Knot in the ribbon at the edge of the solar system "unties"

The IBEX science team compares the first and second maps to reveal whether there are time variations in the ribbon or the more distributed emissions around the ribbon. This animation fades between the first and second IBEX maps. We see that the first and second maps are relatively similar; however, there are significant time variations as well. These time variations are forcing scientists to try to understand how the heliosphere can be changing so rapidly.Credit: IBEX Science Team/Goddard Space Flight Center - Click image to download movie

From the Southwest Research Institute:

For immediate release

San Antonio — Sept. 29, 2010 — The unusual “knot” in the bright, narrow ribbon of neutral atoms emanating in from the boundary between our solar system and interstellar space appears to have “untied,” according to a paper published online in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Researchers believe the ribbon, first revealed in maps produced by NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) spacecraft, forms in response to interactions between interstellar space and the heliosphere, the protective bubble in which the Earth and other planets reside. Sensitive neutral atom detectors aboard IBEX produce global maps of this region every six months.

Analyses of the first map, released last fall, suggest the ribbon is somehow ordered by the direction of the local interstellar magnetic field outside the heliosphere, influencing the structure of the heliosphere more than researchers had previously believed. The knot feature seen in the northern portion of the ribbon in the first map stood apart from the rest of the ribbon as the brightest feature at higher energies.

While the second map, released publicly with the just-published paper, shows the large-scale structure of the ribbon to be generally stable within the six-month period, changes are also apparent. The polar regions of the ribbon display lower emissions and the knot diminishes by as much as a third and appears to “untie” as it spreads out to both lower and higher latitudes.

One of the clear features visible in the IBEX maps is an apparent knot in the ribbon. Scientists were anxious to see how this structure would change with time. The second map showed that the knot in the ribbon somehow spread out. It is as if the knot in the ribbon was literally untangled over only six months. This visualization shows a close-up of the ribbon (green and red) superimposed on the stars and constellations in the nighttime sky. The animation begins by looking toward the nose of the heliosphere and then pans up and left to reveal the knot. The twisted structure superimposed on the map is an artist's conception of the tangled up ribbon. The animation then shows this structure untangling as we fade into the second map of the heliosphere. Credit: IBEX Science Team/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio/ESA - click image to download movie

“What we’re seeing is the knot pull apart as it spreads across a region of the ribbon,” says Dr. David J. McComas, IBEX principal investigator and an assistant vice president at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio. “To this day the science team can’t agree on exactly what causes the knot or the ribbon, but by comparing different sky maps we find the surprising result that the region is changing over relatively short time periods. Now we have to figure out why.”

As the IBEX spacecraft gathers a wealth of new information about the dynamic interactions at the edge of the solar system — the region of space that shields our solar system from the majority of galactic cosmic ray radiation — the IBEX team continues to study numerous theories about the source of the ribbon and its unusual features.

The paper, “The evolving heliosphere: Large-scale stability and time variations observed by the Interstellar Boundary Explorer,” by D.J. McComas, M. Bzowski, P. Frisch, G.B. Crew, M.A. Dayeh, R. DeMajistre, H.O. Funsten, S.A. Fuselier, M. Gruntman, P. Janzen, M.A. Kubiak, G. Livadiotis, E. Mobius, D.B. Reisenfeld, and N.A. Schwadron, was published online Sept. 29 in the American Geophysical Union’s Journal of Geophysical Research.

IBEX is the latest in NASA’s series of low-cost, rapidly developed Small Explorers space missions. Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio leads and developed the mission with a team of national and international partners. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., manages the Explorers Program for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington.

==============================================

h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard, who offers us a look at the paper here

Advertisements

121 thoughts on “Knot in the ribbon at the edge of the solar system "unties"

  1. Let’s see… as soon as we had the ability to “see” the ozone layer, we found a hole and assumed it was human activity causing it.
    Someone started analyzing global temperatures, they found some warming, and assumed it was human activity causing it.
    Now this. Gee, I wonder what human activity could be causing it? No doubt whatever it is, the solution will involve higher taxes and some sort of symbolic sacrifice…

  2. If that ribbon unwinds really really fast, we’ll all be flung away far into the nether regions

  3. Agreed. Once again its the greedy developed Western world, blasting all of its harmful radio waves into the heliosphere and causing the “knot” of the sacred solar system to “untie.” Using the precautionary principle we should form a U.N. Interplanetary Council and find ways to reduce all electronic emanations and save the heliosphere. Before it’s too late!!!!

  4. Really neat, but why is everything always so “surprising”? When you’re looking at new things (and I don’t know of any Mayan records mentioning this ribbon), anything observed might be interesting or fascinating or exciting, but “surprising” implies expectations when there should be none.

  5. Relax, it is just the Dark Heat that found a way out, and is now dissipating of the Solar System. Well done, GISS. I didnt think you would find it!

  6. It certainly looks as if there are large electical currents in space. It would be hard to argue that ribbons and sections of magnetic fields can move around like that without electric currents being involved. Are we allowed to talk about that possiblity by the keepers of the keys? Given the sparseness of the physical environment it rather supports the idea of non-particle electrical flow (plasmons, not electrons), meaning electric currents are waves in a medium, not particles travelling through emptiness.
    Interesting.

  7. There was a prolong discussion on the subject in the original
    post
    I suggested that ribbon is a consequence of interaction between solar wind and
    galactic magnetic field and will change with change in the solar activity.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC3.htm
    Dr. Svalgaard stated: the shape of the intersection of the HCS with the Heliopause changes wildly all the time due to solar rotation while the ribbon does not .
    Now we find that the ribbon shape does change!

  8. There was a prolong discussion on the subject in the original
    post
    I suggested that ribbon is a consequence of interaction between solar wind and
    galactic magnetic field and will change with change in the solar activity.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC3.htm
    Dr. Svalgaard stated: the shape of the intersection of the HCS with the
    Heliopause changes wildly all the time due to solar rotation while the ribbon does not
    Now we find that the ribbon shape does change!

  9. The hole in the Ozone production / maintenance at the South pole is due to the changes in the magnetic flux portion of the EUV and UV ariving from the sun. Due to following natural conservation of energy laws and that the magnetic reluctance [resistance to free passage of EUV UV] of O3 is three orders of magnitude less than O2, O3 forms to lower the energy drain from the solar energy passing through the area.
    When the levels of EUV and UV drop off the O3 CAN drop back to O2 it “the consensus idea pushed”was thought that CFC’s were being utilized in the “increased destruction rate” of the O3 to develop the holes all by them selves. As it turns out the “natural variability” of the magnetic fields of the earth / sun solar wind interaction is still driving it as it was before we could see “it”.
    What I think we are seeing in the production and modulation of this ribbon, where the Neutral sheet impinges upon the heliopause, and results in the concentration of neutral charged single atoms on the solar wind, as they arrive at the inner boundary of the heliopause, just past the shock front of the back pressure of the back log of particles, trying to spread out to defuse through the heliopause.
    This play of the fluxing sheet of ionized neutral atoms creates turbulence that allows some of these atoms to reflect back toward the sun, like back splatter from a close hand gun wound[Still thinking about those exploding nonbelievers in the 10:10 video.]
    as the wrinkles and folds of solar wind pile up and splash back toward the sun.
    It may be that these effects are produced much the same as the Ozone hole, but just due to the density of the compression of the thin sheet of atoms buckling back upon themselves, creating the shape and angle of the ribbon. Due to the inductive flux of the polarity and speed of passage and varying density of the particles suspended in/on the background galactic fields as they are compressed around, give the distorted shape to the heliopause in response to the shifting of the outside and inside pressures as the heliopause skin, shifts like bodies of jelly fish do in the surf.
    Every star in the galaxy shields itself the same way with expanded bubbles of ionized stellar wind, like particles of oxalic acid coated iron grains suspended in oils in ferro fluids, allowing them to push on each other from light years away by mutual deflection so as to avoid direct collisions.
    The coils / lumps in the ribbon might be these resultant magnetic flux concentrations between the sun and other close stars, with the long term average of all of the interactions being felt across the whole system.
    Thus affecting the balance by the shifting of the inductive drives between the sun and the heliopause shell, but because of the inertial damping of the planets, they shift via MHD dynamics, rotational speed, orbital momentum, and LOD drives between them to stabilize the solar system, giving rise to short term weather drivers and by long term extension climate variability.
    I still think that by studying and understanding these long term interactions of ionized interstellar clouds and gasses, there magnetic conduction affects on the flowing and shape of galactic fields, and how they are responding to the stirring because of the local stars pushing through them, would give a better idea of when the next Ice age will be upon us.

  10. I think Richard Holle is saying that the ‘Ribbon” does not exist. Its an instrument artifact. Example, in the middle of the ocean, when the sun sets, it looks ten times larger and light is diffused everywhere. If you measured those effects and plotted it would look as if there was a ribbon around the horizon, which of course there is not.

  11. vukcevic says:
    October 1, 2010 at 3:39 am
    Dr. Svalgaard stated: the shape of the intersection of the HCS with the Heliopause changes wildly all the time due to solar rotation while the ribbon does not .
    Now we find that the ribbon shape does change!

    But not on the time scale of solar rotation. Keep the right perspective.
    Crispin in Waterloo says:
    October 1, 2010 at 3:31 am
    It certainly looks as if there are large electical currents in space.
    Large electric currents do flow in space. They are generated by the changing magnetic field. They do no work and carry no energy [being at right angle to the magnetic field].

  12. vukcevic says:
    October 1, 2010 at 3:43 am
    I did not mean to “walk on” your post as we were both typing at the same time, but most of the fabric of my post comes from the threads I have read over the past several years by you and several others here.

  13. Richard Holle says:
    October 1, 2010 at 3:59 am
    As it turns out the “natural variability” of the magnetic fields of the earth / sun solar wind interaction is still driving it as it was before we could see “it”.
    No, the ozone layer is not generated by the variations of the interaction between the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetic fields.

  14. Grey Lensman says:
    October 1, 2010 at 4:09 am
    ______________Reply;
    I tried to say the effect is real, it appears where it does due to the interactions with/between the solar wind carried fields, and the interstellar galactic fields, much as the rings of Saturn are real, and not the same as a rainbow effect seen after rain, as you seem to be inferring.

