Leif Svalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 6:53 am
Bob Weber says:
December 26, 2013 at 4:42 am
We can’t say there’s electric currents flowing in space and then turn around and say the universe and the solar system is not electrical in nature. We can’t have it both ways.
Yes we can. The paper gives the misleading impression that there is an intrinsic electric field in the solar wind, pointing in a certain direction. This is not the case. There is no such field. The so-called ‘interplanetary electric field [IEF]‘ is generated by the interaction between the magnetised, neutral, fast moving, strongly conducting solar wind plasma streaming past the [nearly] stationary magnetic field of the earth. A short description of the process can be found here:
http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf If the Earth’s magnetic field were to point in the opposite direction [it does as times], the IEF would also point in the opposite direction. The IEF seen in the reference frame of the Earth is different from the IEF that would be seen in another frame, it is not a property of the solar wind and is not present in a frame moving with the solar wind.
[…]
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 7:39 am
Bob Weber says:
December 26, 2013 at 7:35 am
Leif I appreciate your point. When the solar wind charge particles (mostly protons and electrons) interact with the magnetosphere, do they not behave according to electric and magnetic laws?
Of course they do, but those laws dictate that the IEF is generated locally of a result of that interaction. The solar wind [and the Universe in general] do not support intrinsic electric fields according to those same laws.
[…]
Bob Weber says:
December 26, 2013 at 7:56 am
The electric weather I’m talking about happens here on earth as result of that interaction. Why do we call it the global electric circuit in the first place? Just so I’m clear on this, please explain if you haven’t already, how those solar particles accelerate from the sun to the edge of heliosphere and beyond. What forces are at play there? Why don’t they slow down and stop somewhere sooner?
[…]
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 8:08 am
Bob Weber says:
December 26, 2013 at 7:40 am
Leif, further, if the solar wind were electrically neutral, what forces are at play that guide them into the poles?
It is electrically neutral. If it were not it could never leave the Sun. Suppose the solar wind was positively charged, then as it continuously leave the Sun, the Sun would be left with an increasing negative charge [as the positive ones depart]. The electrical attraction between the negative sun and the positive wind would in short order attract the solar wind back to the Sun.
Bob Weber says:
December 26, 2013 at 7:56 am
how those solar particles accelerate from the sun to the edge of heliosphere and beyond. What forces are at play there? Why don’t they slow down and stop somewhere sooner?
The solar wind is accelerated to supersonic speed because of gravity weakening with distance. Same principle as in a deLaval rocket nozzle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle
[…]
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 10:01 am
Bob Weber says:
December 26, 2013 at 9:50 am
Leif what solar structure(s) comprise the deLaval rocket nozzle analog you mentioned? Is the sun positively or negatively charged wrt the heliosphere?
The solar wind escapes because it is HOT [the combustion chamber of the rocket engine]. Gravity, of course, impedes the escape [try to throw a ball upwards], that is the narrowing of the throat. As gravity weakens the altitude, the throat expands [as in the rocket engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vikin ... engine.jpg and the escaping gases speed up to supersonic speeds.
The sun is not significantly charged with respect to the heliosphere.
[…]
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 10:33 am
Bob Weber says:
December 26, 2013 at 10:21 am
I’m not convinced yet that gravity is as all-powerful as many have said, and that’s no knock on you.
In the end, gravity is the root cause of everything, even electric and magnetic fields. To get an electric field you need to separate positive and negative charges. Since the negative charges [electrons] are much lighter that the heavier protons, gravity can separate the two and create a [weak] electric field, which if the charges are free to move in turn creates an electrical current which has an magnetic field. This process actually does work weakly on the Sun [the Pannekoek-Rosseland polarization electric field] but is not enough to create the solar wind acceleration we observe. Gravity nicely does that via the deLaval mechanism. The IEF is purely a local effect created when the solar wind hits the Earth’s magnetic field: positive charges are deflected one way around the Earth, and negative charges are deflected the other way. The resulting electric current neutralizes/closes by flowing through the ionosphere giving rise to aurorae and associated magnetic disturbances. Reality is a lot more complicated than this, but the gross features are well described by this simplified view.
[…]
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 10:37 am
ferdberple says:
December 26, 2013 at 10:32 am
When one considers however that earth’s magnetic field is not internally generated
There is no need to ‘consider’ such a scenario [for many reasons] as already Gauss showed us [in the 1830s] that observations demonstrate that the field is internally generated. His conclusions have been verified many times since.
