Global Eruption Rocks the Sun

The Solar Dynamics Observatory insignia. It re...

Image via Wikipedia

I should point out that thanks to the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), we can see things that we’ve never seen before. So while this event is unprecedented in the history of science, it is likely “business as usual” for old Sol. h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard.  – Anthony

From NASA Science News: On August 1, 2010, an entire hemisphere of the sun erupted. Filaments of magnetism snapped and exploded, shock waves raced across the stellar surface, billion-ton clouds of hot gas billowed into space. Astronomers knew they had witnessed something big.

It was so big, it may have shattered old ideas about solar activity.

“The August 1st event really opened our eyes,” says Karel Schrijver of Lockheed Martin’s Solar and Astrophysics Lab in Palo Alto, CA. “We see that solar storms can be global events, playing out on scales we scarcely imagined before.”

Global Eruption (movie_strip, 550px)

Click to play an extreme ultraviolet movie of the August 1st global eruption. Different colors represent different plasma temperatures in the range 1.0 to 2.2 million K. Credit: Solar Dynamics Observatory.

For the past three months, Schrijver has been working with fellow Lockheed-Martin solar physicist Alan Title to understand what happened during the “Great Eruption.” They had plenty of data: The event was recorded in unprecedented detail by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory and twin STEREO spacecraft. With several colleagues present to offer commentary, they outlined their findings at a press conference today at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.

Explosions on the sun are not localized or isolated events, they announced. Instead, solar activity is interconnected by magnetism over breathtaking distances. Solar flares, tsunamis, coronal mass ejections–they can go off all at once, hundreds of thousands of miles apart, in a dizzyingly-complex concert of mayhem.

Global Eruption (STEREO2, 200px)

NASA’s twin STEREO spacecraft surround the sun. [STEREO home page]

“To predict eruptions we can no longer focus on the magnetic fields of isolated active regions,” says Title, “we have to know the surface magnetic field of practically the entire sun.”

This revelation increases the work load for space weather forecasters, but it also increases the potential accuracy of their forecasts.

“The whole-sun approach could lead to breakthroughs in predicting solar activity,” commented Rodney Viereck of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, CO. “This in turn would provide improved forecasts to our customers such as electric power grid operators and commercial airlines, who could take action to protect their systems and ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”

In a paper they prepared for the Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR), Schrijver and Title broke down the Great Eruption into more than a dozen significant shock waves, flares, filament eruptions, and CMEs spanning 180 degrees of solar longitude and 28 hours of time. At first it seemed to be a cacophony of disorder until they plotted the events on a map of the sun’s magnetic field.

Title describes the Eureka! moment: “We saw that all the events of substantial coronal activity were connected by a wide-ranging system of separatrices, separators, and quasi-separatrix layers.” A “separatrix” is a magnetic fault zone where small changes in surrounding plasma currents can set off big electromagnetic storms.

Global Eruption (locations, 550px)

Locations of key events are labeled in this extreme ultraviolet image of the sun, obtained by the Solar Dynamics Observatory during the Great Eruption of August 1st. White lines trace the sun’s magnetic field. Credit: K Schrijver & A. Title. [larger image]

Researchers have long suspected this kind of magnetic connection was possible. “The notion of ‘sympathetic’ flares goes back at least three quarters of a century,” they wrote in their JGR paper. Sometimes observers would see flares going off one after another–like popcorn–but it was impossible to prove a link between them. Arguments in favor of cause and effect were statistical and often full of doubt.

“For this kind of work, SDO and STEREO are game-changers,” says Lika Guhathakurta, NASA’s Living with a Star Program Scientist. “Together, the three spacecraft monitor 97% of the sun, allowing researchers to see connections that they could only guess at in the past.”

Global Eruption (SDO, 200px)

An artist’s concept of the Solar Dynamics Observatory. [SDO home page]

To wit, barely two-thirds of the August event was visible from Earth, yet all of it could be seen by the SDO-STEREO fleet. Moreover, SDO’s measurements of the sun’s magnetic field revealed direct connections between the various components of the Great Eruption—no statistics required.

Much remains to be done. “We’re still sorting out cause and effect,” says Schrijver. “Was the event one big chain reaction, in which one eruption triggered another–bang, bang, bang–in sequence? Or did everything go off together as a consequence of some greater change in the sun’s global magnetic field?”

Further analysis may yet reveal the underlying trigger; for now, the team is still wrapping their minds around the global character of solar activity. One commentator recalled the old adage of three blind men describing an elephant–one by feeling the trunk, one by holding the tail, and another by sniffing a toenail. Studying the sun one sunspot at a time may be just as limiting.

“Not all eruptions are going to be global,” notes Guhathakurta. “But the global character of solar activity can no longer be ignored.”

As if the sun wasn’t big enough already….

Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
VICTOR

eureka!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jimmy Haigh

Wow! We are clearly upsetting the Sun God with our use of fossil fuels.

It’s funny if they think that they have a chance in hell of predicting this type of event.

savethesharks

The plural of separatrix ….”separatrices” words you don’t hear often.
Fascinating stuff.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

ge0050

Great video.
Off-topic, this article shows what really happened to the billions the EU spent to eliminate GHG. $650 was taken by Chinese government in taxes. Increased GHG production in China to get increased GHG payments from EU. Black market in US for cheap GHG surplus produced by China.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/perverse_co2_payments_send_flood_of_money_to_china_/2350/
[ This kind of “tip” is best put in “Tips and Notes” (see the tab up top) -MOD ]

Jimmy Haigh says:
December 14, 2010 at 8:48 pm
“Wow! We are clearly upsetting the Sun God with our use of fossil fuels.”
*Sigh*
There is no such thing as fossil fuels Jimmy.
http://www.gasresources.net/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150
http://trilogymedia.com.au/Thomas_Gold

Brian H

Shane;
Good one!
And for another peek into the world of heresy, holistic magnetized plasma analysis of the sun is probably gonna get some support from the plasma cosmologists, sort of. 😉 Lief will be frazzled defending the ramparts of fusion orthodoxy.

