Discoveries from the IBEX satellite show we still don't know quite a few things about the heliosphere and solar system

The ribbon doesn’t strike me as so mysterious. Charged particles in the presence of magnetic fields travel by spiraling along magnetic field lines, which means that they are mostly traveling in a circle about the field lines and have only a small component of velocity along the field lines. When charged particles spiraling along the galactic field lines outside the heliosphere encounter the edge of the heliosphere, oppositely charged particles coming from the sun neutralize them, creating neutral particles no longer affected by magnetic fields. These newly neutral particles start traveling in a straight line with whatever velocity they had just before being neutralized. In effect the magnetic field lines emit a 360 degree spray of neutral particles in a plane perpendicular to the field lines, and the extent to which these particles are not emitted exactly perpendicular to the field lines is determined by the relatively small component of velocity they had along the field lines while spiraling. Some of these particles end up traveling toward the IBEX spacecraft. From the viewpoint of the spacecraft, then, the particles seem to be mostly emitted from a ribbon of sky perpendicular to the galactic field lines, and the width of this ribbon is related to the relatively small component of velocity along the galactic field lines. In retrospect this phenomenon should have been expected before any data was collected…

Just another exciting example of the many surprises in store for humanity as we progress in our understanding of the universe. We should resist the temptation of thinking that we currently understand a lot when there is still so much we don’t know.
Perhaps the field of climatology could benefit by remembering how much we don’t know – so much yet to learn.

Charged particles in motion are otherwise known as “electricity”.
These “surprises” are not surprising to those of us involved with the physics of the Plasma Universe.

The National Geographic article of this story @ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091015-edge-solar-system-ribbon-ibex.html has a portion that gives me pause when thinking that these scientists are any more scientific than Warmist ‘Scientists.’ I think the analogy may be found as humorous (yet sad) for obvious reasons.
“IBEX team member Eric Christian, of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, compared the Voyager spacecraft to weather stations on Earth.
“Can you imagine trying to determine the weather of the entire Earth from two weather stations? You can’t do it,” Christian told reporters at a press conference this afternoon.
“IBEX is like our first weather satellite, and it gives us the full picture [of the heliosphere].””

I just wish they would make that 2nd graphic with the solar system plane shown clearly inside of it, and a spot on it where the north pole of the sun strikes it.

rbateman (16:09:05) :
I just wish they would make that 2nd graphic with the solar system plane shown clearly inside of it, and a spot on it where the north pole of the sun strikes it
Look at this long. and day of year, stratospheric warming and the north polar vector visible. Follow are measurments inside remember.
http://www.ibex.swri.edu/multimedia/img/datamap2.8-5.6.jpg

I am definitly glad to see the info coming in. I have been waiting for this data for quite some time now. The next thing that will be interesting will be to see how it changes over time and solar cycles (whenever they start ramping up again anyway)

The intriguing “ribbon” or “belt” at the interstellar boundary is the outer edge of the Solar System in the equatorial plane.
An axial supernova explosion of the Sun gave birth to the solar system [Transactions Missouri Academy Sciences 9, 104-122 (1975); Nature 262, 28-32 (1976); Science 195, 208-209 (1977); Robert Welch Foundation Conference on Chemical Research XII. Cosmochemistry, pp 263-272 (1978); Nature 277, 615-620 (1979); Meteoritics 15, 117-138 (1980)] – just like the axial explosion of SN1987A.
That is why the ribbon or belt exists only be in the equatorial plane, not in the polar region where material was ejected much further from the Sun.
That is also why comets from the supernova explosion have elongated elliptical orbits in the equatorial plane about the Sun but are not in polar orbits.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

As some else here said :
Charged particles in motion are otherwise known as “electricity”.
I`m not a proponent of many of the trippy Plasma Universe/Electric Universe theories (like interplanetary lightning, moving planets etc), BUT, quite obviously the basic part of their theory is spot on. Elecricity/Plasma/Magnetism is a major force in the universe, and it is certainly greatly underestimated by regular astrophysicists.
The asto-physics community should be ashamed of themselves for they way they have treated the Plasma Universe theories. Once again we science being corrupted. Then again, given some their wacky theories, part of that blame lies with them too ?

Paul Linsay (15:17:24) :
****
Richard Patton (13:17:08) : “This is something which really tests my political philosophy. This was funded via US taxpayer dollars which I believe is unconstitutional”
Probably OK, c.f. Thomas Jefferson funding the Lewis and Clark Expedition for both scientific and commercial purposes.
*****
Ah, yes. I had forgotten about that. I guess that it would be wise to see what the writers of the Constitution thought it meant than to open my mouth and insert foot.

Has anyone else noticed the gradual decline in solar wind velocity over the past 4 months? Is this normal? Solar minimum has passed it’s deepest point…
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/swind1.gif

Louis Hissink (14:18:57) :
Hissink wrote: “Charged particles in motion are otherwise known as “electricity”.
These ‘surprises’ are not surprising to those of us involved with the physics of the Plasma Universe.”
From the instant post:
“…[T]he existence of the ribbon is ‘remarkable’ says Geoffrey Crew, a Research Scientist at MIT and the Software Design Lead for IBEX. ‘It suggests that the galactic magnetic fields are much stronger and exert far greater stresses on the heliosphere than we previously believed.’ ”
Yes, electric currents cause magnetic fields.
Welcome to the Plasma Universe.

vukcevic (06:27:17) :
Thank you for that graphic.
It really is the originators of the report (IBEX in this case) that need to do this.

Dr. Anthony Peratt in association with the Los Alamos National Laboratory sponsors the Plasma Universe:
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html
Dr. Anthony Peratt’s curriculum vitae:
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=646

Leif Svalgaard (11:54:25) :
Welcome to the Plasma Universe.
Another piece of nonsense. The galactic magnetic field interacts with the plasma of the heliopause and the resulting electric currents deforms the heliosphere, just like for the Earth’s magnetosphere.
Mr. Svalgaard might want to consider these further details obtained in cooperation with Cassini, describing a spherical heliosphere, not an elongated “teardrop”.
http://www.physorg.com/news174908954.html

“These images have revolutionized what we thought we knew for the past 50 years; the sun travels through the galaxy not like a comet but more like a big, round bubble,” said Stamatios Krimigis of the Applied Physics Lab, in Laurel, Md., principal investigator for Cassini’s Magnetospheric Imaging Instrument which carries the Ion and Neutral Camera. “It’s amazing how a single new observation can change an entire concept that most scientists had taken as true for nearly fifty years.”

The Ion and Neutral Camera images suggest that the solar wind’s interaction with the interstellar medium is instead more significantly controlled by particle pressure and magnetic field energy density.
“The map we’ve created from the images suggests that pressure from a hot population of charged particles and interaction with the interstellar medium’s magnetic field strongly influence the shape of the heliosphere,” says Don Mitchell, Magnetospheric Imaging Instrument/Ion and Neutral Camera co-investigator at the Applied Physics Lab.

Taken as a whole, this information about the belt and accompanying stringy ribbon structure, spherical heliosphere, etc., suggests a toroidal ring current surrounding a spherical double layer (heliosheath) within a galactic “Bennett pinch” (indicated by the surrounding charged particle’s high temperature and pressure, and apparently strong magnetic field).
Pretty much expected in Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe.

Mr. Svalgaard, I think you forgot one important detail,

The map we’ve created from the images suggests that pressure from a hot population of charged particles and interaction with the interstellar medium’s magnetic field strongly influence the shape of the heliosphere.

that detail is “pressure from a hot population of charged particles…” in addition to the magnetic field influencing the spherical shape of the heliosphere.
(it’s not just a band of ENA’s that was discovered)
They have also described filaments of charged particles in the ribbon/belt, which are field aligned electric currents, a.k.a. Birkeland currents.
Mr. Svalgaard, when you say,

Precisely, the magnetic field is responsible for the interaction.

As you say, the ring current is generated by the strong magnetic field.

you seem to fail to consider the other half of the equation…the charged particles in the surrounding interstellar medium.
I’m curious about your thoughts on the spherical shape of the heliosphere, which prompted the declaration, “These images have revolutionized what we thought we knew for the past 50 years.”.
peace

It seems that there are two currents, one going out and the other coming in. Is this so?

Leif Svalgaard (09:45:31) : What I meant it was a outward “wind” and an incoming “wind”. Though some think the Sun as being an anode and out there a cathode.

