Electricity and Birkeland currents in space

[ZeuZ]

Why is the chromoshphere millions of degrees hotter than the surface of the sun? in a body that the heat should radiate from the centre isn't this highly unexpected? i have been looking into this and the only good explanation in a science journal is this one from Harvard Astrophysical Journal, Volume 633, Issue 1, pp. L57-L60.
Which suggests that one of the reason the temparature is so high is due to electrical currents. there is plenty of documentation of electricity and birkeland currents playing an important role in space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current (with references)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...ype=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c30343

It seems odd, what property of the sun would cause the temparature outside of itself to be millions of degrees hotter than its own surface? And how do we know that it is fuelled by a huge nuclear burning core? its not as if we can see beneath the photosphere to be sure.
As far as i can see the best technique we have is helioseismology, but when you have papers like these from leading seismologists on Earth saying that even normal seismology is highly inaccurate- "It is concluded that the use of inference to amplify poor data must be made very transparent to the end user of the results, to avoid misleading appearances of accuracy. In many cases it may be best to abandon the quest for parameters altogether and admit that the data are inadequate." it raises doubts about the accuracy of helioseismology as there are more parameters involved than standard seismology, which would lead to a higher chance of misinterpretation of the data.

Maybe, as the chromosphere is hotter than the surface of the sun, it is getting some of its power from particles outside via electric currents, as well as some from its core? that would explain why the chromosphere is so hot, and aslo why the part of the sun where you can see deepest into it (sunspots) are the coldest areas? this would also explain the filamentary structure of the corona, which is looked into in detail in this paper: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963IAUS...16...35A
and http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/Perattpdf/PerattEvidenceCosmic.pdf I also found out the solar fusion model has not been fully tested. All the individual steps in the reaction have been achieved, but continuous hydrogen / helium fusion has never been reproduced in the lab;

1. 1H + 1H → 2H + e+ + νe
2. e+ + e− → 2γ + 1.02 MeV
3. 2H + 1H → 3He + γ + 5.49 MeV
4. From here there are three possible paths to generate helium isotope 4He.

all stages 1, 2, 3, 4 have individually been tested, but they have never been able to create the continual reaction hypothesized in the sun. anyone know why?

 

[Parlyne]

I also found out the solar fusion model has not been fully tested. All the individual steps in the reaction have been achieved, but continuous hydrogen / helium fusion has never been reproduced in the lab;

1. 1H + 1H → 2H + e+ + νe
2. e+ + e− → 2γ + 1.02 MeV
3. 2H + 1H → 3He + γ + 5.49 MeV
4. From here there are three possible paths to generate helium isotope 4He.

all stages 1, 2, 3, 4 have individually been tested, but they have never been able to create the continual reaction hypothesized in the sun. anyone know why?

In fact, the full Hydrogen to Helium fusion process has been reproduced in the laboratory. It's not a terribly difficult thing to do. The problem isn't that we can't do it. The problem is that it's not self-sustaining. That is, you have to put in more energy than you can get out. This is due to the fact that such reactions will only occur at very high temperature and pressure. The reaction itself will take care of the high temperature requirement, but that will tend to make the plasma it's occurring in expand. You need to be able to generate sufficient pressure to keep this from happening.

In the laboratory, you have to expend a huge amount of energy to generate this pressure; but, in the sun, it comes for free. No matter what you do, there will be huge pressure at the sun's core due to gravity trying to pull all the material that comprises the sun closer together. This is why fusion is self-sustaining in the sun, but not in the laboratory.

As for confirmation that this fusion process is actually what powers the sun, you've already, inadvertently, provided the basis of the best test. H to He fusion produces a heck of a lot of neutrinos. And, since neutrinos are extremely weakly interacting particles, most of them make it out of the sun without interacting with anything. Some of these neutrinos will come towards the Earth; and, some extremely small fraction of those will interact with matter here. So, by knowing the probability of a single neutrino interacting with the material in a neutrino detector, we can extrapolate the rate at which the sun emits neutrinos. We can then compare that rate with the rate at which the sun emits energy in the form of light; and, we can check whether that matches the predictions from the reactions you've listed.

In fact, early attempts at this (which were only capable of detecting electron neutrinos) found a significant deficit in the neutrino flux. However, later experiments capable of measuring all three neutrino flavors found the total flux to be an extremely good match for the fusion predictions. This is one of the major evidences for neutrino oscillations (the process by which a freely propagating neutrino of one flavor can become one of a different flavor).

 

[ZeuZ]

I would've thought they would have tried to test the reaction until they got it, have they just given up trying to do it? surely that pressure is reachable with modern machines?
there seem to be a lot of effects that were unpredicted by the nuclear model, the changing size, Heavy elements, neutrino variability, solar spectrum, differencial rotation by latitude, differential rotation by depth, equatorial plasma torus, sunspots, sunspot migration, sunspot penumbra, etc.the main point that I'm making is how the sun, with a surface temparature of 6000 K, has high up above its surface temparatures up to 2,000,000 degrees K. The problem is how do you get the energy out of the sun from the core, somehow up past the surface, to only heat the corona to millions of degrees, when the corona is not near the core area that is generating the heat.

 

[Parlyne]

I would've thought they would have tried to test the reaction until they got it, have they just given up trying to do it? surely that pressure is reachable with modern machines?

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I said that we can and have done this. The problem is not in creating such pressures. It's not even in sustaining such pressures. The problem is in sustaining such pressures without it requiring more energy than the reaction puts out.

there seem to be a lot of effects that were unpredicted by the nuclear model, the changing size, Heavy elements, neutrino variability, solar spectrum, differencial rotation by latitude, differential rotation by depth, equatorial plasma torus, sunspots, sunspot migration, sunspot penumbra, etc.