  15. Leif Svalgaard says: October 1, 2010 at 4:14 am
    But not on the time scale of solar rotation. Keep the right perspective.
    Of course you know you are wrong there. Solar wind speed varies greatly hourly, daily, monthly.
    After 10+ months all the fractions of different speeds are so hopelessly mixed up so that any reference to the solar rotation is completely lost; only angle that matters is the solar equatorial plane vs. the galactic plane.
    Richard Holle says: October 1, 2010 at 4:15 am
    You are welcome, my views are just a speculation.

  16. You may be onto something, GreyMonk. There has been no serious human sacrifice to any sungod or other deity who could influence the climate for hundreds of years, and we’re supposed to be surprised that the gods are angry at us and causing “climate disruption’?
    I guess high priest Al Gore isn’t quite honest when he tells us the carbon credits we buy will ensure us the favour of the gods.

  17. So, how long have humans been observing this ribbon?
    I made a point earlier, prior to Vukcevic, Leif, and Holle weighing in, because I didn’t think we’d been aware of or had been observing the ribbon for any significant amount of time. How long have we known about the ribbon and why should we be surprised that the knot unravels?

  18. vukcevic says:
    October 1, 2010 at 5:04 am
    After 10+ months all the fractions of different speeds are so hopelessly mixed up so that any reference to the solar rotation is completely lost; only angle that matters is the solar equatorial plane vs. the galactic plane.
    Again, you display deep ignorance. The issue was the direction of the magnetic field, remember? At a given point in the Heliosphere [the Earth, Jupiter, Pluto, Ribbon] solar rotation sweeps the Heliospheric Current Sheet by about every seven days on average. This means that the direction of the magnetic field at a given distance from the Sun changes 180 degrees every seven days, being East for a week, then West for a week, and so on.
    Richard Holle says: October 1, 2010 at 4:15 am
    You are welcome, my views are just a speculation.

  19. JTW: …human sacrifice…
    Having once resided in Swaziland for many years I can affirm that human sacrifice to influence crop production (arguably a climate related human sacrifice) did and probably still does happen. The ritual is rumoured to involve the murder of a child about 2 years old.
    ‘Ordinary’ human sacrifice for ‘strength’ and ‘luck’ known as ‘muti murders’ are pretty common on the Easttern side of Southern Africa, notably in Swaziland, Mpumalanga (Kangwane, Gazankhulu and Venda areas) and KwaZulu-Natal.
    Further rumuors emerging from the never-finishing trial of David Simelane, a noted procurer of victims, have it that Saudi Arabia is one destination for body parts retrieved from those sacrificed. Who knows what is going on there in terms of the climate? Whatever it is, it is not working…

  20. H.R. says:
    October 1, 2010 at 5:34 am
    So, how long have humans been observing this ribbon?
    __________Reply; if you do a little research, by reading the original article;
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/01/knot-in-the-ribbon-at-the-edge-of-the-solar-system-unties/#comment-496385
    as mentioned by
    #
    #
    vukcevic says:
    October 1, 2010 at 3:43 am
    There was a prolong discussion on the subject in the original
    post<no longer the link but was a hyperlink to ^
    Or if you just clip the term;
    "NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) spacecraft"
    and drop into Google search, it will be very rewarding and much deeper in fullness and richness by doing the research for your self, be skeptical ask questions, but know how to look things up for your self, it is much more rewarding that way.

  21. O.K. In for a penny, in for a pound.
    Lets see, Work in-electricity out (generator) or electricity in – work out (motor) except in space. An interesting hypothesis indeed.
    Richard, I was referring to the very real effects perceived at sunset due to the purely relative thickening of the atmosphere, which as we know, to all intents and purposes has a uniform thickness around the earth. Thus my thought that this ribbon is purely an artifact of our perspective of the double layer boundary of the Solar System.

  22. Grey Lensman says:
    October 1, 2010 at 6:48 am
    Lets see, Work in-electricity out (generator) or electricity in – work out (motor) except in space. An interesting hypothesis indeed.
    This is because in space the magnetic force is always perpendicular to the particle’s direction of motion, and, therefore, does no work on the particle.

  23. An expanding WAVE slows its motion in certain places, critical points, crests, musical intervals, “gaps”, or “warps”. The time is due, we must stop groping in the dark, knowing that we already know how a wave behaves and how opposite charges create waves, and all the rest, including US, of course!: Have you ever heard of such a thing known as a RADIO?. We already know, from thousand of years, how it works. Why the surprise then?. If Pitagoras were here he would explain it with its Monochord or with the relations of his square triangle inscribed within a circle. Why such a fanatic rejection of simple truths?. Is it perhaps we do not want to see any CANON out there, any feared symbol, which would imply an ETHOS?

  24. Richard Holle says:
    October 1, 2010 at 4:32 am
    Reply toGrey Lensman
    “I tried to say the effect is real, it appears where it does due to the interactions with/between the solar wind carried fields, and the interstellar galactic fields…”
    I think your right, Richard, the effect is real. However, by only having one observation point to view this complex 3D boundary layer, it is difficult to see what is really happening. My speculations are that the ‘knot’ is a sign that the bremsstrahlung is being excited by a stronger solar wind, then hitting a denser (more ionised?) pocket of particles in the more neutral interstellar medium. The ‘knot’ is probably an eddy of turbulence in the thin double layer of the bremsstrahlung, which fades as the sun travels out of this denser pocket of the interstellar medium and/or the speed/density of the solar wind declines.
    It will be interesting to observe if another knot appears in a different position in the future and to monitor the link between solar wind speed at the edge of the heliosphere and ‘knot’ formation or other features of turbulence.
    Interesting times!

  25. Let’s put in GCR’s terms: when charged particles encounter a magnetic bubble, they will form a ribbon around the bubble following the bubble’s magnetic equator.
    Heliosphere’s magnetic equator is defined by composite of the solar wind remanents at the bow-shock boundary. As Sun’s activity oscillates, so the ribbon will reflect convolutions of the heliospheric field.
    There is an analogous double ribbon in the ionosphere surrounding the Earth
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/154188main_plasma_bands_lgweb.jpg
    It closely follows the geo-magnetic equator as you can see, on a totally unrelated subject
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
    images 3,4 & 5.

  26. Tenuc says:
    October 1, 2010 at 7:27 am
    The ‘knot’ is probably an eddy of turbulence in the thin double layer of the bremsstrahlung, ….
    That “knot” is a “quanta”, “mass”,an “interval”, etc.,etc. Let us explain it as Pitagoras would do it, or should we ask, as he did, to bring up a prisoner from the jail, to explain it?
    http://www.giurfa.com/unified_field.pdf
    Everyone know this. It is now the time for those with infinitely more trained minds to redevelop these principles which come from the history of the human spirit.

  27. So, this Ribbon was the largest ever on record, and its “untying” is to be at the most impressive rate on record too, right?
    And, could we also say that for the first time in recorded history we have a Ribbon present ?
    Or, for the first time on record, the Ribbon is being “untied” at an unprecedented rate that could be due to Anthropogenic Global Climate Disruption?

  28. Lief says
    Quote
    This is because in space the magnetic force is always perpendicular to the particle’s direction of motion, and, therefore, does no work on the particle.
    Unquote
    But, the latest study in 3d of solar flares shows that the suns magnetic field does change their direction. Which somewhat falsifies your above statement.

  29. Grey Lensman says:
    October 1, 2010 at 9:31 am
    Thanks to you. As you see all what is needed is an up to date “translation” to the language of our times, of what tradition and symbols always taught, that “weltanschauung” found, among others, in the hebrew khabbalah. This, of course, will be resisted, as it entails an “ethos” where negentropy is the way up to higher frequencies and where entropy follows the other way. To reclaim out of a vision of chaos that of an ever prevailing order.

  30. Enneagram
    I will throw this past you as I go to bed.
    Symmetry is, asymmetry works.
    Simply put ‘Work” is the manifestation of a change of direction of energy.

  31. “Now this. Gee, I wonder what human activity could be causing it? No doubt whatever it is, the solution will involve higher taxes and some sort of symbolic sacrifice…”
    No doubt the conglomeration of radio frequency devices humans are using combining together and changing the properties of the universe. Global BS.

  32. Hmm, somehow it wouldn’t surprise me if those peeps believes there’s absolutely nothing wrong with indirectly believing that a galaxy takes about 700 million years to form into a recognizable galaxy of todays standard, so to speak.
    Hah the universe is a really interesting place, but all them one-big-bang astronomy scientist are the real interestingly funny ones. I mean who else to explain that a visible from earth 92 billion light year width of a universe fit into only a 13,7 billion year range, talk about creative schticking numbers to ones schtick.

  33. The rapid change in the “knot” embedded in the ribbon is the result of a reconfiguration of the location, direction, and velocity of charged particles and their attendant magnetic and electric fields.
    This rapid change, the “knot” being “untied”, contradicts an earlier hypothesis that the ribbon is simply a solar wind reflection.
    Nothing suggests a reflection of the solar wind would act in this way, thus, the “surprise” expressed by the scientists — surprise is caused when an event does not behave as expected or predicted.
    What an unwinding of the knot strongly sugggests is a change in physical forces at the location of the knot controlled by the location, direction and velocity of charged particles in the heliosperic boundary.
    Yes, magnetic fields are inherently involved with this process because moving charged particles cause magnetic fields:
    “The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
    Further:
    A quote from a university lecture on magnetic fields:
    “In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).” — Richard Fitzpatrick, Professor of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin
    http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node77.html
    What the heliosphere, the protective bubble in which the Earth and other planets reside and boundary between our solar system and interstellar space, is a boundary between two bodies of plasma with different physical characteristics each emanating its own magnetic field.
    So, when two bodies of plasma each with a distinct magnetic field press against each other, the result is electric currents:
    “An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
    Another way to describe this process is an Electric Double Layer:
    “In general, double layers (which may be curved rather than flat) separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics.” — Wikipedia entry for Double Layer (plasma)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
    The change in the “knot” embedded in the ribbon strongly suggests a change in flows in charged particles initiated by forces either outside or inside the heliospheric boundary.
    A charged particle is one that has coulomb force, also known as an “electric force”, which can be attraction between opposite charged particles or can be repulsion between similarly charged particles.
    Interestingly enough a stationary charged particle does not cause a magnetic field.
    Magnetic fields are dependent on not just charged particles, but are also dependent on the motion of those charged particles.
    In other words, magnetic fields are a function of moving charged particles.
    Note the image at the left-hand of the post shows a vortex type structure, charged particles do tend to spiral in a magnetic field.