In same vein…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8311000/8311373.stm
Cosmic pattern to UK tree growth
By Matt Walker
Editor, Earth News
The growth of British trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space.
Researchers made the discovery studying how growth rings of spruce trees have varied over the past half a century.
As yet, they cannot explain the pattern, but variation in cosmic rays impacted tree growth more than changes in temperature or precipitation.(…)
“The correlation between growth and cosmic rays was moderately high, but the correlation with the climatological variables was barely visible,” Ms Dengel told the BBC.
(…)

Dr. Svalgaard presents solrey’s comment: “Mr. Svalgaard, I think you forgot one important detail, that detail is “pressure from a hot population of charged particles…”
Dr. Svalgaard responds: “There is a misconception here [and an important one]. The ISM and the solar wind are both electrically neutral, as is a plasma in general. The pressure has nothing to do with the electrical properties of the medium. It comes from the gas bing hot. The same process takes place around the Earth where the pressure of the particles in the solar wind is balancing the pressure of the Earth’s magnetic field.”
Dr. Svalgaard’s idea has been demonstrated as false:
The helio current sheet is part of the solar wind, the most dynamic, therefore, most important part of the solar wind.
The reason it is referred to as the helio “current” sheet is that a stream of charged particles flows out in an electrically charged current. In astrophysics, when a “current” is referred to, the “electric” is implied. I have received specific acknowledgment of this construction from other astrophysicists.
Dr.Svalgaard is in a minority in astrophysical circles, led by Eugene N. Parker that are stuck in the 1960’s ideas of “hot gas” and “kinetics” as the proper physical model, which current in situ satellite probe observations & measurements have invalidated as outdated, except for a minority dedicated to an “electric neutral” view of space dynamics.
The ISM, interstellar magnetic field, is not simply constituted of “hot gas” and “kinetics”, but rather charged particles in motion, it’s the charged particles in motion which cause the magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are dissipated by “hot gas” and random “kinetics”, the same way that a bar magnet loses it’s magnetic attractive force if heated to high temperatures. So, reliance on “hot gas” and random “kinetics” (“hot gas” is in essence in radom “kinetic motion) is antithetical to magnetic fields and certainly isn’t the cause of magnetic fields, rather, ordered motion, consistent with electric current, explains interstellar magnetic fields.
Dr. Svalgaard presents the statement: “NASA: ‘Moreover, electric current causes magnetic fields (see Electromagnetism)…’ Galactic magnetic fields are caused by galactic electric currents.”
Dr. Svalgaard responds: “In general, it takes an electric current to create a magnetic field is ordinary life [and that was what NASA’s piece was about].
In cosmic plasmas the magnetic field is the cause of the currents in material moving relative to the magnetic field.”
No, NASA’s piece was not limited to “ordinary life” (as if special, “new” physics applies only to space), it was foundational explanation of how electromagnetism works, both on the Earth’s surface and in space (there was no distinction made in the NASA webpage) — afterall, the whole website is dedicated to explaining space dynamics (a little detail that Dr. Svalgaard ignores).
This is an inconvenient truth that Dr. Svalgaard can not get around. Per Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism electric current and magnetic fields are two sides of the same coin, except that charged particles not in motion will still have an electric field, but will NOT have a magnetic field. It is the motion of the charged particles that generates the magnetic fields.
Dr. Svalgaard presents solrey’s question: “I’m curious about your thoughts on the spherical shape of the heliosphere, which prompted the declaration, ‘These images have revolutionized what we thought we knew for the past 50 years.’.”
To which Dr. Svalgaard responds: “There is the usual NASA hype here. The shape of the heliosphere is determined by the pressure balance between the ISM and the solar wind and the solar wind moves 20 times faster than the relative speed of the Sun and the ISM, so will be the determining factor, so one would not expect a long comet-like tail.”
This statement ignores and contradicts Dr. Svalgaard’s own prior statement in this thread where he presented a comment: “Welcome to the Plasma Universe.”
And Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Another piece of nonsense. The galactic magnetic field interacts with the plasma of the heliopause and the resulting electric currents deforms the heliosphere, just like for the Earth’s magnetosphere.”
To highlight: “…just like for the Earth’s magnetosphere.”
Readers of this website know that the Earth’s magnetosphere is shaped like a “tear drop” or a “comet”, in other words, a very elongated cone with a long “tail”, it is even referred to as the magnetotail.
So when Dr. Svalgaard states, “…just like for the Earth’s magnetosphere,” the reader knows what he meant. Of course, this parrotted the researchers on the Cassini and IBEX in situ satellite probe projects, who stated the “comet” model is what they expected to find, but the model was wrong, and instead they observed & measured a “spherical shape of the heliosphere,” which “revolutionized what we thought we knew for the past 50 years”.
Again, of course, Dr. Svalgaard made his comment, “just like for the Earth’s magnetosphere” before he knew that the researchers were reporting the “spherical shape of the heliosphere”.
Once this fact was pointed out to him, and he became aware of this fact, Dr. Svalgaard tailored his subsequent comment, in perfect 20/20 hindsight, to match the “revolutionary” observations and measurements to suggest he knew it all along, when in fact his prior statement makes it quite clear that he didn’t.
And, it was not NASA “hype”. All the researchers from the projects were saying the same thing and being consistent about the significance of the observation & measurement.
Rather, Dr. Svalgaard’s personal revisionism is in line with his general posture on this website: Namely, that the science hasn’t changed and that the astrophysical fraternity knows all the dynamics of the Sun and the solar system, and by implication, deep-space as well.
It’s clear they do not and Dr. Svalgaard should acknowledge this.

Leif Svalgaard (14:47:33) :
I was one of the discoverers of the HCS, so may be permitted to comment on it.

Oh Leify…you gotta lotta ‘splainin’ to do.
From Wiki:

“The heliospheric current sheet was discovered by John M. Wilcox and Norman F. Ness, who published their finding in 1965

Nowhere in the Wiki entry does it mention the name “Svalgaard” or “Leif. Also, the list of published papers on Leif’s own website begins with:
First published paper:

Svalgaard, L., Sector Structure of the Interplanetary Magnetic field and Daily Variation of the Geomagnetic Field at High Latitudes, Geofysiske Meddelelser, R-6, Danish Meteorological Institute, 1968.

Post graduate work, I presume.
Three years after the published discovery of the HCS from 1965.
Second published paper:

Svalgaard, L., Interplanetary Sector Structure during 4 Solar Cycles,
Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, vol. 4, p.393, 1972.

Do any of those first two papers even mention the HCS?
Care to give a citation, backing the voracity of your announcement of being a pioneer in the discovery of the HCS?
BTW, the same Wiki entry correlates magnetic fields with electric current.

Near the surface of the Sun, the magnetic field produced by the radial electric current in the sheet is of the order of 5×10^−6 T.

On the same entry, we discover the inward directed electric current of the HCS:

The electric current in the heliospheric current sheet is directed radially inward, the circuit being closed by outward currents aligned with the Sun’s magnetic field in the solar polar regions. The total current in the circuit is on the order of 3×10^9 amperes. As a comparison with other astrophysical electric currents, the Birkeland currents that supply the Earth’s aurora are about a thousand times weaker at a million amperes. The maximum current density in the sheet is on the order of 10-10 A/m² (10-4 A/km²).

Ever hear of “counter-flowing electrons”?
You also stated that the heliosphere was analogous to the Earth’s magnetosphere, which is elongated/teardrop shaped, yet the data indicate that the heliosphere is in fact spherical. You invoked mechanical gas dynamics to explain the spherical form, yet that is the basis of the same theory that has been proven incorrect, in regards to the elongated/teardrop shape, and the “belt/ribbon”…at least.
I now believe you are beyond disingenuous and view your credibility as less than nil, unless you can prove the voracity of your claim regarding the discovery of the Heliospheric Current Sheet.
The proof is in the puddin’, “Doctor” Svalgaard.
peace

Regarding the spherical heliosphere:

Leif Svalgaard (08:34:21) :
There is the usual NASA hype here.

“Cassini-Huygens is a joint NASA/ESA/ASI mission”
Cassini is the probe that collected the data indicating a spherical heliosphere.

“The IBEX results are truly remarkable, with emissions not resembling any of the current theories or models of this never-before-seen region,” said David McComas of the Southwest Research Institute and IBEX principal investigator.

Is the Southwest Research Institute a department within NASA, or is it an independent organization in cooperation with? I’m sure ESA is independent of NASA.
Is NASA coordinating the “hype” among the various space organizations?
What say you, Mr. Svalgaard?