Nuclear fusion explains the source of the energy output by the sun. It certainly doesn't explain everything that goes on. There is a great deal more that needs explaining in terms of energy transport and overall dynamics after you can explain the energy source. There has been quite a bit of work on these topics and it continues to be ongoing. Some (like solar spectra and neutrino oscillations) are pretty well understood on simple principles. Others require detailed computer modeling. Remember that the sun is a giant ball of hot, self-gravitating plasma. That means that a full understanding of its dynamics requires solutions of magnetohydrodynamics in the presence of moderately strong gravity. This is a highly non-trivial problem, meaning that even if the physics we currently know explains everything that happens in the sun it's still a terrifically hard problem to understand it all.

the main point that I'm making is how the sun, with a surface temparature of 6000 K, has high up above its surface temparatures up to 2,000,000 degrees K. The problem is how do you get the energy out of the sun from the core, somehow up past the surface, to only heat the corona to millions of degrees, when the corona is not near the core area that is generating the heat.

I don't know offhand what the most current thinking on this topic is. However, you might want to keep in mind a couple of things that make it seem like a little less of a problem.

First, temperature is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of each individual particle in a substance. So, it tells you about how much energy each particle has, not about how much total energy there is. And, since the sun's corona is much (much) more diffuse than the rest of it, the total amount of energy in the corona is not necessarily that much higher than you might reasonable expect.

Also, the virial theorem tells us that in a gravitational potential, those objects with the highest energy will automatically tend towards the most distant orbits.

Finally, since the sun is continually generating energy, but has settled to what is effectively a steady state, this means that all the energy the sun generates must propagate out and be radiated away by one means or another.

 

[ZeuZ]

Nuclear fusion explains the source of the energy output by the sun. It certainly doesn't explain everything that goes on. There is a great deal more that needs explaining in terms of energy transport and overall dynamics after you can explain the energy source.

yes nuclear energy does explain some aspects, but how did we deduce the sun had a nuclear core in the first place?. It was first hypothesized just after nuclear energy was discovered, so it seemed to fit nicely then, but nearly every actual obsevation of the suns activity was unpredicted by the nuclear model, and most of them still have ad-hoc explanations now. Maybe the reason a lot of the phenomenon cannot be fully explained is because our original assumtion that the energy comes from the core is wrong.

First, temperature is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of each individual particle in a substance. So, it tells you about how much energy each particle has, not about how much total energy there is. And, since the sun's corona is much (much) more diffuse than the rest of it, the total amount of energy in the corona is not necessarily that much higher than you might reasonable expect.

I accept your point about the corona being much more diffuse than the rest of the sun, however i still see no reason why the particles above the sun should have more kinetic energy than the ones on its surface if the suns energy does really originate from its centre.

Particles in the solar wind increase in velocity as they increase in distance from the sun, the further away they go, the faster they get. The fact that all of those particles are chaged particles leads to the conclusion that it is an electrical process that drives the sun (as electricity is the flow of charge). In this model you have to imagine that the sun is a very high voltage body, that would obviously eminate an electrical field, and if you put a charged particle in an electric field it will accelorate.

Any model of the sun has to explain why it could continue to burn for millions of years, and also explain its present size based on its known mass. When the nuclear model was first proposed they made a large assumption that the Sun is disconnected and an isolated body and that it must consume itself over its lifetime. (back then they thought space was completely empty before the abundance of charged particles were found in the solar wind)

But if the sun is connected to the rest of the galaxy (by electricity and currents in the solar wind) it doesn't require that it burn itself at all; the energy we receive is actually being received from the galaxy, and the sun is infact acting as a focus for that energy.
If the sun were being fuelled externally the first place you would expect that energy to be found is in the corona, which is exactly where it is observed. Plus the filamentary structure of the corona provides yet another good indication of electrical currents.

Finally, since the sun is continually generating energy, but has settled to what is effectively a steady state, this means that all the energy the sun generates must propagate out and be radiated away by one means or another.

i do not dispute that all the energy the sun generates has to propegate out, but i just doubt where the sun is getting that energy from in the first place.

 

[Parlyne]

yes nuclear energy does explain some aspects, but how did we deduce the sun had a nuclear core in the first place?. It was first hypothesized just after nuclear energy was discovered, so it seemed to fit nicely then, but nearly every actual obsevation of the suns activity was unpredicted by the nuclear model, and most of them still have ad-hoc explanations now. Maybe the reason a lot of the phenomenon cannot be fully explained is because our original assumtion that the energy comes from the core is wrong.

Nothing ad-hoc about it. It just involves different parts of physics than the fusion at the core does. Why do you expect that all of the dynamics of a body as large and complicated as the sun can be captured in a single idea?

I accept your point about the corona being much more diffuse than the rest of the sun, however i still see no reason why the particles above the sun should have more kinetic energy than the ones on its surface if the suns energy does really originate from its centre.

First, that fact that the corona is more diffuse than the rest of the sun means that there are fewer opportunities for the particles to interact and radiate energy. Second, as you point out, the particles in the corona are charged, which means that they are subject to the effects of the sun's magnetic field, which is quite strong.

Particles in the solar wind increase in velocity as they increase in distance from the sun, the further away they go, the faster they get. The fact that all of those particles are chaged particles leads to the conclusion that it is an electrical process that drives the sun (as electricity is the flow of charge). In this model you have to imagine that the sun is a very high voltage body, that would obviously eminate an electrical field, and if you put a charged particle in an electric field it will accelorate.

If the sun were at a high voltage, it would, indeed, repel positively charged particles; but, it would also attract negatively charged ones, which would ultimately have the effect of degrading that positive voltage. It doesn't work as a steady state solution. A much more viable idea is that the acceleration of the particles in the solar wind is driven by the sun's magnetic field.

Any model of the sun has to explain why it could continue to burn for millions of years, and also explain its present size based on its known mass. When the nuclear model was first proposed they made a large assumption that the Sun is disconnected and an isolated body and that it must consume itself over its lifetime. (back then they thought space was completely empty before the abundance of charged particles were found in the solar wind)

But if the sun is connected to the rest of the galaxy (by electricity and currents in the solar wind) it doesn't require that it burn itself at all; the energy we receive is actually being received from the galaxy, and the sun is infact acting as a focus for that energy.
If the sun were being fuelled externally the first place you would expect that energy to be found is in the corona, which is exactly where it is observed. Plus the filamentary structure of the corona provides yet another good indication of electrical currents.