JG

Ooooo and that was a massive C2 flare.
I wonder what it looked like back when C flares were background levels and M or X flares were going off almost daily.

pat

“So while this event is unprecedented in the history of science, it is likely “business as usual”
Exactly. And absolutely fascinating. Very different than the models we grew up with. This is more like a piece of dry wood thrown in a camp fire while a bit of wind has come up. And the fact that it had virtually no impact on the Earth is a welcome relief.

The “related posts” widget is no longer functioning, so it is worth noting that WUWT first covered this story back in August:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/03/earth-braces-for-solar-storm-tonite/

John F. Hultquist

Where did all the “stuff” go?
————————————–
One commentator recalled the old adage of three blind men describing an elephant . . .
This is an old story with many attempts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
However, there is version of Saxe’s poem here:
http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html
It starts:
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),

James F. Evans

A peer-reviewed paper, Astronomy Letters, 2005:
ELECTRON ACCELERATION BY ELECTRIC FIELDS NEAR THE FOOTPRINTS
OF CURRENT-CARRYING CORONAL MAGNETIC LOOPS
V. V. ZAITSEV
Institute of Applied Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Abstract: “We analyze the electric fields that arise at the footpoints of a coronal magnetic loop from the interaction between a convective flow of partially ionized plasma and the magnetic field of the loop. Such a situation can take place when the loop footpoints are at the nodes of several supergranulation cells. In this case, the neutral component of the converging convective flows entrain electrons and ions in different ways, because these are magnetized differently. As a result, a charge separating electric field emerges at the loop footpoints, which can efficiently accelerate particles inside the magnetic loop under appropriate conditions. We consider two acceleration regimes: impulsive (as applied to simple loop flares) and pulsating (as applied to solar and stellar radio pulsations).We have calculated the fluxes of accelerated electrons and their characteristic energies. We discuss the role of the return current when dense beams of accelerated particles are injected into the corona. The results obtained are considered in light of the currently available data on the corpuscular radiation from solar flares.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/d32j212710843216/
“INTRODUCTION
Much of the energy in solar and stellar flares is released in the form of energetic particles. The bulk of the electrons and ions in impulsive solar flares are accelerated to energies of 100 keV and 100 MeV, respectively (Miller et al. 1997) and produce hard X-ray and gamma-ray line emission.”
Many of these “energetic particles” eventually interact with the Earth’s magnetosphere and potentially effect Earth’s energy balance, one expression of which is climate.
Another peer-reviewed paper published in Solar Physics (1991):
TOWARDS THE CIRCUIT THEORY OF SOLAR FLARES
V. V. ZAITSEV
Institute of Applied Physics, Nizhny Novgorod, U.S.S.R.
and
A. V. STEPANOV
Crimean Astrophysical Observatory, U.S.S.R.
“Abstract. It has been shown that the main problems of the circuit theory of solar flares – unlikely huge current growth time and the origin of the current interruption – have been resolved considering the case of magnetic loop emergence and the correct application of Ohm’s law. The generalized Ohm’s law for solar flares is obtained. The conditions for flare energy release are as follows: large current value, > 1011 A, nonsteady-state character of the process, and the existence of a neutral component in a flare plasma. As an example, the coalescence of a flare loop and a filament is considered. It has been shown that the current dissipation has increased drastically as compared with that in a completely ionized plasma. The current dissipation provides effective Joule heating of the pIasma and particle acceleration in a solar flare. The ion-atom collisions play the decisive role in the energy release process. As a result the flare loop resistance can grow by 8-10 orders of magnitude. For this we do not need the anomalous resistivity driven by small-scale plasma turbulence. The energy release emerging from the upper part of a flare loop stimulates powerful energy release from the chromospheric level.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/nr8k36ln0w6525u1/
The introductory passage from the body of the paper:
“1. Introduction
The circuit model for solar flares proposed more than twenty years ago by Alfven and Carlqvist (1967) is still attractive among the numerous flare models. Following the idea of Alfven and Carlqvist the problem of flare energy release is equivalent to the problem of electric current interruption in the solar corona-photosphere circuit…”
Another passage from the body of the paper:
“2. The Current-Carrying Flare Loop: Circuit Analog
Consider an equivalent electric circuit composed of a coronal magnetic arch with resistance R c and inductance L and a photospheric section with resistance Rph and electromotive force (e.m.f.), o ~, (see, e.g., Alfven and Carlqvist, 1967; Henoux, 1987). The photospheric e.m.f., g, is caused by the Lorentz force (e/c) (v x H), which in turn is created by the photospheric material motion. For this dynamo mechanism to work, the plasma must not be frozen-in. Such conditions do exist in the photosphere where the ion-neutral collision frequency is much more than the ion gyrofrequency (Sen and White, 1972). A quite opposite relation is true for the electrons. Therefore the ions follow the neutral component of the photospheric plasma, a charge imbalance arises, and an e.m.f, sets up:”
And here is a more recent 2009 peer-reviewed paper published in the Central European Astrophysics Bulletin
GENERATION OF LARGE SCALE ELECTRIC FIELDS IN CORONAL FLARE CIRCUITS
Önel, H. & Mann, G.
Astrophysical Institute Potsdam
Abstract: “A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy.”
This paper presents the electric circuit theory championed by Hannes Alfven.
A passage from the body of the above paper:
“Currently several different electron acceleration mechanisms in the solar corona are known. All of these mechanisms have the principle of acceleration due to electric fields in common, but differ in the processes leading to the generation of the electric field. In the present paper the generation of a large scale DC electric field is discussed in terms of electric circuits, which is related to a current generated due to photopheric plasma motion (e.g., Alfven and Carlqvist, 1967; Sen and White, 1972; Martres et al., 1973; Heyvarts, 1974; Obayashi, 1975; Akasofu, 1979; Kan et al., 1983; Melrose, 1997; Zaitsev et al., 1998; Yang et al., 2004; Zaitsev, 2005). Motivated by these papers, the electric currents are investigated in order to obtain a mechanism for acceleration of electrons to high energies. The basic idea of this mechanism is to generate the flare energy by photopheric plasma motion in active regions. This is in contradiction to the reconnection model in which the magnetic field energy in the corona is taken for the flare.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2009CEAB…33..141O
Several peer-reviewed published papers discussing electric fields and electric currents in the solar environment.