  34. Obviously this is entangled particles communicating FTL over long distances. Sounds good to me, anyway, since no one has a better answer/guess.

  35. The “knot” untangles or unwinds into a spiral vortex structure.
    This suggests the possibility that the “knot” is actually a plasmoid.
    Per Wikipedia entry for plasmoid:
    “A plasmoid is a coherent structure of plasma and magnetic fields. Plasmoids have been proposed to explain natural phenomena such as ball lightning, magnetic bubbles in the magnetosphere, and objects in cometary tails, in the solar wind, in the solar atmosphere, and in the heliospheric current sheet. Plasmoids produced in the laboratory include Field-Reversed Configurations, Spheromaks, and the dense plasma focus.”
    “The word plasmoid was coined in 1956 by Winston H. Bostick (1916-1991) to mean a ‘plasma-magnetic entity’:
    The plasma is emitted not as an amorphous blob, but in the form of a torus. We shall take the liberty of calling this toroidal structure a plasmoid, a word which means plasma-magnetic entity. The word plasmoid will be employed as a generic term for all plasma-magnetic entities.”
    “Bostick wrote:
    Plasmoids appear to be plasma cylinders elongated in the direction of the magnetic field. Plasmoids possess a measurable magnetic moment, a measurable translational speed, a transverse electric field, and a measurable size. Plasmoids can interact with each other, seemingly by reflecting off one another. Their orbits can also be made to curve toward one another. Plasmoids can be made to spiral to a stop if projected into a gas at about 10−3 mm Hg pressure. Plasmoids can also be made to smash each other into fragments. There is some scant evidence to support the hypothesis that they undergo fission and possess spin.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid
    So, perhaps, this is a plasmoid which was first observed as a “knot” then “untangled” into a vortex spiral, electric current flowing as a sheet in the plane of the spiral.
    This could also suggest the plasmoid “relaxed” or electromagnetic tension decreased, further suggesting a decrease in electromagnetic energy introduced into the plasmoid.

  36. James F. Evans says:
    October 1, 2010 at 12:17 pm
    Yes, magnetic fields are inherently involved with this process because moving charged particles cause magnetic fields
    No, a current may cause a magnetic field. Just moving ‘charged particles’ has no effect if the medium, like all plasmas is electrically neutral, i.e. consists of equal number of charges of opposite sign.
    There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits.
    There is an deep and fundamental difference, as permanent magnets are due to quantum effects [electron spin]. There is no electrical current running around with an atom.
    two bodies of plasma with different physical characteristics each emanating its own magnetic field.
    Bodies of plasma do not ’emanate’ magnetic fields.
    “An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.”
    So, the magnetic field is needed to produce the current.
    “In general, double layers (which may be curved rather than flat) separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics.”
    The converse does not hold.
    In other words, magnetic fields are a function of moving charged particles.
    No, again, you have to separate opposite charges to get a current. The only way to do this in space is with a magnetic field.

  37. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 1, 2010 at 2:51 pm
    “No, a current may cause a magnetic field. Just moving ‘charged particles’ has no effect if the medium, like all plasmas is electrically neutral, i.e. consists of equal number of charges of opposite sign.”
    Leif,
    You need to stop saying that. A conductor such as a copper wire or the solar wind can be electrically “neutral” and still carry an electric current. All that is required for the neutral conductor to carry a current is for the positive and negative charges to move at different velocities as they do in the solar wind. The moving electric field will generate an orthogonal magnetic field. A moving magnetic field will generate a current in a conductor such as the solar wind, all as per Maxwell’s universally accepted equations.

  38. Dr. Svalgaard presented Evans’ statement: “Yes, magnetic fields are inherently involved with this process because moving charged particles cause magnetic fields”
    And, Dr. Svalgaard responded: “No, a current may cause a magnetic field. Just moving ‘charged particles’ has no effect if the medium, like all plasmas is electrically neutral, i.e. consists of equal number of charges of opposite sign.”
    No, Dr. Svalgaard, you are wrong:
    “The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
    “The moving plasma”, Dr. Peratt is referring to is electrically neutral plasma, i.e. consists of equal number of charges of opposite sign.
    And, Richard Fitzpatrick, Professor of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, when he states: “all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents”, is referring to charged particles in motion, flowing as a current, it doesn’t require the charges to be segregated (although, the charges certainly can be segregated).
    Making statements contradicted by scientists more qualified than you in the subject matter at hand only diminishes your credibility.
    “There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits.” — Richard Fitzpatrick, Professor of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin
    Your disagreement is not with me, but with professor Fitzpatrick. Perhaps you need to e-mail your disagreement to him.
    Dr. Svalgaard presented Evans’ statement: “In other words, magnetic fields are a function of moving charged particles.”
    And, Dr. Svalgaard responded: “No, again, you have to separate opposite charges to get a current. The only way to do this in space is with a magnetic field.”
    Apparently, in your rush to disagree, you are failing to comprehend the statement.
    Moving charged particles do cause a magnetic field:
    Per Wikipedia entry for magnetism:
    “Electric currents or more generally, moving electric charges create magnetic fields (see Maxwell’s Equations).”
    Highlight: “moving electric charges create magnetic fields”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism
    I’m sorry, Dr. Svalgaard, just because you want to disagree with me, doesn’t mean you can change the laws of physics.

  39. (Leif Svalgaard) says:
    October 1, 2010 at 2:51 pm
    “James F. Evans says”:
    October 1, 2010 at 12:17 pm
    “”Yes, magnetic fields are inherently involved with this process because moving charged particles cause magnetic fields””
    (No, a current may cause a magnetic field. Just moving ‘charged particles’ has no effect if the medium, like all plasmas is electrically neutral, i.e. consists of equal number of charges of opposite sign.)
    [my replies, E and H fields, voltage {ions}, and magnetic flux exist as a completely reciprocal arrangement, both exist because the other does, density of ions and speed of movement determines total current, {the measurement of the ion flow} the resistance to the flow produces measurable “voltage potentials” due to assuming the amount of movement that would be if the resistance were removed.]
    ————————–
    “”There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits.””
    (There is an deep and fundamental difference, as permanent magnets are due to quantum effects [electron spin]. There is no electrical current running around with an atom.)
    [Deflection from stated case of {conventional electric circuits} in conductors, then you infer due to using a different case the original was wrong, but in the case for ions each individual charged particle is the incremental charge, and if moving produces current equal to the total number of charged units moving. The sum value + or – depends on the balance of carriers, but the current still flows, the rates of change results in the frequency produced. If you average the current in an 60 cycles/sec ac circuit for long periods of time is the result = to 0?]
    ————————–
    “two bodies of plasma with different physical characteristics each emanating its own magnetic field.”
    (Bodies of plasma do not ‘emanate’ magnetic fields.)
    [Attempt to deflect again by semantics, the error in context was James’ choice of the word “emanating” where in your counter point is he should have said “propagating along with” the particle movement, you took the term “emanating” as the normal understanding that means {expanding from} rather than what he meant as “expanding with”. Your negative sounding answer does not negate the conjecture James was trying to make that the magnetic and particle properties of the two plasmas had different compositions, and magnet alignments due to differences of the originating wave fronts.]
    ————————-
    “An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.”
    (So, the magnetic field is needed to produce the current.)
    [Context you were discussing is the flow of the different plasmas at a boundary layer, created and maintained by the difference of two or more conflicting magnetic fields each associated with a plasma flow in what maybe a resultant turbulent mixing layer, given that there is not only multiple magnetic fields and multiple ion flows, the real point in question what is the resultant flow of current? Stays separate, combines, and or in what proportion, due to what the real compositions are?]
    ————————–
    “In general, double layers (which may be curved rather than flat) separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics.”
    (The converse does not hold.)
    [Are you saying that separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics, will not form double layers? What do you think happens then? Mixing, mutual repulsion, or just the random active scattering of neutral ions, some of them back toward the sun, and that is what we are seeing here?]
    ————————–
    “”In other words, magnetic fields are a function of moving charged particles.””
    (No, again, you have to separate opposite charges to get a current. The only way to do this in space is with a magnetic field.)
    [Each particle has it’s own field, as it passes a point in space the fields respond in kind, resulting in a very high frequency AC with a large volume of current carriers, James was not asking about current, yes magnetic fields are a functional product of moving charged particles by definition, you are still discussing the interactions between plasmas containing particles and magnetic fields of different origins, just because the solar wind is usually close to a balanced positive and negative ion content, does not let you assume that the galactic fields pushes an even balance of both charges.]
    [I would bet that the composition of the galactic wind is different, and that difference is the cause of the slightly precept able slow down of the pioneer and voyager space craft.]

  40. After that revolting vidoe sequence, it’s a pleasure to read of some interesting onbservations. I was going to say “science” but this is not science, but rapportage of observations. The science resides in the explication of the observations.
    Cool, tho

  41. James F. Evans
    strangely enough, as a Spurs fan and student of electricity, I find Leif is correct.
    Plasmas ARE neutral. They are composed of ionised particles; for every postivie ion, there is a negative electron, and vice versa. The dynamics of plasmas have been studied theoretically and experimentally, without achieving full comprehension. Yes, the oppositely charged particals move in opposite directions. However, they are neutral as far as is concerned the volume of the plasma, from the exterior.
    Now, what happens to a neutral plasma moving through a magnetic field is another matter.
    Assuming a spherical horse.