The nuclear model explains quite a bit more than the sun's age. It also explains the solar neutrino flux and provides a guide to overall stellar evolution which matches what is observed astronomically.

The fact that there's a filamentary structure in the the corona is no surprise given that the corona is a plasma subject to strong magnetic fields. However, it's worth noting that cosmological simulations make it clear that even gravity alone can create filamentary structures.

i do not dispute that all the energy the sun generates has to propegate out, but i just doubt where the sun is getting that energy from in the first place.

If there were no nuclear reactions inside the sun, there ought to be no solar neutrino flux. However, quite a few experiments have seen one. And, given that some of those experiments can measure not only the number of neutrinos, but also their direction of origin, you're going to have to explain why these measurements indicate a neutrino flux of something like 60 billion neutrinos per second per square centimeter if there's no significant source of weak interactions inside the sun (and, while you're at it, you might want to try to find a way of explaining why these neutrinos have an energy spectrum matching that predicted by the fusion model).

 

[Syther]

Nothing ad-hoc about it. It just involves different parts of physics than the fusion at the core does. Why do you expect that all of the dynamics of a body as large and complicated as the sun can be captured in a single idea?

I never stated that the dynamics of the sun can be captured in a single idea. I am pointing out that an electrical/plasmasphere interpretation of the sun fits a lot of the observed phenomenon on the sun better when compared with the nuclear model.

To determine which theory is more accurate you should make predictions that you can then later test, to see which theory fits the data best. In nearly every instance the nuclear model has neither predicted, or can fully explain, basic observations about the sun. I have heard some very dubious language employed to deal with a lot of these phenomenon, such things as ‘magnetic cracks’ http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-kwd=nj-2f9/1367-2630/8/5/079/njp6_5_079.pdf?request-id=KN2m79Rq3BGSEua52wi7Kg, ‘magnetic reconnection theory’, (link) ‘magnetic knots’, ‘open magnetic fields’, ‘frozen in magnetic fields’ and many other fanciful, often Magnetohydrodynamic based, ideas.

Any time magnetic fields get treated as physical entities, you have bad science. How exactly does one tie a knot in a) an imaginary field line with no physical "existence" b) a fluid medium (water, gas, plasma; pretty much anything other than a flexible "solid" or "pseudo-solid")

The electrical/plasma model is not the answer to every attribute of the sun; it does however fit most observations better than the current nuclear model, especially when you take into account the unexplained characteristics of the chromosphere and corona.

First, that fact that the corona is more diffuse than the rest of the sun means that there are fewer opportunities for the particles to interact and radiate energy.

That still does not explain how the particles emerge from the sun with a small amount of energy, and then when they reach the corona they gain well over a hundred times more energy than they left with.

Second, as you point out, the particles in the corona are charged, which means that they are subject to the effects of the sun's magnetic field, which is quite strong.

I presume that you know what causes these magnetic fields? The same thing that causes all magnetic fields; electric currents.

If the sun were at a high voltage, it would, indeed, repel positively charged particles; but, it would also attract negatively charged ones

Yes, that is quite right, you said it yourself, the sun would attract electrons and dispel positive particles. Now as you stated (correctly) that the sun would be strongly attracting negative ion’s in its electric field, that is exactly what is happening; there is a flow of charged particles streaming continually into the sun to negate this difference in charge, ie, flow of charge = an electric current. The Z-pinch characteristic of plasma enables strong currents such as this to occur, so to does the ‘double layer’ characteristic observed in laboratory plasmas.

Electrons are predominant in this flow as they have well over 1000 times less mass than a proton. This gives the surface of the Sun a layer of negative charge and the core an increasing positive charge. A continuous solar wind is ejected from the surface and periodically the positive charge on the core exceeds the breakdown value, which is what causes planet-sized pieces to break away in solar flares and be expelled towards the surface as the charge equalizes.

The fact that there's a filamentary structure in the corona is no surprise given that the corona is a plasma subject to strong magnetic fields.

Electric currents create magnetic fields, and only electricity creates magnetic fields, the strong magnetic fields in the corona are another strong indication of the ions flowing out of, and into the sun.

However, it's worth noting that cosmological simulations make it clear that even gravity alone can create filamentary structures.

Yes, cosmologists would look a bit silly if they had no way of explaining the abundance of filamentary structures in space. I have not heard of gravity causing these structures, can you provide your source for this?

I was under the impression that Gravity is entirely attractive, and a very basic geometric property of a purely attractive field is that it the field will form to be nothing other than circular in shape. Also gravity is far to weak to cause the significant structures we see, and its effects on single ions in the solar wind is negligible, charge and magnetism exert a much, much, stronger force on particles which would overcome any gravitational forces.

If there were no nuclear reactions inside the sun, there ought to be no solar neutrino flux. However, quite a few experiments have seen one. And, given that some of those experiments can measure not only the number of neutrinos, but also their direction of origin, you're going to have to explain why these measurements indicate a neutrino flux of something like 60 billion neutrinos per second per square centimeter if there's no significant source of weak interactions inside the sun (and, while you're at it, you might want to try to find a way of explaining why these neutrinos have an energy spectrum matching that predicted by the fusion model).

I don’t dispute those findings, or the successful prediction that the nuclear fusion model made, but those results are very far away from proving the internal constitution of the sun. The electric/plasmasphere sun model proposed by Hannes Alfvén (Nobel prize laureate for Physics, who discovered magneto-hydrodynamics) could also produce similar results; in other words the nuclear core model is not a unique solution to those results.