Richard G

“The country that controls magnetism, controls the universe.” Chester Gould’s Dick Tracy

Jimmy Haigh

In reply to : ShaneCMuir at December 14, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Oh dear.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

Just think, once they are able to prevent just about every known possible environment-related disaster that can happen on this planet, by achieving complete domination and control of the Earth’s climate system through the regulating and taxing of the emissions of an otherwise-beneficial trace atmospheric gas that has or will be tied to causing all of those problems due to its absolute and direct linkage to the global average temperature, then they’ll be all set to start preventing the above disruptions on the Sun by controlling it as well.
It’ll be a straightforward and proper application of the Precautionary Principle, since despite the large body of peer-reviewed work put forth by Climate Science™ showing that the Sun has nothing to do with climate with long-term solar output variations yielding no statistically-significant global average temperature changes and thus no environment deviations, they can’t rule out such solar disruptions and fluctuations having some effect, therefore…
Gee, I wonder… Since the term “global climate” is tied to controlling the worldwide average surface atmospheric temperature on Earth, what climate term will they use when they can control the average surface temperature of the Sun, the big glowing globe?

Laurie

Brian H says: “Lief will be frazzled defending the ramparts of fusion orthodoxy.”
Tonight, I was watching Cosmos, a series I enjoyed 30 years ago and found it to be just as intriguing now as then. Carl Sagan made a comment about Johannes Kepler that struck me as impossible to find in today’s scientific communities. Kepler could have glossed over the minor variations. He didn’t. Instead, Sagan said, “When he found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest allusions. That is the heart of science.”
Today, the heart of science is the federal grant, fame and the prideful ego, wound up into an ugly ball that prevents the service to humanity that it once did so well.

wayne Job

Science has yet to come to terms with the fact that there are more unknown unknowns than there are known unknowns. One event can create many new known unknowns, such as this little normal event. Solar science is in its infantcy before any real progress can be made the basic ingredients of electricity, magnetism , gravity etc must be explained and understood. They can be modelled and manipulated but as yet no real idea as to what they are, what they are made of or indeed why they exist at all.
The understanding of the basics will give us the keys to the universe.

Roger Carr

Brian H says: (December 14, 2010 at 9:31 pm) Lief will be frazzled defending the ramparts of fusion orthodoxy.
You know another Lief, Brian?

Ulric Lyons
kim

OK, I can’t help it. What of all this interconnectedness speaks to the phenomenon known colloquially as the ‘Livingston and Penn Effect’?
=======================

James F. Evans says:
December 14, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Several peer-reviewed published papers discussing electric fields and electric currents in the solar environment.
As these papers demonstrate and as you have been told many times, all exciting stuff happens when electric currents are generated by movement of neutral plasma across a magnetic field.
Relevant to the topic of the posting, the ‘global’ eruption shows that the regions are connected through the magnetic fields in the corona. When one region becomes unstable, the eruption disturbs the nearby regions by reorganizing the coronal fields and they may erupt as well.
Laurie says:
December 15, 2010 at 12:22 am
“When he [Kepler] found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts.”
Just as the modern fusion-deniers should, since the modern theory of energy generation of the Sun and the stars agrees very well with the ‘most precise observations’.

Magnus

@Carr, @Brian H
Not Lief. LEIF.
There.

John Whitman

Wonders to behold!
The desire in some men/women to understand takes us all forward.
John

oakgeo

“Arguments in favor of cause and effect were statistical and often full of doubt.”
Climate science take heed.

kim says:
December 15, 2010 at 4:24 am
OK, I can’t help it. What of all this interconnectedness speaks to the phenomenon known colloquially as the ‘Livingston and Penn Effect’?
The L&P effect [we still need to have it firmly established – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so we have to wait a bit more to be sure] has to do with the magnetic fields in the photosphere and has no real impact on the interconnectedness in the corona. The magnetic fields will reconnect and order themselves regardless.

James Evans

I have a theory that the sun is suffering from global warming. Can I have a grant?

Septeus7

Once again the crazy nuts who believe an Electric universe are not shocked.
Check out http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm for a intro the idea that Electric currents and the strong force is actually just as important to universe as gravity and it’s unseen gravity waves/ graviton particles, dark matter, neutron starts, blacks stars, Higgs Bosons and wave packets from the future.
Give it up for crazy kooks like Kristian Birkeland and Nikola Tesla. Consider Telsa said
” “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”
Can we “Insert Computer Models” for “Mathematics” for today’s situation.?