Thanks, Anthony. That’s why I phrased it as a question, rather than an accusation. I don’t sense any nefarious intentions from you at all.
peace

Dr. Leif Svalgaard wrote: “The current reverses direction every 11 years.”
Yes, but it still is an electric current, nevertheless.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they aren’t entitled to make up their own facts — there is an electric current in the helio current sheet.
I appreciate your pioneering papers from the 1970’s, but this is the 21st century.
So, “electromagnetic” is a weasel word. How so?
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “It is just that there are no electric fields in the rest frame of a highly conducting plasma, as they are immediately shorted out.”
Any in situ satellite probe observation & measurement to confirm that statement or is it just speculation or conjecture?
As i stated above, NASA has devoted a whole series of connected resource webpages where electromagnetism is a highlighted process in the solar system:
http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/sun_earth_background.htm
Apparently, you are quick to ignore points you don’t like, but nave no effective response to and you are quick to dump on NASA…when it serves your purpose. It seems rather obvious that NASA considers electromagnetism important to understanding the solar system, not just the letters NASA but the organization, its astrophysicists, and those astrophysicists that advise NASA, as well.
And as I stated before charged particles can have an electric field even when NOT in motion, but more important, as Langmuir noted when he named charged particles, “Plasma”, he did so because of its ability to self-organize in a fashion similar to living tissue, as Langmuir noted, like blood plasma.
When you have no in situ observation & measurement to support your claims and laboratory plasma physics experiments show plasma will self-organize without shorting out, and maintain charge seperation, you should temper your comments because we see researchers making comments like these:
“These images have revolutionized what we thought we knew for the past 50 years.”
Well, I stand corrected…at least some astrophysicists are willing to admit they don’t know it all…

The “ribbon,” is and should be of much interest to us in this particular epoch.
The “ribbon,” is shown to pass vertically thru the heliosphere, with high energies at between 40-60 deg. N. Imaging from the interior of the heliosphere correspond with exterior imaging.
Exterior image.
http://www.ibex.swri.edu/multimedia/img/datamap2.8-5.6.jpg
Interior.
Direct Observations of Interstellar H, He, and O by the Interstellar Boundary Explorer
…Previously, only neutral He had been observed, first by Ulysses outside 1.5 AU (8, 9) and then by IMAGE at 1 AU (10). Here, we present Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) observations of the interstellar neutral H, He, and O flow from January through April 2009. With the IBEX
sensors pointing radially outward on a spacecraft whose spin axis points Sunward (11), the LISM flow is in the IBEX-Lo sensor field of view (FOV) in the spring, when Earth (and IBEX) move into the flow, and in the fall, when Earth recedes from the flow (7) (Fig. 1A).The LISM flow dominates the IBEX-Lo all-sky maps at 15 and 110 eV with rates that exceed those of the diffuse energetic neutral atom (ENA) distributions (12–14) by up to four orders of magnitude (Fig. 1, B and C). The intense flow started with orbit 9 (mid December 2008), peaked in orbit 16 about –135o ecliptic longitude), and was seen through orbit 26 (April 2009) at 15 eV (Fig. 1B), but only through orbit 22
at 110 eV (Fig. 1C). A much narrower peak, maximized in orbit 16, showed up in the O maps for 280 eV and 600 eV (600 eV shown in Fig. 1D), with a tail extending from this peak towards higher latitude (up to about 20o) and smaller longitude (about –165o). The peak flux in all three maps arrives from slightly above the ecliptic plane. Based on the
expected interstellar bulk flow energies at 1 AU for an observer that moves into flow with Earth’s velocity, the distribution observed at 280 and 600 eV is largely interstellar O (529 eV bulk flow energy in the observer frame), the distribution seen up to 110 eV stems from interstellar He (132 eV), while the extended distribution seen into April at 15 eV is interstellar H (16 eV if radiation pressure cancels
gravitational attraction).
24 August 2009; accepted 2 October 2009
Published online 15 October 2009; 10.1126/science.1180971
Instead of just seeing this ribbon as draping over the heliosphere, I think we need to look at it’s 3 dimensional attributes and ask, what are its consequences to the planetary system and solar cycle?
Good exercise preceeding this post. Thanks guys, esp Leif for keeping us grounded.
Leif is probably the most knowledgeable of most of us on electric currents and magnetic fields and how they interact. He’s closer to this than most people give him credit for. Thanks Leif!

In example, Tim Thompson, an astrophysicist recently retired from the JPL, and an objector of some note to the ‘Plasma Universe’ hypothesis had this to say about ‘Electric Currents in Space’:
Tim Thompson, astrophysicist, was challenged by an interlocutor:”…somehow you’ve managed to convince yourself that electricity does not play a vital role in events in space.”
And Tim Thompson, astrophysicist, responded:”Wrong. I believe no such thing and neither does anyone else I know. Electric currents certainly do play a vital role in events in space, on every spatial scale from the smallest to the largest. They are incorporated into standard physical models of the solar system and cosmology. There are whole books and reams of papers on the topic. Electric currents do play a vital role in events in space without question.”
So, even someone who has serious disagreements with aspects of Plasma Universe ideas, acknowledges the significance of electric currents in space, not just in the solar system, but beyond into deep-space large structures.
I like Thompson’s comment: “:”Wrong. I believe no such thing and neither does anyone else I know. Electric currents certainly do play a vital role in events in space, on every spatial scale from the smallest to the largest.”
To highlight: “…and neither does anyone else I know.”
And: “Electric currents do play a vital role in events in space without question.”
It’s getting lonely for you and Eugene Parker…maybe you need a space heater…

Dr.Svalgaard wrote: “Let me elaborate a bit on this [for the zillionth time, it seems]. In an undisturbed cosmic plasma [e.g. the free flowing solar wind] there is no electric field in the rest frame of the plasma, and thus no acceleration of charged particles.”
For the zillionth time, please provide in situ satellite probe observations & measurements which support this assertion.
Or acknowledge there are no in situ satellite probe observations to provide.
Failure to do so leads to only one conclusion:
There are NO in situ observations & measurements to support your assertion, but you can’t bring yourself to admit that; and you keep repeating an unsuported assertion because it is YOUR DOGMA, and you’re sticking to it no matter what.
That kind of opinion deserves no credence whatsoever.
(Every time I see you present this, so far, unsupported assertion, I will ask for in situ satellite probe reports of observation & measurement that supports the assertion.)
I urge readers to give the weight an opinion deserves when a scientist refuses to backup his opinion with scientiftic evidence.
It is a sad state of affairs when dogma collides with reality.

Dr. Svalgaard:
The direct answer to my question is “no” there aren’t any in situ satellite probe observations & measurements to provide.
However, I do appreciate that you explained the reasoning of your opinion by way of abstract construction. And, I appreciate the Vasylifinas paper.
Comments in the paper are revealing and instructive:
“…it all depends on what approach to describing plasmas one has adopted and what one’s views are in the ongoing controversy on whether the magnetic field and the plasma flow or the electric current and the electric field are to be treated as the primary variable.”
There is a controversy on this subject.
As opposed to your absolutist, black and white assertion, which when the curtain is pulled back, is not based on observation & measurement, the requirement of empirical science, but, rather, on abstract constructions.
The paper is wrong on two counts. One, abstract mathematical construction divorced from observation & measurement is not physics, notwithstanding the assertion to the contrary in the paper. Two, “thought experiments” are nothing but unproven hypothesis until a series of empirical experiments are conducted that either falsify the hypothesis or validate the hypothesis.
Nothing of the sort has been conducted as a result of your mathematical construction (hypothesis) or Vasylifinas’ mathematical construction (hypothesis).
Vasylifinas specifically relies on “thought experiments” as he states in the paper: “…this Letter can thus be answered by means of two thought experiments…”
To derive absolutist assertions on mere “thought experiments” is questionable scientific method.
Dr. Svalgaard, you are entitled to an opinion, but it is only an opinion, and your couching that opinion in absolutist terms is unwarranted. The opinion is not based on compulsion by way of observation & measurement, but on theoretical constructs (I suspect driven by ideological dogma).
Your opinion is not “the Science” in astrophysics, but only one of many voices.
You would be wise to remember that.