[…]
Chris Reeve says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:04 am
What might be useful is to have Leif read the history for Hannes Alfven and MHD which has been written by David Talbott for Edge Magazine, and ask him where within this broader historical context, either Talbott or Alfven should have determined that there is no question to be asked here? The real problem, it seems to some of us, is that the university system continues to present this apparent half-century controversy as a series of conclusive claims rather than a set of assumptions with a question mark at its end. Why would students be primed to think they know the answer on such a fundamental set of questions? The risk inherent to assuming the wrong answer here seems too great to just accept the assumption, for many of us …
From
http://www.scientificexploration.org/ed ... nce_09.pdf …
—
The underlying idea was that space could have been magnetized in primordial times or in early stages of stellar and galactic evolution, all under the control of higher-order kinetics and gravitational dynamics. All large scale events in space could still be explained in terms of disconnected islands, and it would only be necessary to look inside the “islands” to discover localized electromagnetic events—no larger electric currents or circuitry required. In this view, popularly held today, we live in a “magnetic universe” (the title of several recent books and articles), but not an electric universe. The point was stated bluntly by the eminent solar physicist Eugene Parker, “ … No significant electric field can arise in the frame of reference of the moving plasma.”
But the critical turn in this story, the part almost never told within the community of astronomers and astrophysicists, is that Alfvén came to realize he had been mistaken. Ironically—and to his credit—Alfvén used the occasion of his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize to plead with scientists to ignore his earlier work. Magnetic fields, he said, are only part of the story. The electric currents that create magnetic fields must not be overlooked, and attempts to model space plasma in the absence of electric currents will set astronomy and astrophysics on a course toward crisis, he said.
In accord with Alvén’s observations, American physicist, professor Alex Dessler, former editor of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, notes that he himself had originally fallen in with an academic crowd that believed electric fields could not exist in the highly conducting plasma of space. “My degree of shock and surprise in finding Alfvén right and his critics wrong can hardly be described.”
In retrospect, it seems clear that Alfvén considered his early theoretical assumption of frozen-in magnetic fields to be his greatest mistake, a mistake perpetuated first and foremost by mathematicians attracted to Alfvén’s magnetohydrodynamic equations. Alfvén came to recognize that real plasma behavior is too “complicated and awkward” for the tastes of mathematicians. It is a subject “not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories.” It requires hands-on attention to plasma dynamics in the laboratory. Sadly, he said, the plasma universe became “the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong.”
Again and again Alfvén reiterated the point: the underlying assumptions of cosmologists today “are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not ‘understand’ how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them.”
—
Also, people might want to check out the paper titled “Possible reasons for underestimating Joule heating in global models: E-field variability, spatial resolution and vertical velocity”.
But, if I can make a suggestion as an outsider looking in, maybe Leif would consider releasing the Electric Universe hostage so that people can have permission to question cosmological assumptions here … ? I recall running [into] him shutting the same conversation down a couple of years ago. We are all entitled to our own worldviews and assumptions, but does science permit us to impose those assumptions upon each other?
[…]
DirkH says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:06 am
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 10:33 am
“
In the end, gravity is the root cause of everything, even electric and magnetic fields. ”
Gravity even causes the protective hypothesis of Dark Matter, because it needs it to keep the Gravity-only cosmology alive for the time being.
[…]
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:06 am
DirkH says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:00 am
By L. Svalgaards argument BTW there cannot be charge separation in space. That’s funny; Earth must be a very special place then because we observe charge separation all the time.
Earth is, indeed, a very special place, namely one where the air where we live and breathe is not ionized to any significant degree. In such environments [insulators] charge separation can and do occur. 99.99..% of the baryon Universe is not like that, so we are very special. Of course, that is not funny at all, we could not live if that was not so, so we are ‘victims’ of a selection effect.
[…]
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:10 am
DirkH says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:06 am
Gravity even causes the protective hypothesis of Dark Matter, because it needs it to keep the Gravity-only cosmology alive for the time being.
Gravitational effects are observational evidence for their existence.
Dark Matter is an observational fact, not yet understood theoretical, but observations trump theory, don’t you think?