Chris Reeve

We need to clarify and provide some context for WUWT readers on electricity and the Sun …
1. Re: “… Several peer-reviewed published papers discussing electric fields and electric currents in the solar environment.”
Keep in mind that the conventional theories propose that electricity does not “do things of importance” in space. We are all told that E&M are second-order effects, rather than any sort of driving force. This assumption is driven by the Big Bang theory’s lack of need for E&M (the cosmology acts as a framework for problem-solving within most scientific disciplines). We basically train our physicists to accept assumptions proposing that electricity is not important in space, and then they subsequently vigorously defend this training. None of us should be surprised by their preferences for belief. We should, however, all be surprised by the widespread timidity in questioning these assumptions which they’ve been taught. They oftentimes appear to not even realize that these are actually assumptions.
Now, the thing about electric fields in plasmas is that the conventional theories generally propose that they cannot exist within plasmas because they propose that cosmic plasmas differ from laboratory plasmas. Whereas the textbook VI curve for a plasma demonstrates without any doubt that there is *always* a finite resistance (and hence an electric field), the cosmic plasma models propose that plasmas are basically superconductors which lack any electrical resistance. We are told to believe that the cosmic plasmas can instantaneously charge-neutralize over great distances.
There is a good reason for why Big Bang theorists tend to avoid the hypothesis that the solar wind is evidence for an E-field centered at the Sun, even as that would — without a doubt — be the simplest explanation for its failure to appreciably decelerate even as it passes the Earth’s orbit. An E-field basically occurs because like charges repel one another. So, in a general sense, it represents this collective repulsion radially outwards from an overabundance of charged particles. Clearly, if given a chance, an E-field will tend to create distance between these charged particles.
So, when somebody proposes that an E-field is centered at the Sun — which may or may not be the point of those papers (?) — the problem is that it naturally leads to one crucial question: What is replenishing the collection of charged particles which inspires the E-field? Thus, any assertion of an E-field centered at the Sun *very* quickly transitions into galactic-scale electric circuits.
This is why, although we see evidence for E-fields here on Earth and on the Sun (the acceleration of the solar wind is evidence for an E-field), theorists generally refuse to even discuss the subject in certain astrophysical journals. It’s worth noting that IEEE remains fearless in this regard.
Re: “As these papers demonstrate and as you have been told many times, all exciting stuff happens when electric currents are generated by movement of neutral plasma across a magnetic field.”
So, there is quite a bit of danger in using the word “neutral” in association with a plasma. Plasmas are instead designated as “quasi-neutral” in order to avoid confusion, and I highly recommend that people pay special attention to this other term within the context of plasmas. That’s because, unlike with solids, an equal number of + and – charges does not mean that the plasma cannot conduct electrical current. For more information, go here:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Quasi-neutrality
The thing is this: Quasi-neutrality stops being helpful for understanding a plasma when there are double layers or charged particle beams present. And considering that we see these two types of structures frequently in the plasma laboratory, it’s really quite a stretch for conventional theorists to argue that — for whatever convenient reason they have latched onto — that these structures do not exist in cosmic plasmas. After all, what is the structure that comes out of a black hole? Don’t believe a word that they say if they’re trying to tell you that that is not a beam of charged particles.
As for double layers, plasma cosmology (or the electric universe) proposes that they would exist, for instance, at the surface of the Sun and at the heliopause (which is the edge of the heliosphere). Double layers are what separate plasmas in the laboratory which exhibit dramatically different characteristics. This is the underlying physical phenomenon which lends a cellular structure to laboratory plasmas. And to be 100% clear, we see strong evidence for cellular structures in cosmic plasmas, just like the laboratory kind. So, for conventional theorists to argue that double layers don’t exist in cosmic plasmas is really quite baseless. They should be asked: Based upon what premise are you tinkering with the laboratory models to formulate this assumption about cosmic plasmas?
I will re-iterate a point which I’ve been trying my hardest to make on these issues:
I *highly* recommend that the people of WUWT be very persistent in their attempts to understand how plasmas tend to behave in the laboratory. Anybody who goes the extra length to learn this set of behaviors will be rewarded with a newfound ability to interpret astronomical imagery and even structures which we see here within our own solar system. These facts have fundamental bearing upon the Earth’s climate for the reason that our planet is literally surrounded by plasmas in every direction, as far as our telescopes can see. And the magnetosphere is, in the plasma cosmology view, a plasma cell, complete with a double layer, which protects us from the interplanetary plasma. It exists — not because of some sort of invisible dynamo genie within the Earth — but rather because the Earth is electrically connected with all of the other planets, the solar system, etc.
The big picture for electricity in space is this: Mankind has tried his hardest to believe that everywhere he sees evidence for electricity in space, that this electricity must be confined to some small box. But, as anybody who works with electricity knows, that’s not how it works. Electrical currents move from one location to another.
We’ve known for decades now that intergalactic space is permeated by magnetic fields. Conventional theorists have no need for this observation, and so they attempt to propose “new physics” explanations which lack any laboratory backing for how those magnetic fields came to be. They do this specifically to avoid the hypothesis that electric currents are causing all of those magnetic fields — and they avoid this inference even as it is really the only “real physics” explanation for the observation.
Re: “the modern theory of energy generation of the Sun and the stars agrees very well with the ‘most precise observations’.”
That’s not exactly true. There exists a very controversial observation of an anti-correlation between neutrino generation and sunspots. This is a very big problem for the solar models because there is supposed to be one or two hundred thousand years of latency between these two events in the models. Theorists have tried their hardest to discount the underlying statistics for this observation.
Also, keep in mind that the very problem with fusion is that — although each of the individual steps of fusion have been re-created in the laboratory — scientists have never reproduced the entire chain all at once in a single laboratory experiment.
Electric universe proponents claim that fusion occurs near the surface of the Sun, where temperatures are high enough to cause it. After all, the temperature of the Sun’s entire surface is enigmatic to conventional solar theory. The Sun’s surface sits at around 5,000 Kelvin, while it’s corona (the Sun’s “atmosphere”) is around 100x – 500x hotter than its surface. To somebody who knew nothing about the conventional thermonuclear model, they could reasonably argue that the energy is arriving externally. And that’s indeed what plasma cosmologists propose.
They propose that an electron “drift current” powers the Sun. This drift current would be *very* difficult to observe because the electron movement on the small scale would seem random. It is only the large-scale view which would demonstrate a *net* movement of electrons. In this alternative view, as this net movement of electrons is funneled into an increasingly smaller volume of space, the plasma eventually enters into the glow, and then arc, modes in response to increased charge density.
Also, from where does the energy driving the solar wind’s acceleration come from? What is pushing these charged particles to move faster, the farther they get from the Sun? Conventional theorists pretend as though this is some question which can be shelved for future resolution. Don Scott and other EU proponents claim that this observation actually falsifies their model.
For anybody who wants to read excellent criticisms of conventional solar theory, I highly recommend Wal Thornhill’s holoscience.com site. He will show you exactly why the Sun is in fact a textbook case of a laboratory plasma glow discharge — no different from a high pressure sodium street lamp. He actually recommends that people read JD Cobine’s “Gaseous Conductors” in order to build the solar models based upon the observed behavior of a Crook’s tube, but with spherical geometry.