I return to my original question, why is the corona so much hotter than the sun? Surely this would only be expected if energy was being attracted from outside the sun? Astronomers fully admit they have no idea why it is so hot, and I am amazed they can admit that, and say they are confident about the rest of the suns constitution. In fact, why is the corona there at all? The standard model neither predicts nor explains it; it is obviously an electrical phenomenon.

this is not a 'crackpot theory' (although i'll probably be banned again for questioning the standard model) it is backed up by a lot of scientific literature, its just not mainstream literature and is usually overlooked. Maybe pointing out these things does anger some people, but i will continue to point them out until someone actually gives a suitable explanation for them.



References;


(1) http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/Perattpdf/PerattEvidenceCosmic.pdf The evidence for electrical currents in cosmic plasma, IEEE transactions on plasma science;

(2) http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978Ap&SS..55..487A Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars; Alfven, H. & Carlqvist, P;

(3) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...ype=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c28646 Are Electric Currents Heating the Magnetic Chromosphere? 2005: The American Astronomical Society;

(4) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...ype=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c30343 Electric currents in the solar wind; Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 80, Dec. 1, 1975, p. 4719-4724

(5) http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/sun2.htm E. W. Crew, The Observatory, 101, 1040, 1981; New Light on the Sun (with references to other peer review papers)


(6) http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf O. Manuel, Nuclear Chemistry, University of Missouri-Rolla, MO 65401 USA, Plasma and the sun;

(7) http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/Perattpdf/MeierovichPeratt.pdf Equilibrium of intergalactic currents, Anthony Peratt, IEEE;

(8) http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/CosmologyPeratt.pdf Plamsa cosmology, Peratt, IEEE;

(9) http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/Perattpdf/PeterPeratt.pdf Evidence of abundance of electrical currents in space via Synchrotron Radiation Spectrum:

 

[Parlyne]

This will have to be a bit terse. I hurt one of my fingers a couple of days ago, and typing is now a bit difficult.

I never stated that the dynamics of the sun can be captured in a single idea. I am pointing out that an electrical/plasmasphere interpretation of the sun fits a lot of the observed phenomenon on the sun better when compared with the nuclear model.

To determine which theory is more accurate you should make predictions that you can then later test, to see which theory fits the data best. In nearly every instance the nuclear model has neither predicted, or can fully explain, basic observations about the sun. I have heard some very dubious language employed to deal with a lot of these phenomenon, such things as ‘magnetic cracks’ http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-kwd=nj-2f9/1367-2630/8/5/079/njp6_5_079.pdf?request-id=KN2m79Rq3BGSEua52wi7Kg, ‘magnetic reconnection theory’, (link) ‘magnetic knots’, ‘open magnetic fields’, ‘frozen in magnetic fields’ and many other fanciful, often Magnetohydrodynamic based, ideas.

Plasma physics is not my specialty, so I'll have to leave direct comment on that to others. However, as I've already pointed out, the nuclear model itself can only speak to the power output and the neutrino flux. There rest has to be predict using the relevant physics, which is (of course) magnetohydrodynamics. And, let's not forget that, due to the non-linear nature of MHD, no one's yet even managed to come up with a fully convincing model for the generation of Earth's magnetic field, much less the minute details of the sun.

Any time magnetic fields get treated as physical entities, you have bad science. How exactly does one tie a knot in a) an imaginary field line with no physical "existence" b) a fluid medium (water, gas, plasma; pretty much anything other than a flexible "solid" or "pseudo-solid")

Ever heard of light? Last I checked it's composed of self-propagating electric and magnetic fields. Or do you have a better explanation?

The electrical/plasma model is not the answer to every attribute of the sun; it does however fit most observations better than the current nuclear model, especially when you take into account the unexplained characteristics of the chromosphere and corona.

You'll have to explain how it predicts the neutrino flux, but we'll come back to that. And there's the little issue of why the sun doesn't collapse under its own self-gravity.

That still does not explain how the particles emerge from the sun with a small amount of energy, and then when they reach the corona they gain well over a hundred times more energy than they left with.

What makes you think there's significant exchange of particles between the various layers of the sun?

I presume that you know what causes these magnetic fields? The same thing that causes all magnetic fields; electric currents.

Now, you must know better than this. Exactly how do you intend to explain the magnetic moments of subatomic particles in terms of electrical currents? This is, after all, the source of the magnetization of magnetic materials.

Now, granted, the sun's magnetic field is certainly generated by electrical currents, rather than some bulk effect of spin. However, if the sun's magnetic field were generated by currents in or near the corona, we should see pretty large scale quadrupole, octopole, etc. effects. Do we? It not, it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that the sun's magnetic field is generated much closer to it's core.

Yes, that is quite right, you said it yourself, the sun would attract electrons and dispel positive particles. Now as you stated (correctly) that the sun would be strongly attracting negative ion’s in its electric field, that is exactly what is happening; there is a flow of charged particles streaming continually into the sun to negate this difference in charge, ie, flow of charge = an electric current. The Z-pinch characteristic of plasma enables strong currents such as this to occur, so to does the ‘double layer’ characteristic observed in laboratory plasmas.

Electrons are predominant in this flow as they have well over 1000 times less mass than a proton. This gives the surface of the Sun a layer of negative charge and the core an increasing positive charge. A continuous solar wind is ejected from the surface and periodically the positive charge on the core exceeds the breakdown value, which is what causes planet-sized pieces to break away in solar flares and be expelled towards the surface as the charge equalizes.

Here's the thing. To see that kind of large voltage on the sun, it would have to have net positive charge. So, the effect of the electrons flowing in would be to screen and, ultimately, neutralize the effects of that charge. So, now you still need to find a way to end up with that charge separation again so that there is consistently a solar wind (which is, after all, observed to exist).

Electric currents create magnetic fields, and only electricity creates magnetic fields, the strong magnetic fields in the corona are another strong indication of the ions flowing out of, and into the sun.

Not really. It's evidence for the presence of currents and/or time varying electric fields, yes. But that is not, a priori, an argument that there is any net flux of ions into or out of the sun. After all, the Earth's magnetic field is not evidence for net charge entering or leaving Earth.

Yes, cosmologists would look a bit silly if they had no way of explaining the abundance of filamentary structures in space. I have not heard of gravity causing these structures, can you provide your source for this?