  42. Mr. Evans, yes, but the plasmoid is only a fleeting thing; it is not a stable structure.

  43. Come on folks, its plain as day. The ribbon is the solar system’s equivalent of DNA or mDNA, and its unraveling now in preparation for meiosis or mitosis. Clearly its our CO2 production that’s thrown things off and caused the upcoming spawning millions of years earlier than should REALLY have occurred – and we only have 4 years to change our ways and avoid utter destruction from this! Bad SUV’s, bad people, BAD, BAD!!! -VBG-

  44. Robert of Ottawa wrote: “Mr. Evans, yes, but the plasmoid is only a fleeting thing; it is not a stable structure.”
    I suggest when there is a stable structure — the heliosphere — a plasmoid can be a stable object embedded within the boundary (because the boundary is stable). Plasmoids have been observed & measured in the Earth’s magnetotail and they persist in that location because the physical dynamics are stable with fairly consistent introduction of electromagnetic energy (although, the plasmoids in the Earth’s magnetotail do explode periodically, initiating the electric current that flows into the Earth’s upper atmosphere, causing the aurora).
    I will add, but is sure to be objected to, that plasmoids may possibly be a form of Electric Double Layer. One thing we do know, double layers can take many forms (while maintaining the basic physical relationships), and plasma, as Langmuir noted, is self-organizing, with the charged particles assuming structures which insulate the opposite charges from each other (electrons & ions), so that opposed to popular conception, the charged particles don’t simply “short circuit”and cancel out, but rather assume structures which prevent a simple “short”.
    Plasmoids and double layers behave similarly: If there is a steady & constant flow of charged particles (energy) into the respective objects, they will persist.
    But if the flow of charged particles is cut-off the structures will not persist, and on the other extreme, if the charge particles (energy) exceeds a certain enery level, the objects can “explode” and in the case of a plasmoid can emit electrons out of one axis and ions out the other axis, again, much like a double layer accelerating electrons out one exhaust “jet” and ions accelerated out the opposite direction in an exhaust “jet”.

  45. James F. Evans
    I expect the stellar-gallactic boundary to be about as stable as the geo-solar boundary; i.e. given to great fluctuations on different time scales.

  46. The movement of plasmas on their own will not generate magnetic fields as Leif says. When talking about plasma movement you need to think about cathodes and anodes. On the universal scale there are many cathodes and anodes ranging from galactic size to planetary size. For example our Milky Way could be an anode while Andromeda is a cathode while our sun could be a cathode and Alpha Centauri an anode. With this in mind there are large plasma flows with intersecting smaller plasma flows, plus it has been shown that moving plasma “knots”, all these complex interactions will create magnetic fields or magnetic activity. Double layer boundaries are one of the results of the movements of plasma.

  47. Richard Holle says:
    October 1, 2010 at 6:00 am
    H.R. says:
    October 1, 2010 at 5:34 am
    So, how long have humans been observing this ribbon?
    __________Reply; if you do a little research, by reading the original article;
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/01/knot-in-the-ribbon-at-the-edge-of-the-solar-system-unties/#comment-496385
    as mentioned by
    #
    #
    vukcevic says:
    October 1, 2010 at 3:43 am
    There was a prolong discussion on the subject in the original
    post<no longer the link but was a hyperlink to ^
    Or if you just clip the term;
    "NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) spacecraft"

    Thanks for the prod. While reading the post at 4:30 am local time, I missed the link to the paper that Leif provided. It clarified quite a few points being made in the comments. I was stumped as to how the post gave that much info (it doesn’t, of course).
    So then I stumbled about on the IBEX site and found the answer to my question, which is; twice. The ribbon has apparently been observed twice. And I found that they shouldn’t have been surprised because (from the IBEX site re the mission):
    “Although the scientists knew the real data would not look exactly as their models predicted, this ribbon feature was a huge surprise to the scientists and was not predicted by any existing models. The ribbon appears to be produced by the alignment of magnetic fields outside our heliosphere. These observations suggest that the interstellar environment has far more influence on structuring the heliosphere than anyone previously believed.”
    It seems to me that when you don’t know “what’s in the box,” you shouldn’t be surprised by what you find. I thought their find was really nifty, myself.

  48. In the rest frame of a plasma there is no electric field and hence no electric current. If the plasma moves [e.g. the solar wind] into a stationary magnetic field [e.g. the Earth’s] an electric field and currents result. So, currents are the result of moving the conductor [the plasma] with respect to the magnetic field. The magnetic field thus serves as a means to convert kinetic energy into electric energy, as in any old bicycle dynamo. The fundamental error committed by the Electric Universe cult is not to realize this simple principle.

  49. Leif has not read the peer reviewed paper by electrical experts.
    Bit mind boggling that the Earths magnetic field is stationary?

  50. Grey Lensman says:
    October 1, 2010 at 7:42 pm
    Sorry Lief but an electric current always produces a magnetic field.
    Yes But these are out of phase to each other (180) so you don’t see voltage if there is magnetization , or if there is voltage there is no magnetization.
    better to say voltage or current.
    wave propagation from a transmitter works because there is a voltage as the magnetic wave(field) collapses the voltage builds and then reverts, these are out of phase.
    LEIF??? currents are the result of moving the conductor [the plasma] ?????
    You can show that there are NO electrons in plasma???????
    Plasma is a wire?????
    please show your work.
    Thanks Tim

  51. Leif said
    ‘There are the same number of electrons [with negative charge] per cubic meter as there are ions [with positive charge], so no NET charge.”
    Have you counted them? As you know the universe is not symmetrical thus by your own admission currents must flow.
    QED

  52. h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard, who offers us a look at the paper here
    ~
    Thanks from me too, Leif. Thank – You!
    pg.12
    “..However,
    some statistically significant differences indicate that the outer heliosphere is noticeably evolving over this short (6 month) timeframe. In particular, (3) the overall ENA emissions observed by IBEX above ∼2 keV appear to be slightly lower in the second set of sky maps compared to the first, both within the ribbon and outside of it; (4) both the north and south poles have significantly lower (∼10–15%) ENA emissions in the second set of sky maps compared to the first across the energy range from 0.5 to 6 keV; (5) the “knot” in the northern portion of the ribbon in the first maps is less intense and appears to have spread and/or somewhat dissipated by the time the second set of maps was acquired;
    and (6) the detailed fluxes in the southern (horizontal) portion of the ribbon have evolved and there may be a slight (one pixel, ∼6°) equatorward motion of its center..”
    ~
    Leif, what do you think lower ENA levels this go round, are due to?
    Wondering if during the last solar max many of these knots existed and now during solar min we have just witnessed the “unraveling” of the last helisopheric knot? (sometimes I do scare myself)
    Geesh the whole heliosphere all tied up in knots. lol
    Seriously, I was expecting some signs of motion or drift. It’s there but not yet definitive.
    vukcevic says:
    October 1, 2010 at 7:43 am
    Let’s put in GCR’s terms: when charged particles encounter a magnetic bubble, they will form a ribbon around the bubble following the bubble’s magnetic equator.
    Heliosphere’s magnetic equator is defined by composite of the solar wind remanents at the bow-shock boundary. As Sun’s activity oscillates, so the ribbon will reflect convolutions of the heliospheric field.
    There is an analogous double ribbon in the ionosphere surrounding the Earth
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/154188main_plasma_bands_lgweb.jpg
    It closely follows the geo-magnetic equator as you can see, on a totally unrelated subject
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
    images 3,4 & 5.
    Vuks, thanks for the links, your graphs and presentation. Food for thought.
    James and Leif, don’t go off on minute details too much. Hey, much bigger picture, right?

  53. Also wondering if the “knot” was a leftover piece of a magic magnetic carpet, that took a ride out to the edge..Leif, where you riding that out to edge to try and see out?
    hmm leftover magnetic carpet remnants?
    Understanding of solar wind structure might be wrong
    Los Alamos scientist suggests new approach to measuring flow from the sun
    LOS ALAMOS, New Mexico, September 9, 2010—A scientist examining the solar wind suggests that our understanding of its structure may need significant reassessment. The plasma particles flowing from the Sun and blasting past the Earth might be configured more as a network of tubes than a river-like stream, according to Joseph Borovsky of Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Space
    In a paper in this week’s Physical Review Letters, “Contribution of Strong Discontinuities to the Power Spectrum of the Solar Wind,” (Physical Review Letters 105, 111102 [2010]), Borovsky challenges the concept that the solar wind is of fairly uniform structure, and therefore, our entire interpretation of spacecraft data may not be correct.
    “For decades we have been interpreting the spectrum of fluctuations in the solar wind as a measurement of turbulence in the wind. However, it turns out that impurities (discontinuities) in plasma dominate the signal. Hence, the spectrum is not a clean measurement of turbulence, and it may not even be a measurement of turbulence,” Borovsky said. In simpler terms, perhaps, we couldn’t see the forest for the trees.
    “Because we might be misunderstanding the solar wind, we might be misunderstanding its impact on the Earth’s environment. Understanding solar wind allows us to understand the initiation and evolution of geomagnetic storms,” said Herbert Funsten, chief scientist for the International, Space & Response Division at Los Alamos.
    “..Borovosky argues that the discontinuities are part of a structure to the solar wind that looks like spaghetti, with the discontinuities being the boundaries between adjacent noodles (magnetic tubes). In this concept, the wind plasma is structured rather than being homogeneous. He suggests that the spaghetti structure of the solar-wind plasma reflects the “magnetic carpet” on the surface of the Sun, with the spaghetti in the wind being loose strands of the magnetic carpet.
    “We have also argued that the spectrum measured in the wind is a ‘remnant’ of the carpet on the Sun rather than a signature of turbulence in the wind plasma,” he says..”
    http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/unders….ewsrelease.html

  54. One last thing..
    The TWINS satellites (not named Castor and Pollux) were supposed to be imaging earth’s magnetosphere much the same way that IBEX is imaging the Heliopheric boundary. Working together..
    Any word on this?
    Meet the TWINS:
    The TWINS Mission
    “Two Wide-angle Imaging Neutral-atom Spectrometers (TWINS) is a NASA Explorer Mission-of-Opportunity to stereoscopically image the Earth’s magnetosphere for the first time. TWINS extends our understanding of magnetospheric structure and processes by providing simultaneous Energetic Neutral Atom (ENA) imaging from two widely separated locations. TWINS observes ENAs from 1-100 keV with high angular (~4°x4°) and time (~1-minute) resolution. The TWINS Lyman-alpha monitor measures the geocoronal hydrogen density to aid in ENA analysis while environmental sensors provide contemporaneous measurements of the local charged particle environments. By imaging ENAs with identical instruments from two widely spaced, high-altitude, high-inclination spacecraft, TWINS enables three-dimensional visualization of the large-scale structures and dynamics within the magnetosphere for the first time. .”
    http://twins.swri.edu/mission.jsp#mission

  55. http://plasmascience.net/elec_currents.html
    “Regardless of scale, the motion of charged particles produces a self-magnetic field that can act on other collections of particles or plasmas, internally or externally. Plasmas in relative motion are coupled via currents that they drive through each other. Currents are therefore expected in a universe of inhomogeneous astrophysical plasmas of all sizes.”
    The above would be expected. The electrons and ions in a plasma are constantly in motion. That motion will create localized electrical currents which in turn creates small magnetic fields. These magnetic fields then move and direct the plasma which sets up larger electric currents and so on and so forth. It would be impossible for a plasma cloud to be ‘electrically neutral’.

