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.
Quote:
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 ....
Quote:
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 shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
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.
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:
Quote:
“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.
The third assumption of the model is that thermonuclear reactions are the only source of energy production inside the star (3).
Quote:
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.
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.
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 shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
My guess is that matters would be a lot clearer if 'electromagnetic' replaced 'magnetic' here.
I would tend to agree.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
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 shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
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:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
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.
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". :)
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.
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.
Quote:
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
RE: One aspect that
)
Absolutely! I also like it that the interferometers are essentially classical devices.
Yeah, we had a little incidental taste of that with SN1987A ....
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 shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Which of those papers will
)
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
RE: I dunno Michael,
)
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:
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
From ChipperQ's
)
From ChipperQ's link:
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~france/PAPERS/solmodel.pdf
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
RE: Which of those papers
)
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 shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: My guess is that
)
I would tend to agree.
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.
Ok.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Hmmm, I wonder ( being
)
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 shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: RE: It seems I have
)
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.
RE: If you can't make such
)
Ok, let's start with some earlier published papers from the THEMIS data.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702060v1
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
RE: RE: If you can't make
)
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.
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?
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.