verify his ideas in the field or in the lab. He never "qualified" his theories in any way.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Oh, and have you "seen anyone move plasma in a controlled test using" MOND?


                                                                                                                                                                                                      I actually think that astronomers currently grossly underestimate the masses of suns because they are not mostly made of hydrogen and helium, but rather they are mostly made of iron an nickel. In a sun our size, it might not make much difference, but in larger suns I'm pretty certain that it would make a difference. I tend to be in the "MACHO" camp of "dark matter' theory (Gah it hurts to even say "dark matter") rather than MOND theory.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      True, they do exist.


                                                                                                                                                                                                      So why haven't you read Alfven's book yet like I asked you to do over a year ago? I mean you spend all this time yacking away at me in cyberspace and whining about my lack of mathematical presentation, but when I point you to the obvious best sources of information that exist on this topic (from the guy with the Nobel prize), you simply ignore my suggestions. You can only lead a horse to water...... :)

                                                                                                                                                                                                      The question is, what constitutes 'EU theory'?


                                                                                                                                                                                                      That's a really good point actually. There are a number of variations on the same basic theme. There are iron sun versions, there are neutron core versions (they can be independently chosen), there are fission versions, there are hydrogen sun versions, etc. I tend to be a "Birkeland purist" as I see it, which includes a metal sphere and an electro-magnetic core, which I tend to believe is made of heavy materials and acts like any other heavy plasma. Birkeland lived in a day when iron sun theories were still considered viable, and he seemed to be leaning that way, and I sure seem to lean that way based on what I observe in satellite images.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      The crust however prevents me from "looking inside" to see exactly what's going in inside the sun, so it is really difficult to verify any variation on the same theme.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      The way Birkeland went about the process in the "classic' or standard scientific method. He took in situ measurements and compared them to his laboratory experiments, just like all other branches of science. That is the only way to verify and falsify different EU variations on the same theme.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      However, for now, I'm focussed on how the Sun shines, and the extent to which 'EU theory' (whatever that is) can account for the the Sun's present energy output, the stability of that output over the past ~30 years, and also over the past ~4 billion years.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Can we please get back to discussing this?


                                                                                                                                                                                                      Sure. Oliver's notion of a fully internal energy source is one option. A fission model is one option. An internal and external fusion model is one option. A fully externally powered sun is one option too. Of course we an mix and match and combine ideas as well. Which option(s) would you like to discuss?
                                                                                                                                                                                                      ____________
                                                                                                                                                                                                      It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Nereid
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Send message
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Joined: Feb 9 05
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Posts: 79
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Credit: 925,034
                                                                                                                                                                                                      RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Message 79235 - Posted 10 Jan 2008 21:47:00 UTC - in response to Message 79232.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Perhaps I misunderstood again; I thought a key aspect of 'EU theory' was that "the bulk of the total energy release of the sun comes from an external energy source (flowing electrons)"; am I mistaken?


                                                                                                                                                                                                        That would probably depend on whom you ask. If you ask Oliver, I suspect he'll say no. If you ask me, I'll probably be inclined to answer "probably". Unfortunately there is no definite answer on how much energy is internally generated and how much is externally generated. If the core for instance is a neutron core that spins rapidly inside the shell, then induction forces will play a role. Neutron ejections from the core will play a role in that scenario as well. If the core contains a lot of fissionable material, that may also produce energy locally. I think the only "consensus" you could make is that "most" EU proponents believe that the majority of the energy comes from the flow of currents through the universe, but most of open to other forms of energy emissions at a local level as well.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Somewhat off-topic: to what extent are the various O. Manuel papers consistent with 'EU theory'?


                                                                                                                                                                                                        I would say that they are consistent with EU theory in that his theories would result in electrical suns that pretty much powered the universal currents of the universe. In other words his model makes a local sun it's own generator of electrical current. It's a bit inconsistent with EU theory in a larger sense, because it doesn't necessarily require an external energy source, and there does seem to be an external energy source involved.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Finally, are you claiming that all of Birkeland's ideas are essential parts of 'EU theory'?


                                                                                                                                                                                                        I would say that all his core theories are essential parts of EU theory that need to be confirmed the way Birkeland went about confirming things, namely with in situ measurements. The difference between Chapman's math and Birkeland's math were based on the fact that Birkeland specifically tested his idea, and he specifically and meticulously (at risk to his life) took in-situ measurements in the most hostile environment on the planet so that he could compare his experiments to real life measurements in the field. Chapman just sort of did his thing on paper and never really bothered to take the time to verify his ideas in the field or in the lab. He never "qualified" his theories in any way.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Oh, and have you "seen anyone move plasma in a controlled test using" MOND?