dave ward

The UEA’s IT & Phone networks have been hit by a major outage – they claim it wasn’t due to hackers, maybe a solar flare has penetrated their defences?
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/education/uea_it_and_phone_network_down_for_40_hours_1_754444

James F. Evans

Evans stated: “Several peer-reviewed published papers discussing electric fields and electric currents in the solar environment.”
Dr. Svalgaard responded: “As these papers demonstrate and as you have been told many times, all exciting stuff happens when electric currents are generated by movement of neutral plasma across a magnetic field.”
Dr. Svalgaard is engaged in revisionism:
I, long ago, actually brought to Dr. Svalgaard’s attention statements to that effect on this website:
“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
“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
Dr. Svalgaard has repeatedly minimized the role that electric fields and electrical currents play in space plasmas, however, he has, now, acknowledged that electric fields and electrical currents do play an important role in space plasma dynamics, because I repeatedly presented peer-reviewed published papers, which discuss the importance of electric fields & electrical currents in space plasma dynamics (such as the papers linked in my previous comment in this post).
Dr. Svalgaard’s attempts to minimize the importance of electric fields and electrical currents was on full display in a post on this website, The Great Filament, February 24, 2010:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/24/the-great-filament/#comments
From the post, The Great Filament: Evans (February 26, 2010 at 9:26 am) responded to Dr. Svalgaard:
Evans had previously stated (01:33:47): “The author clearly identifies the filament as being an ‘electric current’.”
Dr. Svalgaard, then (07:02:09) responded: “This is a typical example of the twisting of science to conform to wrong physics. Such twisting occurs can occur when the physics is not understood. Nowhere does the author identify the filament as being an electric current. [one might ask for page and line number for such identification].”
Of course, I provided the relevant quote and the page and line number from the paper at issue.
Here is the quote:
“The filament temperature can take values ranging from a small fraction to a few times the coronal temperature, depending on the internal electric current of the filament.”
Of course, the above quote is consistent with the several papers I linked to in my previous comment in this post.
To further illustrate Dr. Svalgaard’s revisionism, here is another quote by Dr. Svalgaard from the post, The Great Filament:
Dr. Svalgaard claimed (February 25, 2010 at 2:07 pm): “A flow of plasma does NOT create a magnetic field.”
Of course, Dr. Svalgaard’s statement is contradicted by Dr. Anthony Peratt’s statements (which I had presented in the post, The Great filament):
“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
“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
Which brings to mind this famous quote:
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” — Arthur Schopenhauer
It seems Dr. Svalgaard is now in the third stage.

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 15, 2010 at 7:44 am
………………….
Now Dr Svalgaard, you can’t have it both ways.
L&P measured for 12 years with ‘some’ correlation not terribly convincing, no mechanism.
You say: it’s OK!
Vukcevic polar field formula
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
correlation excellent (97%, R^2 = 0.93 ) for 40 years, 3 x as long as L&P, no mechanism (as in L&P).
You say : it’s NOT OK.
Shouldn’t you be a bit less biased ?

Commentaries of this post are becoming frankly apostates of the sacred belief in holy “settled science” 🙂

Chris Reeve says:
December 15, 2010 at 9:28 am
If there is neutrality there is no movement….we will know that after death. 🙂
See my post at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/14/voyager1-so-far-out-theres-no-solar-wind-anymore/#comment-550867

Tom in freakin cold Florida

Are neutron stars and black holes allowed in an electric universe? How and why would they be formed? (general blog friendly answer is OK)