NASA IBEX special report. In it, this select panel of experts on the project, explain their discoveries. Nice press release and good PR work on their part. Its 41 minutes long. Should go check it out.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=mTnwjd8CF1c&hl=en&gl=US&client=mv-google

I don’t know what to think about this debate between Leif and James. I mean no disrespect to either of you, but has the scientific community drawn a concensus as to which science is more accurate. I guess my question is this: Does magnetic field lines in the heliosphere give rise to electromagnetism as a result of kinetic interactions or does kinetic interactions between interstellar and solar gases create electromagnetic field lines?
I’m just asking because I think that is the difference (in my own understanding) between both of yours hypothesis’.
I wonder if this NASA IBEX joint mission, in mapping the heliosphere, gives any clearer picture to this debate.
That’s all for now.

@ david alan:
An important question when considering how much weight to give to one opinion or anoher in a debate is how they deal with obvious points, pieces of evidence, and facts presented by the other side. Do they grasp the issues raised when challenged or do they tend to ignore them and deflect off onto other issues? Do they rely on their “authority”…well…because they are an “authority” like the scientists on the AGW side of the Global Warming debate, or do they effectively meet the evidence presented by the other side in goodfaith and where appropriate even acknowledge points raised by the other side?
Take for instance, here, NASA’s multiple statements that electric current causes magnetic fields. Also, the experimental results that demonstrate electric currents cause magnetic fields. And the lack of experiments to back up Dr. Svalgaard’s claims.
Did Dr. Svalgaard directly grasp the nettle on those issues?
Or did he tend to move on hoping something else might stick?
Take this NASA statement I presented:
“Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents. These currents are generated within the Sun by the flow of the Sun’s hot, ionized gases. We observe a variety of flows on the Sun’s surface and within its interior. Nearly all of these flows may contribute in one way or another to the production of the Sun’s magnetic field.”
Again, note the explicit and direct statement at the top of the paragraph: “Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents.”
And look at the last sentence in the passage: “Nearly all of these [plasma] flows may contribute in one way or another to the production of the Sun’s magnetic field.”
Nothing in NASA’s statement even remotely suggests a “[pre-]existing magnetic field” that causes the plasma to flow, on the contrary NASA explicitly states the opposite, that the electric currents cause magnetic fields to form.
Twice Dr. Svalgaard mentions an “existing magnetic field” in his explanation without any support for this proposition in direct contradiction of NASA’s statement.
This is an example of somebody expecting you to take their “say so” simply because they “say so”, not because of any rational or supporting scientific evidence. This is right out the playbook of the AGW scientists.
David presents the statement: ” {The important thing is that there is a magnetic field always everywhere in the cosmos, so any movement of a plasma [or conductor] will create electric fields and associated currents.}”
Yes, there are magnetic fields all over the Universe, but they are due to the flow of charged particles, electric currents all over the Universe.
It is the flows of plasma that generate the magnetic fields.
Dr. Svalgaard states: “Whenever you move a conductor in a magnetic field, an electrical current is generated.”
This is true, magnetic fields will induce electric currents, that is why I previously stated in this thread that electric current and magnetic fields are two sides of the same coin and why it’s called electro-magnetism.
Dr. Svalgaard goes back to the Vasiliunas paper: “Let me re-iterate Vasiliunas’s conclusions [which are unassailable, except by people that do not know physics]:
(1) a given plasma bulk flow produces an electric field,
(2) a given electric field does not produce a plasma bulk
flow. ”
Vasiliunas acknowledges that plasma flows produce an electric field (electric fields cause acceleration of charged particles, motion of charged particles, so electric fields cause electric current), what Vasiliunas doesn’t address is that charged particles not in motion will have an electric field, this “potential drop” or voltage is the electromotive force that will cause an electric current without a magnetic field being present. Magnetic fields do not start the process, electric fields do. But magnetic fields will contribute to the process in that an electric current is a self-reinforcing process, also known as positive feedback loop.
Vasiliunas is taking a plasma condition at two seperate times, so, yes, a bulk flow of plasma will produce an electric field, but it doesn’t follow that a given electric field be responsible for the ending bulk flow of plasma. That occurs through time and motion which produce the self-reinforcing build up of electric currents and magnetic fields because they are two sides of the same coin and are mutually reinforcing.
At the end of the day, it is clear that at the start of the day, plasma motion was caused by the electromotive force due to the presence of the electric field, not the magnetic field.
“Vasiliunas’s conclusions…are unassailable”???
I’d say Vasiliuna’s conclusions are refuted.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The dynamo uses rotating coils of wire and magnetic fields to convert mechanical rotation into a pulsing direct electric current through Faraday’s law.”
Yes, this is another example of magnetism”s ability to cause secondary electrical currents. But the primary causation is the charged particle motion of the electrons or their “spin” inside the bar magnet or in the electromagnet; this causes the magnetic field which then in turn when moved will generate a secondary electric current.
The above is a good example of the “two sides of the same coin” idea of electromagnetism.
Dr. Svalgaard states: “Clearly, you [Evans] do not know what the emf is.
It is the work expended to produce a potential difference, which is generated by separating positive and negative charges.”
99% of the visible Universe is made up of plasma, charged particles in the state of ‘charge seperation’, so, electromotive force is the force that attracts positive and negative charges together or repels same charged particles apart. But since 99% of the Universe is plasma, the majority of the physical encounters are ones of electromotive force of attaction across a voltage potential drop or repulsion, not the work to seperate neutral atoms.
Let’s consider the word, “electro-magnet”, take a hint from word construction, but for the “electro”, an electromagnet would not be a magnet at all, take away the “electro” and it’s not a magnet.
Such as it is true for “electro-“magnets here on Earth, so it is also true for magnetic fields in space. This fulfills the idea that physical laws are constant throughout the Universe. That is why Science refers to these physical relationships as physical laws.
On the other hand, Dr. Svalgaard wants to invoke special laws of physics for special places without scientific evidence to support it. There is no support in Science for this kind of flawed reasoning, but Dr. Svalgaard is not approaching it from a sciencific perspective, but from faith in his own opinions inspite of the scientific evidence — This approach is more akin to religion than science.
And men can be fervent in their desire to see that their ideas are right. This trait of Human Nature for self-justification is one that Science must always guard against.
And we have seen this repeatedly in the AGW debate. Dr. Svalgaard, sadly, is caught in this spider’s web of self-delusion.

@ Dr. Svalgaard:
[D]avid has a right to his own opinion as do you, but you’re grasping at straws to use his statement as vindication for your opinion.
Look at david’s statement: “Precision of words are important indeed. Thank you for your clarification Dr. Svalgaard. I think a light went on in my head.”
I agree precision of words are important. Definitions are critical in physics, and, more important still is the consistent use of definitions.
But the statement david attributes to you: “{The important thing is that there is a magnetic field always everywhere in the cosmos, so any movement of a plasma [or conductor] will create electric fields and associated currents.}”
Is only “one side” of the two sides of the coin of electromagnetism.
Dr. Svalgaard, you have stated by fiat (without supporting experimental results) that magnetic fields are the primary variable (magnetic fields cause electric currents) by resorting to an admitted “thought experiment” which without experimental verification is nothing but a hypothesis.
Dr. Svalgaard states: “…in a cosmic plasma, the charges are not separated, but thoroughly mixed.”
Actually, they are in a state of ‘quasi-neutrality’, which is a state of ‘charge seperation’.
What do i mean by that?
Plasma by definition is physical matter where at least one electron is seperated from the nucleus, which results in free electrons and positive ions (more than one electron can be seperated from the nucleus), or, in other words, charged particles. Yes, these can be “thoughly mixed”, but they still retain their electromagnetic properties as charged particles. The charged particles react to the electromotive force and are conducive of electric current.
Dr. Svalgaard, you seem to forget your basic lessons: Langmuir won 1932 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work with charged particles. Langmuir is the one who coined the term “Plasma”, and the reason he named it “Plasma” is because it had qualities that were like living tissue, blood plasma, it was self-organizing. Langmuir’s work demonstrated that plasma doesn’t “short out” into neutral atoms as you claim.
Rather, this self-organizing quality of charged particles is why space plasma, as Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel Prize winner in physics, noted in his later years, tends to be cellular and connected in circuits.
Dr. Svalgaard claims: “The slightest separation will result in the very mobile electrons [1 Volt accelerates an electron to more than a million miles per hour] finding their positive partners virtually instantly. Result: there is no charge separation.”
This claim is false.
If such was the case, then instead of 99% of the visible matter in the Universe being plasma, only a very small percentage would be plasma, charged particles. But since the compostion of the visible Universe is 99% plasma, it stands in mute testimony against you.
This claim is straight out of the 1960’s, and is so demonstratably false, it is unworthy of you. But such is your fervid desire to protect your ideas that you are willing to make this antquated statement.
Your fellow physicists will look at this statement and know you have gone over the edge.