  56. A spiral feature at the Heliopause?…. That’s not surprising at all….. It is merely dark matter interacting with dark energy and causing a funky yellow spiral….. Quite simple really when one applies the most advanced Cosmological theories….. 😉
    ….. sigh 🙁

  57. Steve B says:
    October 2, 2010 at 6:05 am
    “It would be impossible for a plasma cloud to be ‘electrically neutral’.”
    You were doing great until you made the above statement. The solar wind is electrically neutral, yet it carries an electric current, because its positive and negative charges are moving relative to each other.

  58. pochas says:
    October 2, 2010 at 12:01 pm
    The solar wind is electrically neutral, yet it carries an electric current, because its positive and negative charges are moving relative to each other.
    No they generally don’t, because the attract each other so strongly. What would separate them?

  59. I want to thank all the physicists and other scientists who pick up on a fascinating bit of science like this report and in debating enlighten some of the rest of us [English majors, said in a low whisper…!].
    I don’t understand why an enjoyable discussion has to be interrupted by jibes about Al Gore and cracks about CO2 from folks who don’t seem to appreciate something like this. Come on, guys! Let it go! Every once in a while it is just delightful to contemplate some of the wonders in the universe for what they are, without obsessing constantly about AGW… 🙂

  60. Lief
    I love scientists but their addiction to complexity and desire to use as many big words as possible does frustrate me.
    So i try to keep it simple and cut to the chase.
    Warmist fear mongering, pretending to be science, shows us that debate and dissent is vital to the growth of science and human knowledge.
    You have taken some hits here, I have been lost for words
    Thats how it should be

  61. Grey it is Leif not Lief.
    I made that mistake a while back [a bit dyslexic here].
    But it is definitely e before i.
    🙂
    -Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  62. Thanks Chris, enjoy your posts and Leifs. Am a bit lysdexic at times, really lack of keyboard motor skills.

  63. Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “In the rest frame of a plasma there is no electric field and hence no electric current.”
    False.
    There is no such thing as a “rest frame” for plasma.
    Break down plasma to it’s constutuents: Electrons & ions.
    Electromagnetism is scale independent: What holds true for one particle holds true for the many and vise versa.
    A free electron has a negative charge, no matter what frame — in fact, “frame” is irrelevant. If an electron is free it has a charge — period — it has an electric force.
    An ion has a positive charge, no matter what frame. An ion has an electric force.
    Any statement that attempts to introduce the concept of “rest frame” in relation to plasma is nothing but meaningless verbal gymnastics. It is not even misleading — it is nonsensical.
    And as multiple sources linked in this discussion have shown: Moving charged particles cause a magnetic field. One charged particle, whether a free electron or an ion, if in motion will cause a magnetic field. Yes, a very small magnetic field, but existent, nevertheless.
    And, again, this is because electromagnetism is scale independent. What is true for the one is true for the many.
    There is a hypothesis that suggests a charged particle’s electric force (every charged particle has an electric force) when in motion causes a “disturbance” or “tension” in an ether field — this disturbance is what Science calls a magnetic field.
    And as a prologue every charged particle, whether free electron or ion causes a “disturbance” or “tension” in this ether field expressed as electric force.
    The two types of disturbances or tensions in this ether field are transaxial to each other.
    That is why electric fields and magnetic fields are always perpendicular to each other.
    One force, the electric force is not dependent on motion, the other force, the magnetic force is dependent on motion.
    A magnetic field flows around a charged particle in motion following the “right hand rule” (placing your right hand in a “thumbs up gesture” — the charged particle or a current of charged particles flowing up & out of your thumb will cause a magnetic field which “flows” the same direction as your fingers wrapped [counter-clockwise]).
    This magnetic field will not change the direction of the charged particle in motion, BUT a seperate and distinct magnetic field can deflect the charged particle.
    However, only the electric force, and if in an organized array, an electric field, can cause charged particles to accelerate.
    Magnetic fields can’t cause charged particles to accelerate.

  64. James F. Evans says:
    October 2, 2010 at 11:59 pm
    There is no such thing as a “rest frame” for plasma.
    The rest frame is just an observer moving with the plasma. E.g. an observer moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind is in the rest frame of the solar wind plasma.
    One charged particle, whether a free electron or an ion, if in motion will cause a magnetic field. Yes, a very small magnetic field, but existent, nevertheless.
    Since the magnetic field from the electron and the ion are in opposite directions there will be no net magnetic field.
    Magnetic fields can’t cause charged particles to accelerate.
    When magnetic fields change [e.g. by reconnection], electric fields are generated which then accelerate the particles.

  65. “although it [magnetic reconnection] hardly resembles the original theory at all”
    That is correct: The original theory first proposed in 1946 to explain coronal mass ejection (CME), at the time all observations & measurements were Earth surface based (pre-space age) and all that could be observed were magnetic fields.
    Yes, today, “magnetic reconnection” has attempted to incorporate electric fields and charged particle kinetics (location, direction, velocity & location of charged particle acceleration), but because “magnetic reconnection” supporters are still fixated on magnetic fields, they can’t quantify and understand there own process.
    It’s a failed concept and needs to be replaced with the Electric Double Layer, an electromagnetic process, which has been fully quantified for decades.

  66. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 2, 2010 at 1:00 pm
    “No they generally don’t, because the attract each other so strongly. What would separate them?”
    What causes the charges in a plasma to remain separated, thus making the plasma conductive? I’m surprised you would ask, since you are the authority. Perhaps I am in error and the solar wind is not really a plasma?

  67. Grey Lensman says:
    October 3, 2010 at 3:16 am
    Magnetic fields cannot “reconnect”
    They do it all the time. Reconnection simply means change their topology. You can do that simply by twirling a toy magnet.
    Silly silly me, I forgot the link
    It better be forgotten because it is anti-science.
    James F. Evans says:
    October 3, 2010 at 7:34 am
    It’s a failed concept and needs to be replaced with the Electric Double Layer
    Recent in situ observations say otherwise:
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JA015302.shtml
    You don’t get any marks for peddling the EU anti-science. No space physicists today confuse the state of EDL with the process of reconnection.
    pochas says:
    October 3, 2010 at 7:51 am
    What causes the charges in a plasma to remain separated, thus making the plasma conductive?
    Conductivity has nothing to do with separation. Conductivity just means that charges can move under an impressed electric field creating a current. The solar wind has nearly infinite conductivity. This is what prohibits lasting electric fields, because any such will immediately lead to the opposite charges finding each other [they attract each other strongly] and short out the separation.

  68. Grey Lensman says:
    October 3, 2010 at 10:38 am
    Electrifying debate, I hope that it does not fall into a blackhole.
    Dumb debate as shown by the basic ignorance about simple physics being displayed by the reconnection deniers.

  69. Dr. Svalgaard presented Evans’ statement: “There is no such thing as a “rest frame” for plasma.”
    And, Dr. Svalgaard responed: “The rest frame is just an observer moving with the plasma. E.g. an observer moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind is in the rest frame of the solar wind plasma.”
    Only a few considerations demonstrates how silly the above statment is.
    Experiment: Multiple observers measuring a specific portion of the plasma streaming radially from the Sun, temporally & spatially, at the same point — the same electrons & ions.
    Consider: One observer is located and moving as Dr. Svalgaard has stated in the above hypothetical response. Another observer is located on the Earth, another at L1 (a position between the Sun and the Earth that provides stability for the observing platform, in situ satellite), and in multiple coordinated satellites such as THEMIS which move through and by the body of plasma collecting data in situ.
    Even by Dr. Svalgaard’s own terms, of the four proposed platforms, we know, by prior in situ satellite probes (i.e., THEMIS), that the electric force and electric fields of the charged particles in the “event” body of plasma moving out from the Sun can and already has been observed &measured. Coronal mass ejections (CME’s) have been observed & measured in this way by THEMIS and all the above parameters have been detected and measured.
    The other three observers would measure those parameters detectable from each platform’s location, respectively.
    As well as Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical observation platform.
    There are not two realities — there is only one reality — a set of existitent physical conditions, at any given time & place.
    If one observer of any of the four obseservers in the experiment observes & measures electric fields and electric currents, within the body of plasma, then that is the reality. Such as the THEMIS experiments already conducted.
    It’s silly to claim as Dr. Svalgaard does in his hypothetical in situ satellite probe, that a different reality (from the temporally & spatially identical THEMIS observations) would exist where there’s no electric force effects on the observer, no electric field effects on the observer, and no electric current effects on the observer.
    Why?
    Because the free electrons & ions constituing the subject of the experiment are experiencing the same set of physical forces and kinetics no matter where the observing platform is situation.
    There is one reality for any time & place.
    The idea of a “rest frame of a plasma” allowing different physical parameters (depending on the location of the observer) in a specific body of plasma is an imaginary construct which has no basis in experimental reality as demonstrated by the THEMIS in situ satellite probe and other multi-platform arrayed satellite probes.

  70. James F. Evans says:
    October 3, 2010 at 11:32 am
    If one observer of any of the four obseservers in the experiment observes & measures electric fields and electric currents, within the body of plasma, then that is the reality. Such as the THEMIS experiments already conducted.
    It’s silly to claim as Dr. Svalgaard does in his hypothetical in situ satellite probe, that a different reality (from the temporally & spatially identical THEMIS observations) would exist where there’s no electric force effects on the observer, no electric field effects on the observer, and no electric current effects on the observer.