Chris Reeve

Re: “Are neutron stars and black holes allowed in an electric universe? How and why would they be formed? (general blog friendly answer is OK)”
Neutron stars suppose that a hypothetical state of matter — neutronium — is necessary in order to explain the rapid lighthouse-like spinning which would be required to explain stars which pulse at speeds comparable to a dentist’s drill.
Clearly, there are many assumptions made in arriving at this conclusion: Foremost being that the pulsing results from spinning. If you assume that the universe is electrically sterile, then you will always interpret pulsating stars as rotating beacons of light. But, if you permit electricity to do things of importance in space, then we don’t have to hypothesize neutronium. We can just infer that we’re seeing the behavior of a relaxation oscillator — a sophomore-level EE lab project. We’re just seeing electrical current bounce back and forth between two cosmic objects. Indeed, pulsars more often than not involve two separate cosmic objects.
Black holes have always been a bit pseudo-scientific to begin with. In philosophy of science, it’s technically out of bounds to propose that something which cannot be observed is the cause for a great number of the universe’s riddles. And that’s indeed the situation we have today. How can a person ever “disprove” the black hole, given that we cannot even observe it? That’s pseudo-science.
In laboratory plasma physics, plasmas tend to naturally form filaments. These individual filaments exhibit long-range attraction and short-range repulsion. The attraction has the strength of the electric force — which, as you probably know, is something on the order of 10^35 times stronger than the gravitational force. When you consider that these filaments are limitless in distance, you begin to see how it is that gravity loses its reach long before electromagnetism.
So, what happens is that filaments tend to twist around one another without fully combining, as they conduct charged particles over the length of them. Given a sufficient charge density, this twisting will “pinch” (also known as a z-pinch). These pinches are excellent scavengers of ions. They are oftentimes called “ion pumps”. And when you move ions, it’s inevitable that neutral particles will over time get dragged with the charged particles. This whole process is called Marklund Convection. This is the plasma cosmology explanation for “gravitational accretion”.
Look at what our best image of our own Milky Way’s center looks like:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050415milkyway.htm
What in the world is all of that structure? None of that was predicted by black hole theory. The plasma cosmologists propose that this structure can be explained as a homopolar motor (aka Faraday disc). In fact, the homopolar motor morphology with its equatorial donut and axial hourglass also appears over a broad spectrum of frequencies for just about ALL cosmic objects.
In a laboratory setting, we can recreate the spiral galaxy’s rotational characteristics by simply firing two plasma beams at one another. Gravity-based theorists can only accomplish the same thing by proposing a halo of invisible, hypothetical matter surrounding the galaxies.
There are perhaps better, more complete answers than this, but this is a good starting point to understanding what you are seeing when you look at a “black hole”.

Chris Reeve

@James F. Evans
One of my favorite theories is that of magnetic reconnection. I think it goes to show just how absurd modern-day astrophysics has become. Astrophysicists decided to infer their own underlying mechanism for generating energy from magnetic fields. Why would they do that? Well, because they are proposing that the magnetic fields are not the result of electric currents.
So, they propose that magnetic field lines can release great amounts of energy when they “reconnect”. The first problem is that magnetic field lines are like lines on a topography map. They are *imaginary*. They are not real lines. It is just a way of envisioning what is going on with the field.
But, the true humor pertains to these magnetic reconnection experiments. These guys who perform these magnetic reconnection experiments start by flipping the power ON. Then, they study the reconnection events. And to be clear, when the electricity is shut off to the experiment, the experiment ends.
I honestly don’t know whether I should laugh or cry when I think about it.

Louis Hissink

Tom in cold Florida asked:
“Are neutron stars and black holes allowed in an electric universe? How and why would they be formed? (general blog friendly answer is OK)”
Neutron stars are supposed to be made of neutrons only – but these have a measured 1/2 life of 10 minutes and break down into a proton and electron. Neutrons in isolation are highly unstable. Matter comprised solely of neutrons is not known to exist except in stars that are inaccessible to in-situ measurement.
Black holes are 3-D points of infinite mass located at the centre of gravity of an object – they are the reification of mathematical singularies and are a nonsense.
Neither neutron stars or black holes are necessary in an electric universe theory. They are unscientific propositions.

Zeke

@Chris Reeve
True, the “problem with fusion is that — although each of the individual steps of fusion have been re-created in the laboratory — scientists have never reproduced the entire chain all at once in a single laboratory experiment” after billions of dollars have been spent in decades of research.
And true, “because they are proposing that the magnetic fields are not the result of electric currents…they propose that magnetic field lines can release great amounts of energy when they “reconnect”. The first problem is that magnetic field lines are like lines on a topography map. They are *imaginary*. They are not real lines.”
Put the two together, and what have you got?
“Nuclear fusion reactors use powerful magnetic fields to confine a hot plasma gas. In order to produce the magnetic fields, one must provide high quantities of electric energy.” Then, at this point, “Magnetic reconnection…prevents physicists from creating nuclear fusion reactors that have high-efficiency electric energy production capabilities.”
Now you can properly decide whether to laugh or cry.

Stephen Wilde

Does this report do anything for Dr. Svalgaard’s contention that solar variability has no effects on the upper atmosphere that could significantly affect the downward flux of ozone depleting materials ?