Dr. Svalgaard, considering you mostly ignore most the obvious points, pieces of evidence, and facts, and that you fail to grasp the nettle time after time. but repeat the same failed claims:
It is you who are the broken record.
But go ahead and cling to your primarily mechanical model. Ignore what NASA has to say and communicates to the public. Ignore what your fellow physicists have to say.
It only makes you look bad.
But then again, your reputation is on the line…and you’ll say anything to try and make people believe the emperor is wearing a fine robe.
You are digging a deep hole for yourself…number one rule when you find yourself digging a hole — stop digging…

The sun a clothed neutron star!! The ribbon as part of the debris ejected equatorially when the sun went supernova! Electric universe! Have those contributors never read a physics or astronomy book? Complete and utter lunacy. How many of them are 2012 supporters? Jeez!!!!!

IBEX…remember IBEX?
James F. Evans (18:24:39) :
Ah..did you stop listening to yourself?
Leif seemingly agreed on many points with you. But..I do have to thank you for extracting so much information from him. lol
And Leif, your patience, very cool…thanks.
This is now a keeper thread guys.
On a lighter note.
What to do with your Al Gore movie.
Pull…..2..3…4…B A N G

@ Dr. Leif Svalgaard:
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “This is the secret of the Magnetic Plasma Universe, and this is how things work.”
I do appreciate and acknowledge the statement by Dr. Svalgaard.
I suspect there are still many and profound differences, but one must recognize positive developments.
Positive scientific debate and discourse require searching for agreement in goodfaith — I take the above statement as a significant step in that direction.
Now moving to the battery example:
Dr. Svalgaard asks: “So, which one(s) of (1) to (5) and/or (a) to (e) do you disagree with?”
(1) take a battery. It has two poles [+] and [-], i.e. a separation of charges.
Answer: Agreed, there are positive ions and negative electrons in the solution (using a liquid battery)
CAVEAT: “A good electrolyte has several interesting properties; for one thing it has lots of ion-pairs in it. When we put an ion-pair in an electrical field, such as in the Ni-Fe gap, the positive ion will tend to drift one way and the negative ion will tend to drift the other way. This process will continue until the electrochemical field in the interior of the gap becomes a constant, independent of position, which is the equilibrium condition. There could be some electrical potential gradient; I don’t think there is much but there could be some. And there could be some concentration gradient; again I don’t think there is much, but there could be some. In any case, when you consider the concentration gradient and the electrical gradient together, in equilibrium there is no net motion of ions. In the simplest case, there is no electrical field (hence no drift) and no concentration gradient (hence no net diffusion). In the more general case, drift due to the electrical potential gradient is counterbalanced by diffusion along the concentration gradient. The two gradients point in opposite direction, and when we add the two effects (electrical and concentration) we find that the electrochemical potential has zero gradient.
All that applies to the interior of the gaps, in the bulk electrolyte. At the ends of each gap, there will, in general, be some accumulation of ions. This produces complicated dipole layers there. The strength of the dipole layer depends on the properties of the electrolyte, as well as on the properties of the adjacent metal, as discussed in section 1.6. The strength of the dipole layer determines how the potential in the interior of the gap is related to the potential in the interior of the adjacent metal.”
http://www.av8n.com/physics/battery.htm
The point, here, is that Dr. Svalgaard’s postulate is too simplified, there is electrochemical activity in the battery when it’s first activated (the parts are put together, metals and electolyte) until it reaches equilibrium over a period of time. Over this period of time there is an electric field and drift of electrons and ions to the respective poles due to electromotive force.
(2) if no conductor [wire] connects the two poles, no current will flow
Answer: Agreed, there will be no current across the terminals (two poles).
CAVEAT: Same as above in answer (1).
(3) connect the poles, a current flows
Answer: Agreed.
(4) the current transfers charge from one pole to the other, thus draining the battery
Answer: Agreed.
(5) after a while, the battery goes flat, no more separated charges, and no more electric current. This takes a certain time.
Answer: Agreed. But I note this is a closed and isolated system.
(a) take a plasma. by some mechanism separate the charges [against their 10E39 strong mutual attraction
Plasma is a state of physical matter where the charges, electrons and ions, are already seperated, it may be in a state of ‘quasi-neutrality” it maybe in motion emanating an electric current. No “mechanism” needs to be applied to seperate the charges. Plasma by definition is in a state of charge seperation, although it can be in a state of ‘quasi-neutrality’, as stated above.
(b) if you place an insulating plate in the middle of the plasma between the separated charges, no current will flow
Answer: In a laboratory experiment one can seperate two plasma regions by an insulating plate and no current will flow between the two regions, but physical discontinuities within each region will cause self-organization (thus movement) within each region and electric fields will be present.
Also, space plasma needs to be distinguished because insulators if present likely will not be perfect insulators, more like leaky capacitors, if enough voltage potential drop is present flow will happen through the insulator as a discharge.
(c) remove the insulator, a current flows
Answer: Agreed, with reference to answer above.
(d) the current transports one charge [electrons because they are so light] from the negative side of the plasma to the positive side
Answer: Agreed.
e) after a while, there are no more separated charges, and no more electric current. This is extremely rapid as as little as 1 Volt potential difference accelerates the electrons to more than a million miles an hour. Hence no more electric field.
Answer: It depends the physical discontinuities present in the plasma, double layers can form which act as insulators so in fact discharge doesn’t happen “extremely rapidly, also plasma in space is not analogous to a battery because it is not an isolated system.
Your hypothetical is too simplified, as space plasma has all kinds of physical discontinuities and loads. As stated above the physical discontinuities result in double layers which tend to slow down the discharge. Also, there will be places where loads are present, which also slow down the discharge as they do with a battery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
As Langmuir and Hannes Alfven noted, plasma tends to self-organize and to be cellular and connected in circuits.
It worth repeating that the battery example and the plasma example are not analogous because a battery is a isolated system or closed system, whereas, plasma, space plasma, the relevant matter in discussion is not an isolated or closed system, interestingly, this where Carla’s statement comes into play, “IBEX…remember IBEX?”, the observation & measurements, as the researchers stated and as Dr. Svalgaard agreed show the interstellar magnetic field and thus an electric current impinges on and is dominate in controlling the heliospere.
This is an example of of both celluar and circuit structure, as Hannes Alfven noted and predicted there would be in space plasma.
Again, if Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical (of no charge seperation) happened, and “zap” the charges were equalized, with resultant lack of charge seperation and electric field, there would be no plasma, it would be all neutral gases, and there would be no magnetic fields present because even in Dr. Svalgaards claims there needs to be plasma, seperated charges to support a magnetic field.
This highlights the irrational and contradictory nature of Dr. Svalgaard’s claims:
One the one hand, Dr. Svalgaard claims seperated charges are neutralized “virtually instantly” in space. This by compulsion means as a result there would be no plasma, only neutral atoms after the elimination of charge seperation and no magnetic fields. But, on the other hand, his claims depend explicitly on the presence of plasma in space as Dr. Svalgaard allows there is plasma in space and magnetic fields cause this plasma to move, thus generating electric current.
His two claims are mutually exclusive: There can’t be plasma in space without charge seperation, and, so, no plasma, thus, no magnetic fields; in contradistinction his claims rely on both the presence of plasma and magnetic fields.
And, in fact, while Dr. Svalgaard claims there is no charge seperation, thus no electric fields, on the one hand, on the other hand he allows “everything interesting is done by [electric] currents. That is not the issue, which is that the currents are created by plasmas moving in magnetic fields.”
There are electric fields with the presence of electric currents.
So, again Dr. Salgaard’s two claims are mutually exclusive, the two can’t be true at the same time.
Essentially, Dr. Svalgaard wants to have it both ways, depending on how it suits his arguments at any given time and place in the debate.
But this isn’t science, it is rhetorical slight of hand, and needs to be exposed for what it is. It is pseudo-science or sociopathic science where you play both ends against the middle and hope nobody notices.
Well, I have noticed and it needs to be pointed out so others can be aware of Dr. Svalgaards tactics and judge Dr. Svalgaard’s credibility accordingly.
And, yes, Carla, I know exactly what I am saying and the sad part is, so does Dr. Svalgaard.