    This is how Nature works, see e.g.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current
    Electromagnetism
    “The theory of Special Relativity allows one to transform the magnetic field into a static electric field for an observer moving at the same speed as the charge in the diagram. The amount of current is particular to a reference frame (who is measuring the current or charge velocity).”

  71. The best evidence that Relativity is a failed thought experiment.
    Relativity postulates there are multiple realities.
    That is one of several paradoxes which confront supporters of Relativity.
    This violates the basic causation principle of Science, since with multiple realities, as Special Relativity & General Relativity postulate, then there are multiple causations for those multiple realities.
    (Under that set of a priori assumptions, Science is useless, since nothing is knowable or falsifiable.)
    Let’s put a finer edge on the proposed experiment: The THEMIS multiple satellite array in situ probe passes through the same body of plasma collecting data at the same time the Svalgaard hypothetical satellite is “moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind” and is also collecting data, two observers collecting data on the same event from two seperate “frames” of reference.
    There is only one reality, one set of physical conditions, at the location and time where the two satellite probes intersect even though the THEMIS satellite has a different “reference frame” due to its different vector direction and speed.
    Also, the Svalgaard in situ probe, if it is within an electric field as it moves “way from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind” will observe an electric field if equipped with the necessary Langmuir probe.
    The magnetic field does not cause the electric force.
    Someone might say: “How do you know that?”
    Because the electric force is present around a charged particle whether the charged particle is moving or stationary. An electric force exists without the presence of a magnetic field, where charged particles are stationary. To indulge Dr. Svalgaard’s imaginary hypothetical, for the sake of argument, charged particles have electric force even in the “rest frame of reference”. Stationary charged particles are in the “rest frame”.
    It’s the cummulative arrayed electric force of charged particles which causes an electric field.
    However, it’ also true that magnetic fields interact with the electric force of charged particles to organize those charged particles into a structure which causes electric fields and electric currents.
    Again, “rest frame” is a red herring which only serves to obscure and obfiscate.

  72. James F. Evans says:
    October 3, 2010 at 3:44 pm
    The best evidence that Relativity is a failed thought experiment.
    Relativity postulates there are multiple realities.

    Now relativity is also ‘failed’. I think you are digging a deeper and deeper hole. But, the dependence on the reference frame actually follows from Maxwell’s equations. So, you must also postulate that they have failed. It was, in fact, Maxwell’s equations that led Einstein to Special Relativity.
    This insistence that modern physics has ‘failed’ is the characteristics of a cult of anti-science. I suggest you refrain from any more of this as such is degrading WUWT.

  73. I believe that all the observed cosmological phenonema can be simulated in a plasma lab albeit at several magnitudes less then what is displayed in the heavens. In my mind that gives the ‘electric’ universe crowd an edge over the ‘electric neutral’ universe crowd. Astro physicists who insist on a “gravitational” universe have to revert to playing mathematical gymnastics to come up with an answer and still can’t get it right.
    The ‘electric neutral’ believers are suffering from the same sort of thinking as “CO2 Alarmists”. It becomes a belief system when empirical evidence points somewhere else.
    I have done a few searches the last few days and there are many sites pushing the electric universe and even some government educational sites which I find amazing. My son is doing a physics degree and even he has joined the electric universe side. Of course that doesn’t make it ‘correct’ but if as I said at the beginning, stars, galaxies etc can be replicated in a lab then surely they must be on the right track.

  74. Steve B says:
    October 3, 2010 at 10:56 pm
    Astro physicists who insist on a “gravitational” universe
    In the end, everything is due to gravity.
    The EU people simply do not their physics.

  75. LS said
    “In the end, everything is due to gravity.”
    And you 100% bet your life on it? <—- I say this thought provokingly (not nasty)
    The EU people simply do not their physics.
    And you have interviewed all EU people? <—- lighthearted question
    Personally if I was in your shoes I would spend a bit of time looking into it. If it is a dead end then fine at least you won't die wondering. I hate wondering.

  76. James F. Evans says:(October 3, 2010 at 3:44 pm)
    “The best evidence that Relativity is a failed thought experiment.
    Relativity postulates there are multiple realities.”
    I am going in way over my head here but what the hell.
    We all know the famous thought experiment of two people on a moving train that toss a ball between themselves. What is the reality of the speed of the ball?
    Let’s say one person tosses the ball to the other at 5 ft/sec. So the speed of the ball between them is 5 ft/per. But wait, if the train is moving at 10 ft/sec in the direction of the ball toss then to a person standing in a field as the train goes by sees the ball’s speed as 15 ft/sec. So what is the true reality of the ball’s speed? But wait, if there was an astronaut in space free from Earth’s rotation he would see the speed of the ball as 15 ft/sec plus or minus the speed of the Earth’s rotation (depending on the direction of the train of course). Have we got the true speed of the ball yet? Nope. If a being was positioned outside the orbit of the Earth he would see the speed of the ball as 15 ft/per plus or minus the Earth’s rotational speed plus or minus the Earth’s orbital speed. Have we got the true speed of the ball yet? Nope. One still has to factor in the speed of the solar system through the Galaxy, the Galaxy’s speed through the Universe and any speed of expansion or contraction of the Universe. How can an object display so many different realities at the same time? Relativity of course.
    But whose reality matters the most? The one catching the ball.

  77. Steve B:
    Dr. Svalgaard has been committed to the gravity “only” model his entire professional career: “In the end, everything is due to gravity.”
    That should provide some insight into his objectivity and his agenda.
    At this point, Dr. Svalgaard is engaged in a rearguard action. But a wealth of scientific observations & measurements are constantly frustrating his efforts.
    In regards to Dr. Svalgaard’s response: Notice he avoids responding to the specifics of the hypothetical experiment — he can’t. Neither does he challenge that there is only one reality or set of physical conditions for a given time & place. (Snickers would fill the auditorium if Dr. Svalgaard gave a lecture and directly stated there were multiple physical realities for a given time & place.)
    Notice Dr. Svalgaard lashes out because I dared challenged the astronomical “philosopher’s stone”, Relativity. Why the angry response and even an implied call for banishment from this website? (“degrading WUWT”) — Apparently, anybody who openly challenges Dr. Svalgaard’s Sacred Cow and last ditch at obfiscation is liable to receive his wrath. Don’t be fooled, it’s a diversionary tactic to distract from the factual merits of the argument presented.
    Don’t have an answer to the factual merits of the argument, attack the messenger. (Haven’t we see that tactic used by the AGW scientists?)
    Wikipedia entry for Double layer (plasma):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
    Are all the above scientists, their work, and scientific publications in the above entry “degrading to WUWT”? (Is that all you got Dr. Svalgaard?)
    Wikipedia entry for Plasmoid:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid
    Is mention of Winston H. Bostick and his ideas “degrading to WUWT”?
    Dr. Svalgaard employs this tactic because Relativity is the blank check for the astronomical “priest class”. Can’t explain or defend something — invoke Relativity — and fellow peers and uninitiates cringe and fall mute.
    As I stated in my last comment “rest frame” is a red herring. Even for subscribers to Relatvity.
    Why?
    Because you don’t have to have a hypothetical Svalgaard satellite probe, “moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind”, to observe & measure the “rest frame” of a plasma. A stationary observer of a stationary body of plasma has the same “rest frame” as the Svalgaard satlellite probe, “moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind”.
    And, stationary observers of a stationary body of plasma have already observed & measured the electric force of the charged particles, and electric fields, and electric currents.
    In other words, Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical observer has already been falsified by empirical experiment — there is no need to give any further serious consideration to his imaginary argument.
    Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “But, the dependence on the reference frame actually follows from Maxwell’s equations.”
    Dr. Svalgaard, unsupported declarations lack credibility — show your work.
    Instead, Dr. Svalgaard might try grappling with the specifics of the experiment I presented.
    There is nothing modern about so-called “magnetic reconnection” or gravity “only” astronomy.

  78. Tom in Florida:
    You present the best argument for Relativity. I have no objection to your line of reasoning as far as it goes. Although, your argument is more about perception and cumulative “frames of reference”.
    But does that rational apply to the solar wind as Dr. Svalgaard claims: Such that there is no electric fields or electric currents for the hypothetical Svalgaard observer, even though, at the same time & place THEMIS would be able to detect electric fields and electric currents.
    No.
    Just as the ball is moving through the air in your example, the electrons & ions have an electric force and location, and electric currents, and, yes, magnetic fields.
    Your line of reasoning is partly about perception (perception is not necessarily the same as reality) and cumulative motion — at the local level of perception on the train, the ball is still going 5ft. per sec.
    Tom in Florida, so, if one was to compare your exercise to Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical observer exercise, instead of adding speed by bouncing out “frames of reference” as you do, Dr. Svalgaard is doing the opposite and freezing the ball in mid-flight (no electric field, no electric currents).
    Is that what really happens — is the ball ever frozen in place in the air?
    Is the electric force ever frozen and not in effect?
    As long as the electrons & ions are arrayed in the required structure, is the resulting electric field “frozen” and not in effect?
    Because that is exactly what one must subscribe to, if one buys Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical.
    The electric force of the electrons & ions is never “fozen” in mid-air, Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical is false.
    But while we’re here, why does Dr. Svalgaard even bring up his hypothetical?
    Because his agenda is to minimize electromagnetism in astrophysics.

  79. James F. Evans says:
    October 4, 2010 at 9:08 am
    But while we’re here, why does Dr. Svalgaard even bring up his hypothetical?
    You must know by know that every working scientists agree with this. The reference frames etc and even magnetic reconnection are not in doubt, but generally accepted mainstream physics. These are not ‘my hypotheses’. I wish they were, but unfortunately all this has been known for decades or even a century+.

  80. Dr. Svalgaard, I agree “frames of reference” as Tom in Florida presents them have been known for over a century. But your specific hypothetical is not analogous to Tom’s example.

  81. James F. Evans says:
    October 4, 2010 at 1:00 pm
    Dr. Svalgaard, I agree “frames of reference” as Tom in Florida presents them have been known for over a century. But your specific hypothetical is not analogous to Tom’s example.
    It doesn’t have to be. It follows from Maxwell’s equations that to talk about an electric field without specifying which reference frame is meaningless. People moving with respect to each other will measure a different electric field. In particular, if you are moving with the solar wind, the electric field is zero.