Chris Reeve

@Zeke
Pay close attention to Eric Lerner’s research. He is a plasma cosmologist trying to achieve a fusion reactor. If a self-sustaining reaction can be created at all, I’d put my money on him pulling it off. If my memory serves me well, he’s been very open about the status of his research.
There is actually one way to figure out which side of the fence a person is sitting on this cosmological debate prior to investigating the *entire* debate:
Read the biographies for both Faraday and Maxwell. Then read up on various attempts online to understand what a magnetic field is. Now, after that research, ask yourself: What causes a magnetic field?
If, after that reading, you believe that cosmic magnetic fields must be the result of electric currents, then you favor plasma cosmology. If, on the other hand, you believe that theorists should be permitted to propose exotic “new physics” explanations for magnetic fields, then you lean more towards the Big Bang.
It’s really that simple. But, it took me 3-5 years to do all of the necessary reading to understand this debate. And I had to run ALL of the major arguments on both sides by the other first in an attempt to find good critiques of both sides. In the end, after all of that personal investigation, I came to personally realize that plasma cosmology wins, hands down. But, I encourage everybody to do their own personal investigation. It is a lot more worth the effort than people realize. The plasma-based cosmology is far more intriguing and predictive than the gravity-based theories.
Either way, I think it’s fair to say that we live in interesting times. The Sun is clearly misbehaving for the conventional theorists. Nobody can say where it will go from here, even as they pretend to know that humans are responsible for the warming. Within the context of plasma cosmology, there are truly no guarantees that the Sun will continue to shine as it does tomorrow. It could switch from arc mode down to glow mode, or it might become electrically stressed, and expel a new planet for our solar system to deal with right before our eyes (as some believe has already occurred …). But, more likely, if the past is any indicator, it will continue to shine the same as it has been for a while now.
One of the reasons I advocate for the electric universe online is because I believe that we can actually predict the behavior of the Sun if we pursue this line of investigation. However, we need to be studying our heliosphere’s electrical input(s) with dedicated satellites to do so. Gerrit Verschuur should be commended for the amazing work he’s done in mapping out these interstellar filaments, and confirming that they are emitting critical ionization velocities. He’s done all of this research knowing that he can lose his telescope time at any moment because of it (like Halton Arp …).

Ulric Lyons

“The whole-sun approach could lead to breakthroughs in predicting solar activity,”
The whole solar system approach yields good long range forecasts. My heliocentric forecasts for larger flare activity this year was around August 14th, and stronger events around November 5th. We had M class events 8th to 13th August, and M class events again 6th to 10th November.

Ulric Lyons

@Stephen Wilde says:
December 15, 2010 at 3:31 pm
“Does this report do anything for Dr. Svalgaard’s contention that solar variability has no effects on the upper atmosphere that could significantly affect the downward flux of ozone depleting materials ?”
What is most interesting is the proton burst following this event:
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20100805_0955/index.html
this, and the proton burst on the 14th August:
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20100817_1033/index.html
kicked off the two largest tropical cyclones in the Atlantic this summer.

JudyW

Take a look at the alignment of the planets on August 1, 2010. Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus are in a close aligned. Mars, Venus, Mercury and Earth are not far off the alignment.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar

James F. Evans

@ Chris Reeve:
So-called “magnetic reconnection” was a concept developed in the pre-space age (1946) to explain CME’s. The observations were limited to magnetic fields, as magnetic fields were the only thing that could be observed & measured from ground observatories. Observing & measuring electric fields and electric currents requires in situ satellite probes.
Today, it’s apparent that what was called “magnetic reconnection” (and still is by one school of thought) is actually an Electric Double Layer, an electromagnetic process.
There is a controversy between two rival points of view (contrary to what some from the “magnetic reconnection” camp would have you believe):
From Interspace News (February 27, 2008):
“There is a lot of excitement over this project [THEMIS] in the research community, [Dr. Vassillis] Angelopoulos [THEMIS principal investigator at University of California Berkeley’s Space Sciences Laboratory in Berkeley, Calf.] said. For more than three decades, scientists around the globe have been embattled about where these lights originate so brilliantly and suddenly. And like the two polar caps at opposite ends of the planet, there are also opposing viewpoints.”
“In the Reconnection Theory camp, members say the magnetosphere on the night side is like two rubber bands that stretch, snap and then reconnect into “U” shape bands that release their energy — much like a slingshot. That action would then accelerate the particles toward Earth causing the light show.”
“On the other side of the hypothesis is the Current Disruption Theory, which says at the onset of a substorm, higher frequency instabilities are excited so that the plasma and electromagnetic field form a turbulent state, which then short circuits the current that is now forced to go directly into the atmosphere. This current accelerates the electrons that in return cause the light show.”
http://www.interspacenews.com/FeatureArticle/tabid/130/Default.aspx?id=524
Current disruption encompasses the idea that Electric Double Layers can “explode”, thus, causing a disruption of current, which then releases energy expressed as kinetic acceleration of charged particles and radiation.
While “magnetic reconnection” seems to have the upper hand, nobody has been able to quantify the “magnetic reconnection” process, as opposed to the Electric Double Layer process, which has been fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively and reduced to the formalism of mathematical equations.
In situ observations & meaurements have identified and mapped so-called “magnetic reconnection”, but the signature magnetic fields, electric fields, charged particle location, direction, velocity and points of charged particle acceleration are indistinguishable from the Electric Double Layer process, which, as you have pointed out about plasma physics, has been observed & measured in the laboratory.
There is tremendous resistence in some quarters to the Electric Double Layer process, likely, because it opens up the door to explaining astrophysical processes and objects with an electromagnetic analysis & interpretation.

the same video on YouTube
12 seconds long

vukcevic says:
December 15, 2010 at 10:39 am
Now Dr Svalgaard, you can’t have it both ways.
L&P measured for 12 years

The L&P effect is an observed fact [whether it persists remains to be seen], yours is just numerology.
Various EU folks:
Fortunately, modern science is making great strides within the current [hard won] paradigm and we can tolerate [and ignore] fringe [‘cargo’] cults. They do provide a certain levity and have entertainment value [but are at the same time sad commentaries on the dismal level of scientific literacy].

johnnythelowery

To: Chris Reeve: An impressive summary of the EU view IMHO and it has reared it’s head many times before here at WUWT…..only to be ‘scwhwinged’ off A-la Lord of the Rings, by Leif and a few others. Hopefully, he’ll see fit to answer this challenge and that you’ll stick around to respond. Are you proposing that there is no such thing as dark energy nor dark matter???

johnnythelowery

Oops. Too late!