Dr. Svalgaard:
Of course, you ignore the fact that you were caught red-handed making up out of whole cloth, a fabricated quote from Wikipedia.
As for the quote I presented and the reason it was not necessary to quote any further, it is simple enough: It was not germane to the point I was making (but yes I did cite the page number and link the material so readers could read for themselves), which was in regards to the emf, electromotive force, and its action on ionized particles, free electrons and positive ions, charge seperated particles. As Dr. Parker makes clear it is the electromotive force that is the first cause (remember the causation principle in physics) — not magnetic fields — for charged particle motion, which is electric current.
Also, the other reason is this: Like you, Dr. Parker offers NO experimental results of any kind to back up his claims that “somehow” space plasma and electromagnetic processes act differently in space as opposed to the clear experimental results obtained, here, on Earth, which is what my original quote was memorializing. I’ll acknowledge a brief notation of Dr. Parker’s unsupported claims could have been made (although, why embarrass the old man, he’s 82 years old).
Dr. Svalgaard what is your reason for making up a Wikipedia quote out of thin air?
The explanation I gave for the electromotive force is the correct definition, as confirmed by Dr. Parker’s statement and countless other authorities.
Why do you persist in attempting to mislead the reader?
Dr. Svalgaard your conduct (making up whole cloth quotations and other transgressions) is a prime example of sociopathic science.
Your hubris is preventing you from quitting while you are behind (but it could still get worse), or seeing how others perceive your conduct.
It is sad when “belief” and reputation and dogma are more important than science.

Dr. Svalgaard presents vukcevic’s statement: “to present somewhat different alternative”
And Dr. Svalgaard responded: “There is only one physics.”
Yes, that is true, but what that physics is, is another question entirely.
Good Science is constantly questioning and conducting experiments and observing & measuring to further Man’s understanding toward that “one physics”, most likely Man will never get there to absolute knowledge.
But hopefully that will never be for lack of trying and imagination.
Dr. Svalgaard presupposes that he is in possession of the one “true physics”.
Good Science is constantly investigating alternatives, without alternative ideas science would stagnate into dogma and “belief”.
Obviously, some alternatives are better than others, that’s why science is constantly testing to either falsify or verify hypothesis, a bedrock principle of the empirical scientific method.
Good science does not rely on theoretical constructs and declare there is no reason for experiments be they insitu observation & measurement or laboratory experiment.
It’s naked hubris that drives Dr. Svalgaard to believe he is in possession of the one “true physics”.
Enough of philosophy.
Dr. Svalgaard makes an offering of a Wikipedia entry on Electromotive Force, presumably to suggest that is what he really meant, above, when he cited a Wikipedia entry on cosmic plasma with a quote that was clearly not in the astrophysical plasma entry.
To be fair and give the benefit of the doubt (what little doubt there is), allow Dr. Svalgaard a muligan.
But the Wikipedia entry on electromotive force starts off: “In physics, electromotive force, or most commonly emf (seldom capitalized), or (occasionally) electromotance is “that which tends to cause current (actual electrons and ions) to flow.”
And goes on: “The electric potential difference is created by separating positive and negative charges, thereby generating an electric field. The created electrical potential difference drives current flow if a circuit is attached to the source of emf.”
And it goes on further: “Devices that can provide emf include voltaic cells, thermoelectric devices, solar cells, electrical generators, transformers, and even Van de Graaff generators.
In the case of a battery, charge separation that gives rise to a voltage difference is accomplished by chemical reactions at the electrodes
“For a circuit consisting of an electrical generator that drives current through a resistor, the emf is due solely to a time-varying magnetic field that generates an electrical voltage that in turn drives the current.”
Dr. Svalgaard presents a statement from the Wikipedia entry: “For a circuit consisting of an electrical generator that drives current through a resistor, the emf is due solely to a time-varying magnetic field that generates an electrical voltage that in turn drives the current.”
Obviously, as the quote above Dr. Svalgaard’s quote from the Wikipedia entry makes clear, an “electrical generator” is only one way to produce electrical current among many. Dr. Svalgaard has brought this up before and it has been pointed out to him that the electric current is generated by the rotation of a bar magnets past an electrically conductive material, but the magnetic field in the bar magnet is due to orderred electron motion or “spin” of the electrons.
The first cause of the bar magnet’s magnetic field is electron motion, charged particle motion. The electric current caused by the generator is a secondary effect, which has already been discussed.
There are various theories for the magnetic field in the bar magnet, but they always boil down to orderred electron motion in some fashion.
So, as been stated, here, ad nauseam, electron motion, electric current causes magnetic fields.
Dr. Svalgaard takes a valid quote and uses it out of context to serve his own ends.

Dr. Svalgaard: It is bad enough that you are willing to mislead about the science to protect your own belief system and reputation, but when you distort the record about other scientists and their achievements, you really reveal who you are.
Below is a passage from the Wikipedia entry for the solar wind:
“The ideas of Fitzgerald and others were further developed by the Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland. His geomagnetic surveys showed that auroral activity was nearly uninterrupted. As these displays and other geomagnetic activity were being produced by particles from the Sun, he concluded that the Earth was being continually bombarded by “rays of electric corpuscles emitted by the Sun”. In 1916, Birkeland was probably the first person to successfully predict that, “From a physical point of view it is most probable that solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds”. In other words, the solar wind consists of both negative electrons and positive ions. Three years later in 1919, Frederick Lindemann also suggested that particles of both polarities, protons as well as electrons, come from the Sun.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
There is a reason Birkeland currents are named in his honor.
Your willingness to distort and mislead are unbounded.
Of course, it has been pointed out to you that Sidney Chapman was wrong.
Chapman claimed the Earth was entirely isolated from the solar wind by the Earth’s magnetosphere.
Today, we know that the Earth is not isolated by the magnetosphere from the Sun’s solar wind.
As NASA recounts:
“In the 1930’s Chapman and Ferraro predicted that the plasma and magnetic fields from the Sun and the plasma and magnetic fields of the Earth would not mix. They thought that the magnetic field of the Earth could create a complete barrier to the solar wind. The boundary between the interplanetary magnetic field and the region dominated by the Earth’s magnetic field is called the Magnetopause. In the Chapman-Ferraro model, the plasma of the solar wind and the magnetic fields of the Sun slide over and around the Earth’s magnetosphere without any mixing.”
http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/earth_magnetosphere.htm
I’ve seen you write before that Chapman was right. No he was not, but why you back him is simple, he was violently opposed to Hannes Alfven’s concepts, held that space is electrically neutral and held to the mechanical model that you cling to.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “I’m an expert in this field, too. And BTW, have often discussed this in detail with Hannes who was a good friend of mine.”
Please, you distort Hannes Alfven’s work, where he publically rejected “frozen in” magnetic field lines at his Nobel acceptance speech and wrote of “magnetic reconnection” as pseudo-science.
It is offensive that you would claim to be a friend of Alfven when you distort his work. No friend would do that. Only somebody willing to stab him in the back.
You reject Hannes Alfven’s ideas about space plasma being cellular and connected in circuits and a good number of his other ideas, as well.
But the advancement of scientific understanding as in situ satellite probes are sent into space will vindicate many if not most of Alfven’s ideas.
Such will not be the same for yours.
Perhaps, that is why you are contemptuous of the need for in situ satellite probes that could either falsify or confirm your claims.