                                                                                                                                                                                                        I actually think that astronomers currently grossly underestimate the masses of suns because they are not mostly made of hydrogen and helium, but rather they are mostly made of iron an nickel. In a sun our size, it might not make much difference, but in larger suns I'm pretty certain that it would make a difference. I tend to be in the "MACHO" camp of "dark matter' theory (Gah it hurts to even say "dark matter") rather than MOND theory.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        True, they do exist.


                                                                                                                                                                                                        So why haven't you read Alfven's book yet like I asked you to do over a year ago? I mean you spend all this time yacking away at me in cyberspace and whining about my lack of mathematical presentation, but when I point you to the obvious best sources of information that exist on this topic (from the guy with the Nobel prize), you simply ignore my suggestions. You can only lead a horse to water...... :)

                                                                                                                                                                                                        The question is, what constitutes 'EU theory'?


                                                                                                                                                                                                        That's a really good point actually. There are a number of variations on the same basic theme. There are iron sun versions, there are neutron core versions (they can be independently chosen), there are fission versions, there are hydrogen sun versions, etc. I tend to be a "Birkeland purist" as I see it, which includes a metal sphere and an electro-magnetic core, which I tend to believe is made of heavy materials and acts like any other heavy plasma. Birkeland lived in a day when iron sun theories were still considered viable, and he seemed to be leaning that way, and I sure seem to lean that way based on what I observe in satellite images.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        The crust however prevents me from "looking inside" to see exactly what's going in inside the sun, so it is really difficult to verify any variation on the same theme.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        The way Birkeland went about the process in the "classic' or standard scientific method. He took in situ measurements and compared them to his laboratory experiments, just like all other branches of science. That is the only way to verify and falsify different EU variations on the same theme.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        However, for now, I'm focussed on how the Sun shines, and the extent to which 'EU theory' (whatever that is) can account for the the Sun's present energy output, the stability of that output over the past ~30 years, and also over the past ~4 billion years.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Can we please get back to discussing this?


                                                                                                                                                                                                        Sure. Oliver's notion of a fully internal energy source is one option. A fission model is one option. An internal and external fusion model is one option. A fully externally powered sun is one option too. Of course we an mix and match and combine ideas as well. Which option(s) would you like to discuss?

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Ya know Michael, I think any further discussion should really take place in a forum focussed on the philosophy of science ... based on what you have written in this thread, it seems you have a very different view of the nature of astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology, space/plasma physics) than I do. And I'd venture to suggest that most contemporary astronomers (etc) would agree with me.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        To say this another way: if we lack mutual agreement on the basis for a discussion, we will keep talking past one another, and nothing will be achieved but the creation of a great many posts.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        That there is a (pretty big) gulf wrt the nature of astronomy (etc), as a science, is clear to me, and clear to you (I think) ... some of the key points of difference are easily stated, perhaps a sound-bite summary would be that I can't see how your view of astronomy as a science can be squared away with Mike Hewson's earlier post*.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        To state a purely personal view, I'm not sure why you have chosen to post here, given that the default 'ground rule' for any sub-forum called 'Science' would be 'as can be determined from a study of the work of those called 'scientists'' (or something similar). I mean, sooner or later, discussions on such fora will end up with the recognition - fuzzy, clear, or otherwise - that one very big difference between views expressed concerns at least some elements of what constitutes astronomy (etc), as a science.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        So, I guess the time has come for me to stop discussion with you, to wish you all the best for 2008, ... and to ask that when you have done controlled scientific experiments, in your lab, on mini-neutron stars, would you mind letting me know?

                                                                                                                                                                                                        * "A 'good' theory should :

                                                                                                                                                                                                        - explain all extant data.
                                                                                                                                                                                                        - NOT contradict extant data ( like predicting a particle that WOULD have been observed ).
                                                                                                                                                                                                        - preferably account/predict/suggest some new observations.
                                                                                                                                                                                                        - comfortably abut with other theory domains at the borders.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        where 'explain' means the radii of measurement and the radii of theory overlap ie. there is an intersecting region.
                                                                                                                                                                                                        "

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Michael Mozina
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Send message
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Joined: Nov 15 05
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Posts: 51
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Credit: 8,270
                                                                                                                                                                                                        RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Message 79237 - Posted 10 Jan 2008 23:15:04 UTC - in response to Message 79235.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Last modified: 10 Jan 2008 23:17:13 UTC

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Ya know Michael, I think any further discussion should really take place in a forum focussed on the philosophy of science ... based on what you have written in this thread, it seems you have a very different view of the nature of astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology, space/plasma physics) than I do.