  82. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 4, 2010 at 7:47 pm
    “In particular, if you are moving with the solar wind, the electric field is zero.”
    Can’t be. The electrons and protons are moving at vastly different speeds. If you’re traveling with the protons, the electrons create the field. If your frame is the electrons, the protons make the field. Only if the wind were to be composed of neutral atoms would there be no electric field, and then the wind would not interact with magnetic fields.

  83. Dr. Svalgaard, to explore the validity of your hypothetical, here are three direct questions for you to answer:
    (The THEMIS arrayed multiple satellite probe capable of detecting electric fields & electric currents:)
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/spacecraft/index.html
    If THEMIS, moving in a different vector (direction) and speed, detects electric fields & electric currents as its flight path intersects, at the same time & location, the flight path of the Svalgaard hypothetical satellite observer, “moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind”, are those real electric fields & currents?
    And, if so, would the Svalgaard hypothetical satellite observer, at the same time & location as THEMIS made its observations, detect no electric fields & electric currents?
    And, assuming for the sake of argument, that the Svalgaard hypothetical satellite did not detect electric fields & electric currents, as you assert, which set of observations & measurements, one set from THEMIS detecting electric fields & electric currents, and one set from the Svalgaard hypothetical not detecting electric fields & electric currents, would be the true reflection of the physical conditions at that time & location within the body of plasma moving away from the Sun?
    (I say, “sake of argument”, because as explained in a prior comment the hypothetical Svalgaard satellite probe, “moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind”, to observe & measure the “rest frame” of a plasma has the same “rest frame” as a stationary observer of a stationary body of plasma, i.e., in plasma labortory experiments — where obviously electric fields & electric currents have been detected.
    The “rest frame” is simply the frame of reference where the observer and “event” maintain equal physical relationships (stationary or moving) with each other over the course of the observation and measurement: The satellite travelling with the body of plasma or the scientist standing in front of his chamber of plasma — each is in the “rest frame” of the respective set of free electrons & ions.)
    Please, Dr. Svalgaard, don’t get distracted by the comments in parenthesis, answer the three direct questions previously put forward.

  84. Post Scipt:
    The THEMIS arrayed multiple satellite probe collects raw data as it intercepts the body of plasma it’s set to observe & measure, then the scientists analyse & interpret the collected raw data.
    The analysis & interpretation converts the raw data into a spatial & temporal three dimentional map of the body of plasma, specifically, the location, direction, and velocity of the charged particles. Plus the rate of acceleration of the charged particles and, the location, direction, and velocity of those accelerated charged particles. And, the magnetic fields, electric fields, and electric currents (free electrons & ions) associated with the movements of those charged particles.
    The spatial & temporal three dimentional map , thus created, of the physical dynamics of that body of plasma is the map of the “rest frame” of that body of plasma.
    Just as when a scientist in his plasma laboratory creates a three dimentional map of the physical interactions of a plasma body, the scientist is creating a map of the plasma in the “rest frame”.

  85. Pochas:
    It should be noted that the free electrons & ions in a body of plasma can move at the same speed without “shorting out” and becoming neutral atoms as long as the required critical ionization velocity of the free electrons & ions is exceeded by those free electrons & ions.
    Wikipedia entry for critical ionization velocity:
    “Critical ionization velocity (CIV, also called Critical velocity, CV) is the relative velocity between a neutral gas and plasma (an ionized gas), at which the neutral gas will start to ionize. If more energy is supplied, the velocity of the atoms or molecules will not exceed the critical ionization velocity until the gas becomes almost fully ionized.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_ionization_velocity
    Of interest, Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel prize winner in physics, predicted critical ionization velocity in 1942.
    Wikipedia:
    “The phenomenon [critical ionization velocity] was predicted by Swedish engineer and plasma scientist, Hannes Alfvén, in connection with his model on the origin of the Solar System (1942). At the time, no known mechanism was available to explain the phenomenon, but the theory was subsequently demonstrated in the laboratory.”

  86. pochas says:
    October 4, 2010 at 10:16 pm
    Can’t be. The electrons and protons are moving at vastly different speeds.
    No, their bulk speeds [away from the Sun] are the same.
    James F. Evans says:
    October 5, 2010 at 8:01 am
    If THEMIS, moving in a different vector (direction) and speed, detects electric fields & electric currents as its flight path intersects, at the same time & location, the flight path of the Svalgaard hypothetical satellite observer, “moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind”, are those real electric fields & currents?
    They will measure a very different electric field, of course. Both are equally real.
    The Critical Velocity has nothing to do with the solar wind, as the latter is already completely ionized at the Sun.
    In Alfven’s book Cosmic Plasma, on page 12, Hannes explains “”The motion of a charged particle can be completely describe as caused by an electic field E1. If we make a relativistic transformation from the coordinate system which moves with the particle velocity v in relation to a coordinate system at rest, we in the latter coordinate another electric field E2″

  87. Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “They will measure a very different electric field, of course. Both are equally real.”
    I appreciate your statement. Thank you. In your opinion what is the difference between the two electric fields?
    I appreciate your taking the time & effort to find, review, and present the passage from Hannes Alfven’s book, Cosmic Plasma.
    Please, could you explain, in your opinion, what Alfven meant by the passage you kindly presented.
    (Perhaps, a broader passage could bring context to Alfven’s statement.)

  88. James F. Evans says:
    October 6, 2010 at 10:46 am
    Please, could you explain, in your opinion, what Alfven meant by the passage you kindly presented.
    As I have said so many times, he is saying [as every physicist will] that it is meaningless to speak about an ‘absolute’, ‘real’ electric field, as the electric field depends on the reference frame of the observer. Two observers moving relative to each other will measure different electric fields. You can think of a case where the two observers at a given instant pass very close to each other, so they at that instant are at the same location.
    Now, this is not worth spilling more words on as that is accepted by every physicist and matches all measurements and experiments [which is why it is accepted].
    (Perhaps, a broader passage could bring context to Alfven’s statement.)
    Go read his book.

  89. James F. Evans says:
    October 6, 2010 at 10:46 am
    In your opinion what is the difference between the two electric fields?
    To be specific: in the solar wind the electric field is zero. Seen from the [almost stationary] Earth of satellite orbiting the Earth, the electric field of the 400 km/s solar wind with a magnetic field of 5 nT, the electric field would be 400,000*5/10^9 = 0.002 Volt/meter.

  90. Dr. Svalgaard:
    You contradict yourself.
    First your state there is “no electric field” in the “rest frame” [the Svalgaard hypothetical observer, “moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind”]:
    Leif Svalgaard says, October 1, 2010 at 10:43 pm:
    “In the rest frame of a plasma there is no electric field and hence no electric current.”
    That’s a far cry from this exchange:
    James F. Evans says:
    October 5, 2010 at 8:01 am
    “If THEMIS, moving in a different vector (direction) and speed, detects electric fields & electric currents as its flight path intersects, at the same time & location, the flight path of the Svalgaard hypothetical satellite observer, “moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind”, are those real electric fields & currents?”
    And, Dr. Svalgaard answered, October 5, 2010 at 10:41 pm: “They will measure a very different electric field, of course. Both are equally real.”
    Then:
    Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Two observers moving relative to each other will measure different electric fields.”
    So, which is it?
    “In the rest frame of a plasma there is no electric field and hence no electric current.”
    Or is it:
    “They will measure a very different electric field, of course. Both are equally real.” And: “Two observers moving relative to each other will measure different electric fields.”
    Did it become untenable to claim, “In the rest frame of a plasma there is no electric field and hence no electric current.”, when confronted with contradictory facts & evidence?
    Dr. Svalgaard, “…that is accepted by every physicist and matches all measurements and experiments.”
    Then it would be easy enough to provide a link or citation to at least one measurement or experiment supporting your assertion. Considering your contradictory statements, above, on the matter, your assurance isn’t persuasive.
    Regarding Hannes Alfven’s book Cosmic Plasma (1981), it’s hard to find. It’s possible Dr. Svalgaard may be taking Alfven’s passage out of context since he refuses to provide the larger contextual passage the quoted statement comes from.

  91. James F. Evans says:
    October 6, 2010 at 12:44 pm
    “Two observers moving relative to each other will measure different electric fields.”
    This is true at all times and for all physical objects. Plasma or not. For plasmas in particular, the electric field they will measure if moving with the plasma is 0 volt/meter.
    Then it would be easy enough to provide a link or citation to at least one measurement or experiment supporting your assertion.
    Since it follows from Maxwell’s equations [and special relativity which is really derived from Maxwell’s equations], any measurement that supports Maxwell and Special Relativity [and I don’t know of any that does not – within the non-quantum domain] will do.
    Regarding Hannes Alfven’s book Cosmic Plasma (1981), it’s hard to find. It’s possible Dr. Svalgaard may be taking Alfven’s passage out of context since he refuses to provide the larger contextual passage the quoted statement comes from.
    Not worth responding to. Go wash your mouth out with soap. You might find the context here: http://books.google.dk/books?id=ZjwoGlIxvLUC&pg=PA11&dq=alfven+cosmic+plasma&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=alfven%20cosmic%20plasma&f=false
    if WordPress doesn’t mangle the link.

  92. Here you can learn more about the electric fields in different reference frames:
    http://plasma.swarthmore.edu/brownpapers/BrownPoP99.pdf
    And how the frame concept is important for the reconnection process:
    “The paradigm for magnetic reconnection is the merger of two parcels of magnetofluid with anti-parallel flux ~see Fig. 1. In the rest frame of either parcel, there is no electric field and no velocity; simply magnetofluid at rest. The velocities of the parcels stagnate to zero at a neutral sheet which defines a new frame of reference. In the rest frame of the neutral sheet, the parcels are moving in towards the layer. The role of the electric field is non-dissipative i.e., purely convective outside the layer. When the parcels stagnate, the electric field becomes dissipative inside the layer and E =nJ. This directed electric field is capable of heating plasma and accelerating charged particles
    to high energies.”