How would a page with visualizations from cosmological modeling do for that?

http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/filaments.html

You can find references to relevant papers on the websites of the authors.

Now, certainly, these are on a much larger scale than anything we're talking about here. But, the point stands.

I was under the impression that Gravity is entirely attractive, and a very basic geometric property of a purely attractive field is that it the field will form to be nothing other than circular in shape. Also gravity is far to weak to cause the significant structures we see, and its effects on single ions in the solar wind is negligible, charge and magnetism exert a much, much, stronger force on particles which would overcome any gravitational forces.

Gravity can lead to a great variety of structure. It only forces spherical symmetry, for example, in bound systems with no net angular momentum.

Just look at the variety of galaxies and tell me that gravity forces things into circles. And, while we're at it, there's that little matter of Keplerian elliptical orbits.

Now, I'm not claiming that gravity is responsible for the filamentary structures seen in the sun. My point was simply that you need to be careful in making assumptions about what physics is implied by a given sort of structure.

I don’t dispute those findings, or the successful prediction that the nuclear fusion model made, but those results are very far away from proving the internal constitution of the sun. The electric/plasmasphere sun model proposed by Hannes Alfvén (Nobel prize laureate for Physics, who discovered magneto-hydrodynamics) could also produce similar results; in other words the nuclear core model is not a unique solution to those results.

I'd certainly like to see how a plasma theory is supposed to create a huge neutrino flux. Last I checked, the production of neutrinos required the Weak force, since neutrinos are uncolored and neutral. Furthermore, the physics of the pp chain pretty strongly constrains the energies of neutrinos that can be emitted in the fusion process. And, the relative abundances of these energies in the neutrino spectrum is determined by the relative rates of the various branches of the pp chain, which in turn is determined by the temperature of the sun's core. The point is that these predictions ultimately depend on very little other than the sun's mass and composition. And, they match observations. Can you get that sort of agreement from a classical plasma theory where the introduction of the weak force would be an ad hoc proposition in the first place?

I return to my original question, why is the corona so much hotter than the sun? Surely this would only be expected if energy was being attracted from outside the sun? Astronomers fully admit they have no idea why it is so hot, and I am amazed they can admit that, and say they are confident about the rest of the suns constitution. In fact, why is the corona there at all? The standard model neither predicts nor explains it; it is obviously an electrical phenomenon.

The fact that there are electrical phenomena in the sun (a fact that no one disputes) is very different from that claim that all solar phenomena are electrical.

this is not a 'crackpot theory' (although i'll probably be banned again for questioning the standard model) it is backed up by a lot of scientific literature, its just not mainstream literature and is usually overlooked. Maybe pointing out these things does anger some people, but i will continue to point them out until someone actually gives a suitable explanation for them.

It is a crackpot theory precisely because it ignores all the places that mainstream models agree with precision measurements. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Syther]

Plasma physics is not my specialty, so I'll have to leave direct comment on that to others. However, as I've already pointed out, the nuclear model itself can only speak to the power output and the neutrino flux. There rest has to be predict using the relevant physics, which is (of course) magnetohydrodynamics. And, let's not forget that, due to the non-linear nature of MHD, no one's yet even managed to come up with a fully convincing model for the generation of Earth's magnetic field, much less the minute details of the sun.

Let’s examine the whole neutrino flux issue, as you’re so keen to keep bringing this up.

There are at least three different types of neutrino, electron, mu and tau. Only electron neutrino’s were detected up until 2001. The SNO then detected that neutrinos actually do have mass and can change flavour, which solar astronomers eagerly picked up as it could solve their embarrassing neutrino deficiency. So now astronomers assumed that two thirds of the electron neutrino’s convert into other flavours as they travel to earth, which was tacked onto Eddington’s original assumption.
There are still some important questions that remain about the methodology used by the SNO researchers in arriving at their conclusions.


Quote from http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/first_results/ “the SNO detector has the capability to determine whether solar neutrino’s are changing their type en route to earth, thus providing answers to questions about neutrino properties and solar energy generation… Mondays announcement demonstrates that we are 99% sure.”


Question: How can the SNO research team claim the ability to determine whether something happens to neutrino’s on route from the sun to Earth without making measurements at the sun (at the start of the journey) or at least somewhere along the route? How do they know the neutrino’s that arrive are not exactly the same as when they started out?
Think about the logical equivalent of that announcement; consider a train carrying different sorts of cars and traveling from New York to Chicago, we live in Chicago and observe the train pull up. It pulls in with 4 Land Rovers, 8 Mini’s, and 20 motorcycles. How is it possible, no matter what our method of observation, for us to make any conclusions whatsoever that the cars were added to or subtracted from the train at, say, Cleveland? Moreover how is it possible to say that two thirds of the Landover’s actually turned into Mini’s along the route somewhere? (and do it with 99% accuracy ?)

There is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that occurred further up that channel.

The only two ways such conclusions could be reached is if observations were made at more than one place along the path, or if an assumption is made about the source. The answer must be that they are assuming what the composition of the neutrino flux leaving the sun is. But that makes the experiment an exercise in circular reasoning. If they know how many of each kind of neutrino are leaving the sun, there is no need for the experiment. The experimentally obtained data adds nothing in the way of verification of the assumption.


By far the most important statement in the SNO report is this one:
“If neutrino’s from the sun change into other active flavours, then CC flux will be less than the ES flux” (CC flux = electron neutrino flux and ES flux also includes some of the other flavours.) We can logically analyze the last sentence by defining its two phrases:
Electron neutrinos from the sun can change into other active flavours.
The CC (electron neutrino) flux measurement is less than the ES measurement.

The sentence actually says: If (a) is true, THEN (b) is TRUE. No-one can disagree with this obvious statement, it contains no new information. Any “if” statement can be prefixed in front of (b) because (b) will be true no matter what. eg, ‘if up is down’ then CC flux < ES flux.
But they are concluding that: If (b) is true, then (a) is true. That is a classical logical fallacy known since the time of Aristotle: (b) will always be true even if (a) is false.