[…]
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:32 am
Lars P. says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:26 am
as the particles get kinetic energy in the sun and the electrons are 1000+ easier then heavy ions, does this cause more electrons to escape the suns’ gravity in comparison to ions and thus creating a local electrical charge at the suns surface?
It does [initially], it is called the Pannekoek-Rosseland Polarization Electric Field, but it is very small and doesn’t really play a significant role in anything and carries in it its own limiting factor: if electrons escape, the Sun is left a little more positive, but then that extra positive charge attracts electrons trying to escape, so the imbalance soon comes to a halt and does not build up any further.
[…]
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:56 am
[…]
Chris Reeve says:
December 26, 2013 at 11:04 am
What might be useful is to have Leif read the history for Hannes Alfven
Hannes was a personal friend of mine and I know very well his views on things, thank you much.
we live in a “magnetic universe” (the title of several recent books and articles), but not an electric universe. The point was stated bluntly by the eminent solar physicist Eugene Parker, “…No significant electric field can arise in the frame of reference of the moving plasma.”
You got that one right. Hannes Alfven stressed that very same point.
Sadly, he said, the plasma universe became “the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory.”
Indeed, that is true, simply because we cannot recreate the conditions of a cosmic plasma [especially its low density and large dimensions] in the laboratory. Luckily, we can observe such plasmas in space.
But, if I can make a suggestion as an outsider looking in, maybe Leif would consider releasing the Electric Universe hostage so that people can have permission to question cosmological assumptions here … ?
To question assumptions you need to know something about the conditions, situations, observations, and physics involved. Without that, such questioning is vacuous and you better retreat to a learning mode.
[…]
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 1:05 pm
vukcevic says:
December 26, 2013 at 12:56 pm
the AGW sedated academia is reluctant to step out of its comfort zone and is scared even of an unknown’s shadow.
AGW has absolutely nothing to do with the science of the Sun and Geomagnetism. Pseudo-science is indeed scary whenever it rears its ugly head. The purveyors of such are providing a deplorable shadowy disservice.
[…]
Chris Reeve says:
December 26, 2013 at 2:15 pm
Re: “
To question assumptions you need to know something about the conditions, situations, observations, and physics involved.”
It seems that Alfven spent a good part of his lifetime trying to walk back a mistake he claims to have made early on in his career. His life story looks to actually be an incredibly introspective and thought-provoking story of an expert who had to muster the courage to publicly question his own prior expertise, and admit on the most public stage possible that he had made a mistake which others then copied. The lesson is not only deeply profound, but also seems to have been lost on today’s scientific culture — and it seems we don’t have to guess why, for the story is not even told to physics students today.
In marketing terms, this is called “priming” the customer. The physics students are simply being primed to accept MHD through selective recounting of Alfven’s story. But, in truth, this is less about science and more about humans playing games with one another. For, once the story is told, then one has to imagine that it VERY MUCH impacts a typical person’s views of MHD.
If he was truly a close friend of yours, then can you not see that he might be just a little bit upset — if he was here to comment — that his life story and repeated efforts over many years to correct the record are consistently left out of the modern “scientific journalism” on the subject of cosmic plasmas? Is it not incomprehensible to anybody else that David Talbott seems to be one of the few people who today recounts Alfven’s life story, as if it actually matters? Why do modern scientists treat the story of MHD’s inception as though it is irrelevant to our beliefs about MHD? Once the story is actually told, it becomes self-evidently important — and even vital context for those who might be having doubts about a universe that we are told is only 5% baryonic matter.
[…]
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Chris Reeve says:
December 26, 2013 at 2:15 pm
Why do modern scientists treat the story of MHD’s inception as though it is irrelevant to our beliefs about MHD?
What Alfven was railing about was the belief that MHD was universally applicable. Today we know it is not. If it were, nothing interesting would ever happen. Almost all interesting phenomena are caused by electric currents which result from a breakdown of MHD when you press plasmas with oppositely directed magnetic fields together. This is universally accepted by modern scientists [so Alfven is vindicated on that detail]. You are barking up a non-existing tree.
[…]
Chris Reeve says:
December 26, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Re: “
Pseudo-science is indeed scary whenever it rears its ugly head. The purveyors of such are providing a deplorable shadowy disservice.”