@ Dr. Svalgaard:
Regarding Birkeland, thank you for the pdf file, I take your point that at the time of the journal you provided he was still focussed on negative charges: “Birkeland considers that corpuscles are negative…”
I have no problem with Birkeland subsequently considering other evidence and interpretions and revising his considered opinion, on the contrary, that is an example of good science. It is an example of scientific process you seem to have difficulty with. Also, that doesn’t change the fact that Birkeland did later correctly identify that both positive and negative “corpuscles” were present. And if Lindemann added on with his own contribution, so much the better. In science, everybody stands on the shoulders of those that came before.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote, “…neutral with equal mix of electrons and ions.”
No. this is a confusion of terms. Any region which has ionized electrons and ions (quasi-neutral) there will be electromotive force or an electric field present, even with one free electron and one ion there will be a voltage potential drop between the two (however small that would be).
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The initial phase of a magnetic storm is even today described by the generally accepted Chapman-Ferraro model.”
That does not change the fact that Chapman maintained there was no mixing between the solar wind and Earth’s magnetosphere, which, today, science knows is wrong, which was my point in the first place — typical that you wouldn’t just “man up” and acknowledge that fact.
Dr. Svalggaard wrote: “Curiously, Hannes agreed with me during our discussions about the shape of the HCS.”
It does not surprise me in the least that Alfven would agree with you on that point (I acknowledge your pioneering work) because Alfven was broad-minded (from what I understand Alfven was dedicated to observation & measurement) and your work there was well supported by observation & measurement.
It is your present claims that aren’t supported by ANY observation & measurement whether in the laboratory or in situ that are problematic (more on that later).
Dr. Svalgaard your references to scientific theories from over 50 years ago regarding the solar wind are telling.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “And BTW, of course we know why there is a solar wind [we have known this more than 50 years]: the corona is hot, very hot, and conducts heat very efficiently. The corona is simply evaporating. Interesting enough, it is by climbing out of the Sun’s gravity well that the solar wind becomes supersonic [check ‘de laval nozzle solar wind’].”
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “No, the acceleration of the solar wind is a natural consequence of it not being in hydrostatic equilibrium as Parker showed 52 years ago and has nothing to do with electric currents or magnetic fields.”
Vukcevic was right.
Dr. Svalgaard’s ideas, as I pointed out above in this thread are locked into the 1960’s, “hot gas, “kinetics”, and “pressure”, mechanical model or thermodynamic model. This mechanical model is outdated and has been shown to be for at least a decade (you are clinging to your glory days of the 1970’s) and is antiquated and naive if not simply false.
The wikipedia entry for solar wind specifically addresses this issue in the history section:
“However, the acceleration of the fast wind is still not understood and cannot be fully explained by Parker’s theory.”
Wikipedia goes on:
“In the late 1990s the Ultraviolet Coronal Spectrometer (UVCS) instrument on board the SOHO spacecraft observed the acceleration region of the fast solar wind emanating from the poles of the sun, and found that the wind accelerates much faster than can be accounted for by thermodynamic expansion alone. Parker’s model predicted that the wind should make the transition to supersonic flow at an altitude of about 4 solar radii from the photosphere; but the transition (or “sonic point”) now appears to be much lower, perhaps only 1 solar radius above the photosphere, suggesting that some additional mechanism accelerates the solar wind away from the sun.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
Dr. Svalggard wrote: “But the advancement of scientific understanding as in situ satellite probes are sent into space will vindicate many if not most of Alfven’s ideas. Indeed, satellites and spacecraft have corroborated our joint views on the magnetic structure of the solar wind [and Parker’s as well].”
Structure and morphology is one thing (and is important), but the processes that drive the structure is just as important, and that is where you naively cling to the mechanical model where NASA and others have advanced into a more sophisticated understanding and model that accounts for the electrical and magnetic properties of the solar wind, helio current sheet, and coronal mass ejections, along with their interaction with the Earth’s magnetosphere.
The acceleration electrons and ions that is spoken of, above, is most likely a product of an electric field (always present where ionized particles are present) and this electric field is concentrated in the helio current sheet where the acceleration is most pronounced (electric fields cause charged particle acceleration).
I realize this discussion has been going ’round and ’round.
Carla, I suggest it is Dr. Svalgaard who wants to “burn” everybody out, principally myself, so he can cynically say to himself, “I got the last word,” and salvage is his ego, and make sure and protect the weaknesses in his claims.
But there is one final point that needs to be made and a hypothesis/prediction regarding this ribbon that needs to be stated.
Dr. Svalgaard claims the magnetic fields cause electric current in space. There is no experimental in situ evidence to support this claim (and blatently contradicts the known scientific results) and in fact Dr. Svalgaard has arrogantly claimed no in situ experiments are needed to verify his claims.
In Science, the burden of scientific evidence is on the proponent making the claim. Dr. Svalgaard’s position would reverse this burden essentially because he claims his hypothesis is right without any in situ experimental evidence at all.
At first I thought his insistence that no in situ experimental evidence was needed was because no in situ experimental results existed, which is true enough in itself, but there’s more to it than that.
Dr. Svalgaard’s claim can’t be falsified by in situ experiment.
It’s as if Dr. Svalgaard is claiming there are pink unicorns in space and saying no experimental evidence is needed to verify his claim.
What would an in situ observation & measurement find and record in space plasma?
Well, it would find an electric field in any region (even a region in ‘quasi-neutrality’) of space plasma because ionized electrons and ions which by definition cause an electric field are present in space plasma. There is no in situ experiment that would be able to record observations & measurements that could later tell you whether the electric field and electric current caused the magnetic field or vice versus.
So the reason Dr. Svalgaard insists no experimental evidence is needed is because he knows there is no experimental evidence that could falsify or verify his claim.
That is why he has worked so hard to claim by fiat that his hypothesis is corrent because once his claim has gained currency and been accepted there would be no possible way to falsify his claims and he could go on claiming it is right (as he has done here) and no one would be able to prove anything different.
This is an example of sociopathic science: Proposing a hypothesis that counters known experimental results, which one knows can’t be disproved once it has gained some level of acceptance, which would preserve his functionally “electrically neutral” claims, and which he tenaciously clings to, as does a rump of opinion in the astronomical community.
Dr. Svalgaard, if you think I got this all wrong and I’m needlessly maligning your character, please provide the in situ experiment that would either falsify or verify your claim.
Failure to address this request for an in situ experiment to test your assertion is prima facie evidence that in fact you are claiming something that can never be falsified, or verified. A “no, no” in the empirical scientific method. And that you knew this problem existed all along, but attempted to hide it.
Now, going on to the hypothesis/prediction.
The IBEX has recorded the ribbon on the heliosphere and the researchers have stated it is the magnetic field that is dominating this process, and this has been observed & measured during this solar minimum. And the researchers have suggested they expect the ribbon could change its shape, intensity, composition, and other details over human scales of observation & measurement.
So, should these changes happen (and the changes suggest an intensification of the magnetic field) and a concomitant change happens in the Sun’s solar activity, say going from solar minimum to solar maximum and there is corollation between these changes in the solar cycle and the intensity and other dynamics of the ribbon, it would suggest that the Sun is influenced by the interstellar magnetic field, may receive energy from the interstellar magnetic field and go along way to confirming Alfven’s view of a cellular Universe connected in circuits. It would show that the Sun is not an isolated body in this part of the Milky Way galaxy, but is connected to the rest of the galaxy as every star in the galaxy.
If there was a corollation between ribbon composition and strength and the Sun’s solar cycle of minimum and maximum it would defy all current mainstream explanations of solar behavior and could even challenge the conventional “nuclear furnace” model of the Sun. Present conventional explanation does not envision the solar dynamo being effected or receiving any signal or energy from outside the solar system.
Such corollation as described above would suggest there is in fact a dynamic and structure that connects the interstellar magnetic field to the Sun with energy from the instellar (electro)-magnetic field going to the Sun.
I look forward to the results of the IBEX program in the years ahead.

Leif Svalgaard (19:15:35) :
James F. Evans (14:09:42) :
Carla, I suggest it is Dr. Svalgaard who wants to “burn” everybody out, principally myself, so he can cynically say to himself, “I got the last word,”
I actually want you to have the last word, along the lines of: “I see, now I finally understand the modern view of the magnetic universe, sorry it took so long”.
Well, for me it will take a lot longer to grasp this in a workable format. I don’t have 45 +- years under my belt to reference. Like maybe a year and half or so of some random reads, so it will be a while. lol That’s ok, as long as my understanding progesses forward.
Do we know the polarity of the main galactic field?