                                                                                                                                                                                                          I've noticed that too Nereid! :)

                                                                                                                                                                                                          My philosophy of science is essentially the "classical" approach to science as best exemplified by Kristian Birkeland. Birkeland risked his own life (and probably cut it short) to take in-situ measurements in the world's harshest conditions. He then compared these in situ observations to (relatively dangerous) laboratory testing that he personally did in his lab when he wasn't running around setting up measuring stations. Birkeland was essentially the quintessential scientist IMO. He used a "classic"" approach to science, including control mechanisms, and in-situ confirmation. Unlike Chapman, he didn't just sit around with a pencil and paper playing with unqualified ideas at his desk. He methodically experimented with his ideas in controlled conditions to the best of his abilities and he also compared his experimental results with in-situ measurements that he went to great lengths to get. That is is the classical approach to science Nereid and it applies to all branches of science.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          There is nothing "unique" or unusual about my desire to stick to the classic scientific method where possible. That's pretty much SOP for every branch of science.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          And I'd venture to suggest that most contemporary astronomers (etc) would agree with me.


                                                                                                                                                                                                          Is that an appeal to popularity fallacy, or an appeal to authority fallacy? :)

                                                                                                                                                                                                          I'm not ever sure that's true actually. In my discussions with astronomers, most of they would *like* to stick with a classical method of scientific exploration, but they are currently limited by technology (or lack thereof). You're a bit unusual in my experience in that you seem to devalue this classic method of scientific investigation in a way that is unique. I think we all realize that many elements of our theories won't be able to be tested in lab, but that does not mean that we should make not attempt to do so, or that we should not reap the benefits of that testing wherever possible. IMO Birkeland did a lot to discover the nature of the universe we live in using classical scientific methods. I certainly would not "throw away" or devalue that kind of scientific effort. I don't really meet many folks that would, and I doubt even you do either. Somehow however, inside you there is a disconnect between the "predictions" Birkeland made, the confirmations that have followed since then, and your personal respect for his work and his theories.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          To say this another way: if we lack mutual agreement on the basis for a discussion, we will keep talking past one another, and nothing will be achieved but the creation of a great many posts.


                                                                                                                                                                                                          That's why I suggested that you read Alfven's book. It explains some of the core ideas behind EU theory from a mathematical and theoretical perspective, and it picks up where Birkeland left off. I find it hard to discuss these ideas with you personally because you don't seem interested in understanding my views.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          That there is a (pretty big) gulf wrt the nature of astronomy (etc), as a science, is clear to me, and clear to you (I think) ... some of the key points of difference are easily stated, perhaps a sound-bite summary would be that I can't see how your view of astronomy as a science can be squared away with Mike Hewson's earlier post*.


                                                                                                                                                                                                          I don't actually believe that EU theory as it stands currently can be completely squared away with Mike's list, particularly that part about explaining all available data. Then again, I don't think that standard theory can do so either, certainly not without evoking metaphysical entities that have no logical testing mechanisms of any sort and have not been qualified in any way.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          To state a purely personal view, I'm not sure why you have chosen to post here,


                                                                                                                                                                                                          I chose to post here because I noticed that my website and these ideas were being discussed here and I thought it would be good idea for me to explain and defend these idea.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          given that the default 'ground rule' for any sub-forum called 'Science' would be 'as can be determined from a study of the work of those called 'scientists'' (or something similar).


                                                                                                                                                                                                          Birkeland was a scientist. So was Alfven. So was Bruce. So is Peratt. I have learned a lot from these "so called scientists".

                                                                                                                                                                                                          I mean, sooner or later, discussions on such fora will end up with the recognition - fuzzy, clear, or otherwise - that one very big difference between views expressed concerns at least some elements of what constitutes astronomy (etc), as a science.


                                                                                                                                                                                                          You're actually the only person I've ever met that seems to take some exception to the standard (empirical testing) method of doing "science". Most folks (me included) acknowledge that some aspects of any theory cannot be empirically tested, but most would agree that we should test our theories in controlled ways in every instance where that is currently possible.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          So, I guess the time has come for me to stop discussion with you, to wish you all the best for 2008, ... and to ask that when you have done controlled scientific experiments, in your lab, on mini-neutron stars, would you mind letting me know?