Ever heard of light? Last I checked it's composed of self-propagating electric and magnetic fields. Or do you have a better explanation?

Well that would make sense as it’s in the EM spectrum.

You'll have to explain how it predicts the neutrino flux, but we'll come back to that. And there's the little issue of why the sun doesn't collapse under its own self-gravity.

To elaborate further on my previous description, the electric star model makes the simplest assumption (Occams Scalpel) – that nothing much is going inside the sun. In the plasma that makes up the sun the nucleus of each atom, which is thousands of times heavier than the electron, will be gravitationally offset from the centre if the atom. The result is that the atom becomes a small electric dipole. These dipoles form to create a radial electric field which causes electrons to diffuse outwards in enormously greater numbers than simple gravitational sorting allows. That leaves positively charged ions behind which repel one another. That electrical repulsion balances the compressive force of gravity without the need for a central heat source in the star. An electric star will be roughly the same density throughout, or isodense.

We should remember that the strength of electrostatic attraction between a proton electron pair is 39 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational attraction. So the necessary offset of the electron from the nucleus can be sub-microscopic and yet produce an extremely strong electrical force to counteract gravitational collapse.

What makes you think there’s significant exchange of particles between the various layers of the sun?

If you plot the electrical potential energy of particles leaving the sun it will rise slightly at the photosphere, but start to decrease rapidly at the chromoshpere, until it starts to slow down at the inner corona and further still at the outer corona. When this graph is plotted it is identical to the plot of energy (V) found in a solid-state pnp transistor.

In a transistor, the amplitude of the “collector current” (analogous to the outwards radial drift of +ve ions in the solar wind.) is easily controlled by varying the base emitter voltage, and this can be compared to the suns voltage from the interior, up until the photosphere. So is this same mechanism (a voltage difference between the interior and its photosphere) controlling the strength of the solar wind? It appears that the answer is yes. This explanation would also explain why sometimes the sun completely stops emitting ions, and it has actually stopped for two entire days before.

Now, you must know better than this. Exactly how do you intend to explain the magnetic moments of subatomic particles in terms of electrical currents? This is, after all, the source of the magnetization of magnetic materials.

Magnegic moments on the sub atomic scale do not play a significant role when compared to the magnetic fields produced by Birkeland currents in space and around the sun.



A good question to ask about this model is are the incoming electrons sufficient to power the sun? The best research into this has been done by Ralph Juergens, and Earl R. Milton, professor of physics at the university of Lethbridge in Canada, they made a quantative derivation that the answer is yes. http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0801-electric-i.htm

To me it all just seems to fit better with the ES model.

 

[Parlyne]

Let’s examine the whole neutrino flux issue, as you’re so keen to keep bringing this up.

There are at least three different types of neutrino, electron, mu and tau. Only electron neutrino’s were detected up until 2001. The SNO then detected that neutrinos actually do have mass and can change flavour, which solar astronomers eagerly picked up as it could solve their embarrassing neutrino deficiency. So now astronomers assumed that two thirds of the electron neutrino’s convert into other flavours as they travel to earth, which was tacked onto Eddington’s original assumption.
There are still some important questions that remain about the methodology used by the SNO researchers in arriving at their conclusions.


Quote from http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/first_results/ “the SNO detector has the capability to determine whether solar neutrino’s are changing their type en route to earth, thus providing answers to questions about neutrino properties and solar energy generation… Mondays announcement demonstrates that we are 99% sure.”


Question: How can the SNO research team claim the ability to determine whether something happens to neutrino’s on route from the sun to Earth without making measurements at the sun (at the start of the journey) or at least somewhere along the route? How do they know the neutrino’s that arrive are not exactly the same as when they started out?
Think about the logical equivalent of that announcement; consider a train carrying different sorts of cars and traveling from New York to Chicago, we live in Chicago and observe the train pull up. It pulls in with 4 Land Rovers, 8 Mini’s, and 20 motorcycles. How is it possible, no matter what our method of observation, for us to make any conclusions whatsoever that the cars were added to or subtracted from the train at, say, Cleveland? Moreover how is it possible to say that two thirds of the Landover’s actually turned into Mini’s along the route somewhere? (and do it with 99% accuracy ?)

There is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that occurred further up that channel.

The only two ways such conclusions could be reached is if observations were made at more than one place along the path, or if an assumption is made about the source. The answer must be that they are assuming what the composition of the neutrino flux leaving the sun is. But that makes the experiment an exercise in circular reasoning. If they know how many of each kind of neutrino are leaving the sun, there is no need for the experiment. The experimentally obtained data adds nothing in the way of verification of the assumption.


By far the most important statement in the SNO report is this one:
“If neutrino’s from the sun change into other active flavours, then CC flux will be less than the ES flux” (CC flux = electron neutrino flux and ES flux also includes some of the other flavours.) We can logically analyze the last sentence by defining its two phrases:
Electron neutrinos from the sun can change into other active flavours.
The CC (electron neutrino) flux measurement is less than the ES measurement.

The sentence actually says: If (a) is true, THEN (b) is TRUE. No-one can disagree with this obvious statement, it contains no new information. Any “if” statement can be prefixed in front of (b) because (b) will be true no matter what. eg, ‘if up is down’ then CC flux < ES flux.
But they are concluding that: If (b) is true, then (a) is true. That is a classical logical fallacy known since the time of Aristotle: (b) will always be true even if (a) is false.

You've done an extremely nice job of ignoring every relevant point I've made.

1) If the sun were fully explained by electrical processes, there should be no solar neutrino flux of any flavor.

2) Several of the large neutrino detectors can reconstruct the trajectories of the detected neutrinos (Super-Kamiokande and Ice Cube come to mind). This means that, with repeated observations over the course of days and years, it can quite readily be confirmed that the neutrino flux does arise from the direction of the sun.

3) Additionally several of the large neutrino detectors can detect all three flavors of neutrinos, thus allowing measurement of the total neutrino flux.