Chris Reeve

Re: “Various EU folks:
Fortunately, modern science is making great strides within the current [hard won] paradigm and we can tolerate [and ignore] fringe [‘cargo’] cults. They do provide a certain levity and have entertainment value [but are at the same time sad commentaries on the dismal level of scientific literacy].”
The very premise that mankind should only seriously pursue just one cosmology is completely misguided. It also suggests that you are ignoring ongoing peer-reviewed research, since plasma cosmology is to this day an ongoing investigation in IEEE’s Transactions on Plasma Sciences (IEEE is of course remains the world’s largest scientific institution).
Your belief that the CMB is some relic of a primordial explosion represents a preference for a metaphysical inference over more physical plasma physics processes which we can validate within the laboratory. As you (hopefully) already know, plasma beams naturally emit synchrotron microwaves on a regular basis. Thermalizing this synchrotron into a black body bell curve is a problem which does not require a metaphysical solution. As you know, the scientific method demands that we investigate non-metaphysical inferences before settling onto those which are inherently unexplainable themselves.
You might want to take a closer look at plasma’s VI curve. We’re repeatedly told that plasmas lack electrical resistance. But, nowhere on that diagram does the voltage ever approach zero.
Gerrit Verschuur’s papers might interest you as well. He’s been trying to tell conventional theorists for years now that those “anomalous high-velocity clouds” which permeate interstellar space are in fact not “clouds” at all. They are twisting, spaghetii-like filamentary structures which emit redshifts which (coincidentally?) coincide with critical ionization velocities at 50 km/s, 35 km/s 13 km/s, etc. Any fan of the conventional framework should be *very* concerned about this research, as there exists no conventional explanation, as is, for the two faster inferred velocities. The *only* explanation that’s even on the table is that these filaments are flows of charged particles. As you hopefully know, Alfven predicted that we would observe these exact CIV’s in space. Verschuur reports that the 35 km/s signal is especially widespread.
Einstein of course had no idea that the universe prefers plasma over liquids, solids and gases. We didn’t learn that until the 1950’s. Only a mathematician would imagine that we could change the universe’s preferred state for matter without there being major consequences for our cosmological views.
Neither did he know that magnetic fields permeate galactic space. Up until 1986, conventional theorists of course claimed that there was no observational evidence for large-scale electromagnetic fields in space. Why? Because there’s simply no need for them in the conventional framework. Once a magnetic field was finally associated with a galaxy at the Effelsberg Observatory in 1986, theorists switched gears to obstructing publications involving plasmas or electric currents.
Of course, Einstein’s followers have always gone much more out of their way to defend Einstein’s work than the man himself. Einstein was his own biggest critic, and doubted his life’s work all the way to the end. When he died, “Worlds in Collision” by Velikovsky was left open upon his desk. For anybody who is familiar with the old catastrophist debates, this was perhaps the most defiant book he could have possibly been reading at the time.
Have you checked out Jeff Schmidt’s “Disciplined Minds” yet? That was an utterly scathing review of the way in which we train physicists today. He compares the physics PhD program to a boot camp, where physicists are basically forced to relieve themselves of interest in any theory other than the conventional framework. It leaves little doubt about where all of this consensus in physics is coming from these days.
What do you think of lightning to space? For many years, theorists ignored reports by pilots that unusual electrical discharges were connecting the Earth with outer space, many miles above the clouds. This is rather peculiar because lightning is thought to result from processes involving clouds. Are you aware that the Van Allen Radiation Belts are observed to blink with each lightning bolt? Conventional theorists frequently complain that they can’t figure out how lightning can be so powerful, even as they see the entire system electrically connected from space down to the surface of the planet. What exactly would you require as evidence that the Earth is electrically neutralizing with its surrounding space?
Are you aware that EU Theorists can explain the HR diagram in terms of laboratory plasma physics fundamentals?
In the big picture, your condescension is akin to a reckless gambler. Rather than hedge your bets, you’ve decided to bet everything on black. Now, something that you need to understand (just in case nobody has explained it thus far) is that the conventional theories propose a mostly benign universe. Your timescales are off-the-charts long compared with plasma cosmology. In plasma cosmology, the Sun is not as stable, and the Earth is subjected to catastrophe on the order of thousands of years. To wager everything onto the benign view of the universe, and ignore the inherent threat of the competing cosmology, is really quite reckless.
And I have no doubt that if the sh*t really did hit the fan, that advocates of the conventional theories would pretend to know what’s happening all the way to the very end.

johnnythelowery says:
December 15, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Hopefully, he’ll see fit to answer this challenge
No, I’ll declare defeat from the get-go because there is no challenge and the ideas espoused are ‘not even wrong’. And we would be O/T.
As an example I might quote you:
“Neither did he know that magnetic fields permeate galactic space. Up until 1986, conventional theorists of course claimed that there was no observational evidence for large-scale electromagnetic fields in space. Why? Because there’s simply no need for them in the conventional framework. Once a magnetic field was finally associated with a galaxy at the Effelsberg Observatory in 1986, theorists switched gears to obstructing publications involving plasmas or electric currents.”
And compare with:
“Galactic Magnetic Field.” American Institute of Physics Handbook. 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. “A comparison of the observed cosmic-ray electron spectrum with the non-thermal radio spectrum arising from galactic synchrotron radiation indicates that the magnetic field is 10 to 20 microgauss near the galactic center, 5 to 10 microgauss near the solar system and approximately 2.5 microgauss for the halo.”
Magnetic fields in space were first reported as far back as 1949 by Hall and Hiltner and has been part of mainstream science ever since.
Getting your facts straight would be your first order of business. Lacking that, there is no challenge.