  93. Dr. Svalgaard, thank you for providing the Google link to Hannes Alfven’s Book, Cosmic Plasma. I appreciate your making the book available to myself and the readers.
    Dr. Svalgaard quoted a statement from Alfven’s book, Casmic Plasma, page 12:
    ”The motion of a charged particle can be completely describe as caused by an electic field E1. If we make a relativistic transformation from the coordinate system which moves with the particle velocity v in relation to a coordinate system at rest, we in the latter coordinate another electric field E2″
    First, Dr. Svalgaard, omits a sentence in the middle of the paragraph:
    “A magnetic field exerts a neglible force on a particle at rest”.
    And omits the word, “However,” at the start of the next sentence and wrongly capitalized the “i” in “if”, leaving the impression there weren’t words left out, let alone a whole sentence.
    Second, Dr. Svalgaard, omits the mathematical equation:
    E= E’ – v x B
    Third, Dr. Svalgaard incorrectly notatated “E” [electric field] in Alfven’s statement, by denoting “E” as…”E1″ and “E2”, when the proper notation is “E’ ” and “E”.
    This is the proper quotation:
    ”The motion of a charged particle can be completely describe as caused by an electic field E’. A magnetic field exerts a neglible force on a particle at rest. However, if we make a relativistic transformation
    E= E’ – v x B
    from the coordinate system which moves with the particle velocity v in relation to a coordinate system at rest, we in the latter coordinate another electric field E.”
    And, the next sentence (which Dr. Svalgaard left off):
    “It is convient to use a coordinated system at rest and describe the motion of the particle by the velocity v. In this coordinate system the force acting on the charged particle is
    f = e (E+v x B)
    where B is given Equation (1).”
    [Equation (1) can be viewed by linking the book and scrolling to page 11.]
    Beyound the troubling omission of an entire sentence from the middle of the quoted statement (without indication of said omission), and omission of the mathematical equation, and the incorrect notation, and leaving out the next sentence from Alfven’s statement and the “force” mathematical equation, is the overall misleading impression Dr. Svalgaard made by his serial omissions.
    Hannes Alfven, first states that a charged particle’s motion can be determined by an electric field. And, contrary to Dr. Svalgaard’s repeated statements, magnetic fields have “neglible force on a particle at rest”.
    But, just as assuredly, Alfven knew that magnetic fields must be part of the total “force” equation, so, his series of mathematical equations and relativistic transformation is a mathematical progression to include the magnetic force in a final mathematical equation to represent the total forces.
    There are not “two” electric fields at the same time & location.
    It is mathematical pedigogical device.
    Alfven isn’t claiming that there are actually two seperate electric fields in the same time and location, but rather, there is an electric field causing particle motion which can be represented by an equation without reference to magnetic fields, but the magnetic field must be incorporated into the total “force equation”
    f = e (E+v x B)
    [B is magnetic field]
    to have an a complete mathematical equation representing the total forces on the charged particle.
    All in all, it appears Dr. Svalgaard was misleading in a number of different respects.

  94. James F. Evans says:
    October 6, 2010 at 5:16 pm
    I omitted mathematical details which you do not understand anyway. The important point is still:
    ”The motion of a charged particle can be completely describe as caused by an electic field E’. […] from the coordinate system which moves with the particle velocity v in relation to a coordinate system at rest, we [have] in the latter coordinate [system]another electric field E.”
    I have inserted some words that you left out…

  95. No, Dr. Svalgaard, Alfven is doing a “reduction of terms” so he can reduce all the mathematical terms for the seperate forces into a single mathematical equation which expresses the total force involved.
    Alven is not saying there are multiple realities for the same time & location (which is your erroneous conclusion).
    Dr. Svalgaard, you do know how to progress through a “reduction in terms” mathematical exercise, don’t you?
    But that doesn’t excuse omitting a whole sentence in the middle of the passage, does it?
    “A magnetic field exerts a neglible force on a particle at rest”.
    It’s poor form to leave out an entire sentence from the middle of a quote…especially without letting the readers know you are doing that.
    Leaving out mathematical equations which are an integral part of Alfven’s line of reasoning is also poor form.

  96. James F. Evans says:
    October 6, 2010 at 8:23 pm
    It’s poor form to leave out an entire sentence from the middle of a quote…especially without letting the readers know you are doing that.
    So much for my attempt of making things easy for you to understand…
    Anyway, what Alfven was saying [and what everybody else, including me, understands] is that the electric field you measure depends on the speed with which you are moving. Just like the length of an object or the duration of a process.

  97. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 6, 2010 at 8:58 pm
    Anyway, what Alfven was saying [and what everybody else, including me, understands] is that the electric field you measure depends on the speed with which you are moving.
    Even Wikipidia has it correct: wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current
    “The theory of Special Relativity allows one to transform the magnetic field into a static electric field for an observer moving at the same speed as the charge in the diagram. The amount of current is particular to a reference frame (who is measuring the current or charge velocity).”
    In some ways you weaken your case by denying this basic fact of Nature.

  98. Dr. Svalgaard:
    Even supporters of General Relativity don’t claim it operates at the atomic level.
    And it also conflicts with Quantum Mechanics, as well.
    With all due respect, it is you who ignore well established Laws of Nature such as the repeatedly demonstrated physical law that the “motion of charged particles cause a magnetic field”.
    Regarding Hannes Alfven’s book Cosmic Plasma, it is important to read the entire part you kindly linked, which upon reading makes clear your misrepresentation.
    Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Anyway, what Alfven was saying [and what everybody else, including me, understands] is that the electric field you measure depends on the speed with which you are moving.”
    Please, Dr. Svalgaard, that is another misrepresentation of Alfven’s work in the section you linked to. Read the enire linked section, it perfectly clear Alfven never makes reference to anything remotely like “the electric field you measure depends on the speed with which you are moving.”
    Alfven’s reference to “relativistic transformation” is not to General Relativity or even its concepts, but rather, Alfven is referring to the transformation from the magnetic field perspective (and mathematical formalism) to the electric current perspective, and the mathematical equations that take those electric currents explicitly into account.
    First, what’s clear from reading the entire section is that Alfven is making a conversion from the mathematical formalism of magnetic field equations which in large part omits the particle motion considerations.
    Magnetic mathematical formalism refers to electric currents as “curl” B, which Alfven notes is acceptable for some uses, but not for other uses where it is not applicable and has limitations for accurately measuring electric fields & electric currents. Alfven then proceeds to “translate” this into a mathematical equation, so that “electric current is taken account explicitly” (Alfven), in other words, charged particle motion is taken into explicit account. Alfven does this so that electric currents can explicitly mappped out on a three-dimentional coordinate system.
    Your representations of Alfven’s work are seriously flawed. It’s one thing to disagree with another scientist’s work, it’s an entirely different matter to misrepresent that work.
    In regards to the so-called “magnetic reconnection” paper you presented, I understand your reluctance to present the paper because it’s a prime example of psuedoscience:
    “FIG. 1. Magnetic reconnection paradigm. Merging parcels of magnetofluid
    have no electric field in their respective rest frames. By special relativity,
    in any other frame ~in particular, that of the neutral sheet! the relation E
    1v3B50 holds. At the neutral sheet, the velocities stagnate to zero so the
    role of the electric field becomes dissipative.”
    The above passage is the money quote from the paper. But the assertion there is “no electric field” is based on the mathematical formalism, E + VxB = 0, derived from magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), not empirical laboratory experiments with plasmas.
    Hannes Alfven and many other scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that the formalism of MHD is an approximation that does not hold up in tenuous bodies of space plasms.
    Of note, the approach adopted by Yamada and Ono and reported in the 1999 Brown paper you linked has been ignored by more recent “magnetic reconnection” papers which do specifically observe & measure electric fields (these papers actually map out the Electric Double Layer under the erroneous “magnetic reconnection” label) when in situ satellite probes collected the data.
    Your purpose is clear. Such as it is, and it has little or nothing to do with advancing scientific knowledge.
    Again, as opposed to the Yamada and Ono approach which ignores electric field & charged particle motion, the modern Electromagnetic framework takes into account magnetic fields, electric fields, charged particle location, direction, velocity & charged particle acceleration.
    Your scientific understanding, as expressed by your endorsement of the Yamada and Ono approach, is antiquated.

  99. James F. Evans says:
    October 8, 2010 at 8:44 am
    Your purpose is clear. Such as it is, and it has little or nothing to do with advancing scientific knowledge.
    I give up on you. Just like I have given up on people who claim the Earth is 6000 years old. You will not learn. You cannot learn. Your loss.

  100. Dr. Svalgaard:
    You disagree with Alfven. I’m a messenger, here.
    But your naked contempt for anybody who disagrees with you is evident.
    “However, another translation which is equally important is the translation between a magnetic field description and a current description of plasma phenomena.” — Hannes Alfven, Cosmic Plasma.
    You not only disagree with Alfven, but his associates, and the scientific body of knowledge demonstrated in plasma laboratories around the world and, now, in situ satellite probes collecting data out in space.
    And the scientific observations & measurements will keep building up from in situ satellite probes. All this mass of data will be collected via in situ probes measuring magnetic fields, electric fields, charged particle location, direction, velocity & charged particle acceleration.
    Yes, anybody who firmly disagrees with Dr. Svalgaard is to be equated to “people who claim the Earth is 6000 years old.”
    The Science disagrees with you, Dr. Svalgaard, so I will continue pointing out observations & measurements…that’s where the rubber meets the road. Hannes Alfven knew this…Kristian Birkeland knew this…Irving Langmuir knew this.

  101. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 5, 2010 at 10:41 pm
    pochas says:
    October 4, 2010 at 10:16 pm
    Can’t be. The electrons and protons are moving at vastly different speeds.
    No, their bulk speeds [away from the Sun] are the same.
    🙂

  102. James F. Evans says:
    October 8, 2010 at 11:25 am
    Yes, anybody who firmly disagrees with Dr. Svalgaard is to be equated to “people who claim the Earth is 6000 years old.”
    Indeed, on the issue of elementary plasma physics and the EU, it is so. And these people are as steadfast in their faith as you and the EU cult. Not much can be done about this.

  103. James F. Evans says:
    October 11, 2010 at 1:24 pm
    Dr. Svalgaard, you disagree with Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel prize winner in physics.
    You do not understand Alfven’s work at all. So your stand has no relevance.

Comments are closed.