4) There are two methods of looking at the oscillations to reconstruct the flavors of the original particles. The amount of oscillation on a path of a given length (say, from the sun's core to earth) depends on certain fundamental parameters (the mass squared splittings and mixing angles) and on the path length and energy. Thus, observation of neutrinos of different energies along the same baseline allows the disentanglement of oscillation parameters.

Additionally, interactions with matter (like, say, the earth) increase the probability of oscillations. So, more information can be obtained by comparing solar neutrinos that do or do not pass through the Earth.

5) Finally, on top of all this, the neutrinos are observed to have the energies predicted by the nuclear model (even if their flavors are wrong due to oscillations).

Well that would make sense as it’s in the EM spectrum.

Again, you ignore my point. You claimed that magnetic fields don't physically exists. I asked you what light is if magnetic fields don't exist.

I'll come back to the rest of this later when I have more time.

 

[Syther]

Again, you ignore my point. You claimed that magnetic fields don't physically exists. I asked you what light is if magnetic fields don't exist.

I said field lines, not magnetic fields. Field lines are just the way we detect and mearure magnetism, they do not actually exist in a physical sense.
Of course magnetic fields exist, but the way some scientists use magnetic 'field lines' it looks like they think these lines really do exist as physical things.Instead of us just picking out quotes and arguing about small specific points, I’ll just write a brief explanation of the main points of the ES (electric sun) model, so you can critique that, i'll try to answer your specific above questions later.

The standard model of the sun states that the sun generates all its energy from the core, and that via photons and convection this radiates outwards before leaving the surface of the sun. Of course no-one has been able to see into the sun, but lacking any other reasonable model about how the sun functions, astronomers have generally accepted this one as being true. The standard solar model sneaks in a subtle assumption, that the ‘surface’ of the sun is the top of the convection zone and is the final stage of the mechanism that makes the sun shine. But this is not true. The top is only the photosphere, next we go to the chromosphere which is hotter and 2000-3000 km in length. The standard model does not predict its existence. Above the chromosphere is an extended glowing plasma structure we know as the corona, and beyond the corona an invisible plasmasphere extends many times the distance of the planet Pluto made up of charged ions in the ‘solar wind’. (The phrase solar wind is a misnomer; a flow of ions constitutes an electrical current, not a wind. We do not speak of an electric ‘wind’ flowing in our wires at home)

In the ES sun hypothesis, the power of the sun does not lie deep within it. Juergens was the first to propose this idea that the sun sits as the focus of not only the planets but also a large plasmasphere. Due to its size the sun has a large electric capacitance; this capacitance receives charge from cosmic (birkeland) currents that exist in our arm of the galaxy. The sun thus exhibits a relatively high voltage. Jurgens calculated that the suns voltage multiplied by the total value of current coming towards it, is sufficient to produce the suns observed power output, and concluded the sun is powered by its galactic environment and not from within itself.

The current standard model explanation of the sun is falsified by the fact that any source of radiant energy is supposed to obey the inverse square law, so the corona should not be hotter than the surface of the sun. However the ES model predicts the temperature minimum.

It does this by showing that charged particles are not much affected by external electrostatic forces when they are within the photosphere, only diffusion motion and Brownian motion occurs. Temperature is simply the measurement of the general kinetic energy of particles, so the 5800K temperatures there seems to fit. This means that the ions have their maximum potential energy when they are in this photospheric plasma; however their mechanical energy is relatively low. At a certain point when a +ve ion randomly moves out of the photosphere and into the electric field (voltage gradient) it will result in it being accelerated outwards. The particles are basically transferring the high electrical potential energy they had in the sun into kinetic energy by gaining an extremely high outwards radial velocity. In this region between the photosphere and lower chromosphere the ions become very organised (parallel) and they are much more diffuse, thus their temperature, which is a measurement of their random motion, drops to a minimum.
When these rapidly traveling particles travel through the chromosphere they move beyond the outwardly directed e-field force that has been accelerating them, (ie, they have reached the bottom of the hill and are now moving much faster than they were at the top). Because of their kinetic energy any collisions at this point involve a lot of energy, and create high amplitude random motions, therefore ‘re-thermalizing’ these ions to a much higher temperature as they react with each other after gaining their original burst of energy.

The Z-pinch effect of current filaments is arc mode plasmas is very strong, and the effect of these forces on the suns surface would be strong enough to fuse atoms. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place is likely taking place in the double layer above the top of the photosphere, not deep within its core. The products of this fusion process are the ‘metals’ that give rise to the absorption line in the solar spectrum and the other particles that we can detect.

 

[Syther]

As no-one has given me an answer to why the outer areas of the sun are so much hotter than some inner areas i can only presume that the ES model is correct and most of the suns energy is being taken from its local environment via electric currents. It does seem to fit with most aspects of the sun. If anyone can give a good reason why the Electric Sun model i stated in the above post is infact wrong, i would very much like to hear it.
a good site for the latest plasma cosmological viewpoint on the universe that does not negate the effects of charge and magnetism in space; http://www.plasmacosmology.net/

a very interesting paper that looks into the electrical capacitance of stars and the effect it may have on chraged particles in the 'solar wind' http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0802-electric-ii.htm
and also a detailed journal paper that looks into if the photosphere is actually the top, or the bottom, of the Sun. http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0404-photosphere.htm

Also a look at the original assumptions made with the nuclear burning model and why they could be wrong. http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0404-stellar.htm

Trimble and Reines (co-discoverer of the first man-made neutrino from an atomic reactor) stated in their review article of 1973, that;

"The critical problem is to determine whether the discrepancy is due to faulty astronomy, faulty physics, or faulty chemistry". It seems likely, however, that the true "fault" for the present predicament of solar physics will be found to lie not in astronomy, not in physics, and not in chemistry, but in certain fundamental assumptions upon which all research into the workings of the Sun and the stars has been built." [ie, the nuclear burning core]The ES model seems to fit much better than the standard model as it can describe characteristics of the sun that the standard model cannot. The ES hypothesis is so against mainstream ideology that it is often overlooked, and rarely tested, but i have found that there is a peer reviewed science backing to most of the ideas in the ES model, and often they are better models than the Standard model proposes. I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why the sun can not be explained by these electrical effects.