Well, let’s see if I can pare this down (it’s gone kinda global, at some fault of my own) to a tailored response.
Dr. Svalgaard presents Evans’ statement: “even with one free electron and one ion there will be a voltage potential drop between the two (however small that would be).”
Dr. Svalgaard responds: “The electrons and ions would be randomly distributed in space [having a very high temperature] so all these small electric fields would point in random directions and there would no net large-scale electric field which is what the discussion is about.”
First, a perfect quasi-neutral region of plasma is not what is observed in the solar system or in the Universe at large.
What is observed & measured is plasma flows where the free electrons and ions are moving in an ordered direction, such as the helio current sheet. That is why NASA and others refer to it as a “current”, which is shorthand for “electric current”, and thus have an ordered magnetic field.
But let’s take Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical at face value. If the electrons and ions were randomly distributed due to temperature and randomly moving due to temperature, a magnetic field would not be evident because magnetic fields are dissipated by high temperature because the random movement of electrons and ions tend to cancel out an organized magnetic field.
Essentially, the electric field and the magnetic field would suffer the same fate in the hypothetical presented by Dr. Svalgaard.
But, again, that is not what is observed and measured, instead there is an organized magnetic field, which only results if there is an organized electric current and organized electric field.
Also, space plasmas exhibit ordered movement even in the intense temperature of the Sun. And, there are coresponding electric currents and electric fields, and, thus, magnetic fields.
As NASA states:
“Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents. These currents are generated within the Sun by the flow of the Sun’s hot, ionized gases. We observe a variety of flows on the Sun’s surface and within its interior. Nearly all of these flows may contribute in one way or another to the production of the Sun’s magnetic field.”
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/dynamo.shtml
So, while Dr.Svalgaard is entitled to postulate any hypothetical he wants, his hypothetical is meaningless, and, therefore, useless in deriving any understanding of space plasma because his hypothetical has no parallel example in space plasma.
Above, it has been mentioned that the helio current sheet and the Sun both have ordered charged particle movement (plasma), and thus, electric current and electric fields. If the highest temperature objects, stars, have electric currents, and, thus, electric fields, Dr. Svalgaard has a hard time pointing to anywhere his hypothetical has real world application.
Now, let’s go back to the statements in context:
Dr. Svalgaard wrote, “…neutral with equal mix of electrons and ions.”
And Evans responded:
“No. this is a confusion of terms. Any region which has ionized electrons and ions (quasi-neutral) there will be electromotive force or an electric field present, even with one free electron and one ion there will be a voltage potential drop between the two (however small that would be).”
And Dr. Svalgaard answered: “The electrons and ions would be randomly distributed in space [having a very high temperature] so all these small electric fields would point in random directions and there would no net large-scale electric field which is what the discussion is about.”
Actually, not only is Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical irrelevant because there have been no parallel in space plasma regions observed & measured that match his hypothetical, but his answer takes my statement out of context because I was referring his “confusion of terms.”
Dr. Svalgaard is creating a strawman argument.
My point is still correct: “…neutral with equal mix of electrons and ions.” is a confusion of terms that leads to sloppy analysis.
But let’s take this one step further, magnetic fields are ubiquitous in the Universe: But they have ordered form, everytime they are observed & measured. There are no disordered colonies of magnetic monopoles running around.
We know about the helio current sheet and the Sun.
But this also applies farther afield.
The following link is to an image of the Magnetic fields in the Orion molecular cloud region:
http://www.plasmaresources.com/imagestash/magnetic_fields_in_orion.jpg
Note the “B field” in the image are the magnetic fields and note its directionality due to electric fields and electric current, flowing charged particles, electrons and ions.
The ordered magnetic fields are perpendicular the the flows of plasma.
And here:
“The Orion Molecular Cloud superimposed on the Orion constellation, with the orange star Betelgeuse at the top corner and Rigel at the bottom. The inset shows the Slinky-like coils of the helical magnetic field surrounding the filamentary cloud. (Credit: Saxton, Dame, Hartmann, Thaddeus; NRAO/AUI/NSF) ” (Caption for the following linked image):
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/images/OrionMagneticSlinky.jpg
(superimposed schematics, original)
It’s important to note that Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical doesn’t match up with physical observations and measurments. And in fact, the observations & measurements are in line with what I have been arguing: Flows of plasma, electric currents, generate the magnetic fields.
Dr. Svalgaard presents Evans’ statement: “NASA and others have advanced […] this electric field is concentrated in the helio current sheet where the acceleration is most pronounced (electric fields cause charged particle acceleration).”
First, the initial phrase in the quoted passage did not directly relate to the second quoted phrase, so, to put the initial phrase in proper context:
“Structure and morphology is one thing (and is important), but the processes that drive the structure is just as important, and that is where you naively cling to the mechanical model where NASA and others have advanced into a more sophisticated understanding and model that accounts for the electrical and magnetic properties of the solar wind, helio current sheet, and coronal mass ejections, along with their interaction with the Earth’s magnetosphere.”
It is clear Dr. Svalgaard takes the first phrase out of context to suggest I am claiming NASA endorses my view for the physical process that accelerates the solar wind…while that would be nice…I never made such claim.
In the initial statement I was referring to general models: Dr. Svalgaard maintains a mechanical model of “gas”, “kinetics”, and “pressure” of solar sytem dynamics, and NASA supports a “more sophisticated understanding and model that accounts for the electrical and magnetic properties of the solar wind, helio current sheet, and coronal mass ejections, along with their interaction with the Earth’s magnetosphere.”
Which is clearly the case if one reviews the NASA Stargazers website:
http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/sun_earth_background.htm
And Dr. Svalgaard responds: “NASA and almost every space physicist are on the same page as I. The HCS is caused by the magnetic field changing polarity across it, and there is no acceleration there.”
Dr. Svalgaard offers no authority in support of his statement, as typical he relies on fiat, hoping to have his “say so” be taken at face value, I suggest this particlular example casts doubt on that assumption.
Dr. Svalgaard, now, moves to respond to my challenge for him to present in situ experimental observation that would either falsify or verify his claims regarding magnetic fields causing electric currents.
Dr Svalgaard presents Evans’ statement: “Dr. Svalgaard claims the magnetic fields cause electric current in space. There is no experimental in situ evidence to support this claim”
And Dr. Svalgaard responds: “A fundamental process in the cosmos is magnetic reconnection [not recognized by Electric Universe cult], whereby oppositely magnetic fields are pressed together by movement of the neutral [oxymoron] plasma.”
How come astrophysicists like Dr. Svalgaard always seem to resort to so-called “magnetic reconnection” when they don’t have a ready explanation for a physical process in space?
And in direct contradiction to Dr. Svalgaard’s claim, NASA scientists readily concede they don’t understand the physical processes for “magnetic reconnection”:
“[Magnetic reconnection,] The problem is, researchers can’t explain it.”
NASA goes on:
“Astrophysicists see magnetic reconnection do things] But how? How does the simple act of crisscrossing magnetic field lines trigger such a ferocious explosion?”
And the clincher from NASA:
“Something very interesting and fundamental is going on that we don’t really understand — not from laboratory experiments or from simulations, [and not from in situ experiments]” says Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/31aug_mms.htm
So, while NASA is up front about not understanding it (the collective understanding [or lack thereof] of hundreds of astrophysicists), Dr. Svalgaard claims that he alone understands all about it (sounds vaguely similar to his claim to know the “one physics” prior in this thread).
So, here it is, Dr. Svalgaard claims a process, which NASA in their collective wisdom doesn’t understand, acts to turn around the basic physics of electromagnetism where, as NASA states, electric currents cause magnetic fields.
Sometimes, you just got to shake your head at the guy’s hubris.
Not even Eugene N. Parker went so far as that (he relied on theoretical constructs for his support).
Funny, how Dr. Svalgaard initially claimed that no in situ experiments were necessary to verify his claims, but after getting hammered for such nonsense, he comes up with the tried and true, “oh, yes, good ol’ magnetic reconnection, that’ll do the trick.”
it straines credibility.
I will get to how Dr. Svalgaard handles the hypothesis/prediction. (Hint, the helio current sheet by the time it reaches the heliosphere has no resemblance to the shape of the ribbon, and as stated above the researchers, themselves, and Dr. Svalgaard, too, agreed, the interstellar magnetic field “dominates” the heliosphere and causes the ribbon, not the solar wind or helio current sheet. That’s what was so “revolutionary” about the observations & measurements.)
To be cont.

Leif Svalgaard (20:47:47) :
Carla (20:41:25) :
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0810/0810.2923v4
Geesh, hope you both read the above.
“The requested URL ‘/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0810/0810.2923v4′ was not found on this server.”
Try this..
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.2923
From, upper right side click, PDF.

Leif Svalgaard (08:14:41) :
The paper shows how difficult measurement of the Galactic Magnetic field is [because we are inside it]. And that we do not at present have a fully consistent picture. In the next few years that will likely change for the better as the article notes. Note that there is no mention of electric fields or currents.
Indeed, from the inside looking out continues to present its own obstacles.
Both papers, though have only read the earlier, are good and current mapping projects enhancing our understanding. (not unlike the IBEX project)
Looks like this thread is kaput!