People generally fear anything which is different — and this applies to scientific models too — but be aware that this fear originates within your subconscious. It’s not the product of rational thought; it’s the result of a simplistic process of pre-conscious pattern-matching — the sort of thought that keeps lizards alive for long enough to procreate.
In fact, scientists do not “fear” theories. And you know this, actually, for if I first engaged your rational mind by directly asking you which you fear the most — the threat you can see or the one you cannot — you would definitively answer the one you cannot see. So, when you tell us all that pseudoscience is the threat which we should be paying attention to, realize that you’re not giving your rational mind the opportunity to assert that, in fact, dogma is the far more serious threat to science, of the two, for the obvious reason that it is invisible and asserted by authority.
[…]
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 2:36 pm
vukcevic says:
December 26, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Where is pseudo-science in there and why do you think that is scary?
Pseudo-science comes in when one dresses up unfounded speculation as fact and is scary because in this day and age it is important that the populace at large is educated about real science and not be fed a never-ending stream of nonsense.
[…]
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Chris Reeve says:
December 26, 2013 at 2:34 pm
In fact, scientists do not “fear” theories. And you know this, actually, for if I first engaged your rational mind by directly asking you which you fear the most — the threat you can see or the one you cannot — you would definitively answer the one you cannot see.
Quite the contrary. Scientists welcome what we cannot see. We call them ‘discoveries’ and all scientists dream of making such. The more, the better.
The worst fear is that we stagnate and no new trails into the unknown are blazed. The difference between science and pseudo-science is how you blaze a trail into the unknown. About the skepticism and caution with which you proceed
and how you integrate a new path into existing knowledge and build on it.
[…]
Chris Reeve says:
December 26, 2013 at 3:27 pm
Re: “
The difference between science and pseudo-science is how you blaze a trail into the unknown. About the skepticism and caution with which you proceed and how you integrate a new path into existing knowledge and build on it.”
Okay, but the problem for this argument is that IEEE never stopped publishing peer review on this topic of electrical cosmology.
Even the discipline of physics education research (like Eric Mazur of Harvard) has for a couple of decades now struggled to get through to university physics professors sufficient to explain to them that their teaching techniques are failing to have much impact upon students’ Aristotelian preconceptions. If the academic physicists won’t even listen to THAT, then I think it’s safe to say that they are simply not in the business of listening at all to anybody they’d prefer to ignore.
And on this point … “
and how you integrate a new path into existing knowledge and build on it.” …
From Don Scott’s The Electric Sky, page 12:
“When mathematicians (and geometry students) `derive a proof,’ they are developing a sequence of logical steps that leads to a final statement that is consistent with the first statement in the derivation. As an example, if we accept the basic definitions, axioms and postulates of Euclid’s geometry, we can `prove’ that `lines parallel with another line are parallel to each other.’ But this is not a proof of the existence of any real-world physical mechanism — it is an exercise in the logical manipulation of a set of basic mathematical axioms. Such manipulations are completely internal to mathematics and remain disassociated from the real world unless and until such an association is demonstrated by observation and experiment.
“In the deductive method, one starts with a presumed law of nature — an obviously correct (accepted) generalization about the way things work — and deduces (works out, derives) its logical consequences.
“A hypothesis arrived at via this deductive method is promoted to the status of being a theory when and if a large enough body of experts accepts it. This is an application of the Socratic method, also sometimes called the `dialectic method.’ Socrates (469-399 B.C.) believed that truth was discovered through intense conversations with other informed people. In this method, a vote of the experts determines when and if a theory is correct. Once such a theory has been accepted, it is not easily rejected in light of conflicting evidence. It is, however, often modified — made more complicated. When over time a theory becomes officially accepted, the essence of the matter has been settled and fixed. Modifications to the fine points of the theory can then be proposed and debated, but the backbone structure of the theory is set. That framework has already been firmly established.
“An inherent flaw lurking in this method is: What if your `obviously correct,’ basic, starting-point presumption is wrong?”
[…]
lsvalgaard says:
December 26, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Chris Reeve says:
December 26, 2013 at 3:27 pm
“An inherent flaw lurking in this method is: What if your `obviously correct,’ basic, starting-point presumption is wrong?”
In real science we establish ‘correctness’ by the capacity for quantitative prediction or calculation of effects. EU has never done a single one, so does not qualify as science. Simple as that. Most people should be able to fathom that.