 

[Parlyne]

I'm sorry it took so long to reply to this. Typing's been a bit of an issue since I hurt my finger. But, that's improving. So, back to it.

Without going into too much detail, there are several significant things that bother me about this model, as you have described it.

First, if all fusion that takes place is at the surface, what supports the sun from collapsing under its own gravity without generating sufficient temperatures and pressures at the core for self-sustaining fusion to occur there?

Second, the observed neutrino flux is well-constrained, and consistent with the total power output of the sun being the photons produced in fusion reactions. But, then, if there's also that much energy originating from these Birkeland currents, doesn't this imply double the energy output observed?

Third, if the sun is at a very high voltage, where are these currents originating that they have enough energy to reach such a high voltage object without being repelled?

 

[Syther]

Sorry about your finger! i'll try to keep this one short.

First, if all fusion that takes place is at the surface, what supports the sun from collapsing under its own gravity without generating sufficient temperatures and pressures at the core for self-sustaining fusion to occur there?

I found the best answer to this from Physicist Wallace Thornhills 'holoscience' website http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=6

he says:

Plasma physicists argue that stars are formed by an electromagnetic "pinch" effect on widely dispersed gas and dust. The "pinch" is created by the magnetic force between parallel current filaments that are part of the huge electric currents flowing inside a galaxy. It is far more effective than gravity in concentrating matter and, unlike gravity, it can remove excess angular momentum that tends to prevent collapse. Stars will form like beads on a wire until gravity takes over. The late Ralph Juergens, an engineer from Flagstaff, Arizona, in the 1970's took the next mental leap to suggest that the electrical input doesn't stop there and that stars are not thermonuclear engines! This is obvious when the Sun is looked at from an electrical discharge perspective. The galactic currents that create the stars persist to power them. Stars behave as electrodes in a galactic glow discharge. Bright stars like our Sun are great concentrated balls of lightning! The matter inside stars becomes positively charged as electrons drift toward the surface. The resulting internal electrostatic forces prevent stars from collapsing gravitationally and occasionally cause them to "give birth" by electrical fissioning to form companion stars and gas giant planets. Sudden brightening, or a nova outburst marks such an event. That elucidates why stars commonly have partners and why most of the giant planets so far detected closely orbit their parent star. Stellar evolution theory and the age of stars is an elaborate fiction. The appearance of a star is determined largely by its electrical environment and can change suddenly. Plasma physicists and electrical engineers are best able to recognize plasma discharge phenomena.

Second, the observed neutrino flux is well-constrained, and consistent with the total power output of the sun being the photons produced in fusion reactions. But, then, if there's also that much energy originating from these Birkeland currents, doesn't this imply double the energy output observed?

particles produced in the sun by fusion due to the varying force of the Z-pinch effect would not be any different to those poduced by fusion in the core of the sun.
Also the force of the Z-pinch inside the sun should also fuse atoms, not just in the potential difference above the photosphere. However the main energy transfer is still happening above the photosphere in the chromoshpere and corona.
Sandia National Laboratories have done some good tests on fusion produced by z pinch; http://www.sandia.gov/pulsedpower/prog_cap/pub_papers/003132j.pdf

Third, if the sun is at a very high voltage, where are these currents originating that they have enough energy to reach such a high voltage object without being repelled?

I would expect that all the particles from the surrounding stars have to end up somewhere, and electrons should be predominant in this flow as they are attracted to positive bodies and have well over 1000 times less mass than a proton so require less force to move them.

 

[Sundance]

Hello Syther

Hello Syther,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you are on track

The Z-pinch is a very powerful tool particularly in compact star cores such as Neutron Cores. It is responsible for the Jets that expell matter from Pulars and black holes and many other star bodies.

Tell me have you read these papers

http://www.omatumr.com/PapersArxiv.html

 

[Syther]

cheers sundance, that is an interesting paper.

"Images from the SOHO and Trace satellite programs reveal rigid, persistent structures in the transitional layer of the Sun, in addition to its dynamic, fluid photosphere." i though that was interesting i never imagined there would be enough energy at the surface to create solid metal structures. That would mean that there would have to be a lot of energy there to compact the atoms into a semi solid state, which would be another indication of higher energy levels at the surface from electrical processes. Plus these metals are very conductive so may be being created due to electric currents traveling cross the potential difference between the photosphere and corona, literally acting as large metal wires to transport energy, before they melt back into the sun.

i read a good discussion on a plasma cosmology forum about these iron formations on the suns surface, http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=551&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
they think it can be explained by the double layer characteristic of plasma's in some way.

I looked at some of the other papers by O. Manuel, Kamat and Mozina but a lot of them seemed to be based on the nuclear core assumption, and i have my doubts if the energy we receive from the sun is generated in its core or if its infact attracted to the sun from the suns local environment. It actually could be creating its energy at the core, but it gets that energy remotely in the first place, not from within itself.

 

[Sundance]

Hello Syther

Mate, keep reading papers.

Once you begin to understand denerate matter, plasma and their properties you may ebgin to understand the workings of the parts within the universe.

I will be back later

I will go thorough the phases of star evolution and rejuvination.


Got to run,,,,,,,,see ya

 

[-RA-]

This debate could be settled if people could agree on what the probable capacitance of the sun is. I looked at Juergens hypothesis of an electrically powered sun, it was probably an interesting idea back in 1970, but i doubt that it would attract enough particles to it to fuel it from its local environment.

I would imagine due to the suns large size it does have a capacitance/net charge, but I'm not sure if it would be negative or positive. has it been tested?

 

[SpaceTiger]

The OP has been banned and the discussion is now mostly about crank theories, so this thread is going to be closed. Anyone curious about the sun's nuclear burning can ask their questions in another thread.