                                                                                                                                                                                                          Sure. In the mean time I remain open minded toward more "mundane" options that don't require neutron materials at all. IMO that is what good scientists do. They keep an open mind and attempt to explain what they observe using known laws and forces of nature. They attempt to "simplify" the ideas whenever possible.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          * "A 'good' theory should :

                                                                                                                                                                                                          - explain all extant data.


                                                                                                                                                                                                          I believe that Mike would be likely to agree with me that standard theory doesn't explain *all* extant data. I've never seen anyone explain "magnetic reconnection" for instance. By the way, this is one "theory" that not only *can* be tested in a lab, it *should* be tested in a lab *before* it is ever used to "explain"
                                                                                                                                                                                                          some uncontrolled observation.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          - NOT contradict extant data ( like predicting a particle that WOULD have been observed ).


                                                                                                                                                                                                          Inflation contradicts ever known law of physics on the books. No other scalar or vector field in nature retains near constant density over several exponential increases in volume. Inflation was used to "predict" a homogeneous layout of matter, but now we discover that the universe has gaping giant holes in it that defy all the previous "predictions" of inflation. Inflation theory not only contradicts the known physical laws of nature, it has been falsified by observational evidence. Now what? Do we ignore that gaping hole in the universe? Do we ignore the fact that no other known vector or scalar field in nature acts like inflation?

                                                                                                                                                                                                          In contrast, EU theory is built on "little steps", small steps, and information that is "closer to home". It *can* explain some observations close to home but it cannot explain them all. I know of no theory that explains them all. It may some day explain the "big picture" issues as well, and Alfven makes a valiant attempt to do that, but there is little if any way to verify some aspects of his theories (ambiplasmas for instance), so it's hard to tell how "well" it does at "big picture" questions.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          - preferably account/predict/suggest some new observations.


                                                                                                                                                                                                          I remind you that Birkeland's early EU predictions have been verified with "new observations" since his death. In that way, EU theory has already been "validated" by newer observations and verified predictions. EU theory passes this test just fine, whereas Chapman's purely mathematical approach failed to do so.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          - comfortably abut with other theory domains at the borders.


                                                                                                                                                                                                          EU theory shares it's domain quite comfortably with plasma physics, electronics, basic physics, GR theory, ect. In this respect EU theory passes with flying colors, whereas inflation theory does not.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          where 'explain' means the radii of measurement and the radii of theory overlap ie. there is an intersecting region."


                                                                                                                                                                                                          If you ever do get around to reading Alfven's book, I think you'd see that he's simply taking Birkeland's basic ideas and he shows how they overlap with plasma physics and MHD theory. He also demonstrates (mathematically) that everything he's proposing is simply a scaling effect of these basic principles. In this respect EU theory passes this test with flying colors.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          ____________
                                                                                                                                                                                                          It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Profile Chipper Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Avatar
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Send message
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Joined: Feb 20 05
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Posts: 1568
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Credit: 708,571
                                                                                                                                                                                                          RAC: 0
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Message 84276 - Posted 23 May 2008 3:53:37 UTC

                                                                                                                                                                                                            Just happened on this video from Space.com on high-speed Alfven waves: Solar Waves in Action

                                                                                                                                                                                                            The video was in the multimedia section next to this article (Ambitious NASA Probe to Fly Through Sun's Fringe) on the Solar Probe mission, currently looking at a 2015 launch window that includes 7 fly-bys around Venus on the way...

                                                                                                                                                                                                            The most recent article I could find (from last month) says that what was thought to be the observation of Alfven waves were actually kink waves (See New Kink in Sun's Strange Corona). This article also mentions the need for more observations to solve the mystery of coronal heating, and mentions other upcoming missions – one from NASA (Solar Dynamics Observatory) scheduled for launch at the end of this year or early 2009, and a mission from ESA (Solar Orbiter) scheduled also for 2015...

                                                                                                                                                                                                            Post to thread

                                                                                                                                                                                                            Message boards : Science : How the sun shines


                                                                                                                                                                                                            Home · Your account · Message boards

                                                                                                                                                                                                            This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grants PHY-1104902, PHY-1104617 and PHY-1105572 and by the Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the investigators and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or the MPG.

                                                                                                                                                                                                            Copyright © 2014 Bruce Allen