NASA and Government Discuss EU

[flyingcloud]

not that I want to go there, but;
it is almost like the wave particle duality
with charge as a particle
and in each half rotation a charge flows in opposite direction

add the third dimension and divide by 8
could be 4 I don't have all the math quite finished

[Nereid]

The language used in the above pretty much invalidates their 'analysis' right from the first sentence, ma'am. :\

Or, just maybe, it's too terse (the intended readers of that abstract know what is meant)?

You could translate the first highlighted part as "the reified schematic representation of a field strength at a particular point in a given 3-dimensional vector field"... such a thing cannot be be anchored in a coronal hole (nor anything else for that matter) and it cannot extend to infinity.

How so?

This seems similar to a recent exchange we had, concerning "frozen in" ... perhaps it's just an approximation, a simplification? One that's good enough for the purposes of the model (and observations) under discussion? Somewhat analogous perhaps to the ESA doing their mission planning, implementation, and management using Newtonian gravity rather than GR (but not NASA's, in mixing up metric and imperial units)? Or Peratt assuming, in his 1986 papers, that gravity doesn't exist?

Astronomy has taken a word in use for decades in the electronics industry and inappropriately applied it to observations that I don't think are applicable.

Ah jargon!

'Twas ever thus, no? I mean, you may know perfectly well, when you cook the evening meal, that what you have is a sweet potato and not a yam, but you'll surely give a botanist a headache, won't you?

Regarding the second highlight- "extensive" or not, by looking at the "fluid and kinetic" properties of the "wind" (bulk plasma flow) only they are ignoring the electrodynamic nature of the material under observation...

Well, it's just the abstract; did you read the paper, to check a) the full context of this phrase, and b) what has been, in fact, actually ignored (in the body of the paper itself)?

[solrey]

Or Peratt assuming, in his 1986 papers, that gravity doesn't exist?

How is that different from current gravity only simulations in which 96% of the energy and mass comes from "invisible" forces, i.e. "dark" energy and mass? Seems to me that within both paradigm's simulations the visible mass in the universe is essentially insignificant, the primary difference is Peratt's simulations utilize forces previously quantified by experiment.

cheers

[Nereid]

Or Peratt assuming, in his 1986 papers, that gravity doesn't exist?

How is that different from current gravity only simulations in which 96% of the energy and mass comes from "invisible" forces, i.e. "dark" energy and mass?

The only simulations that I know of which incorporate such assumptions are cosmological.

In any case, I think you just agreed with me, didn't you? In any particular simulation, you decide, beforehand, what aspects to try to model, and what to ignore.

Seems to me that within both paradigm's simulations the visible mass in the universe is essentially insignificant,

Oranges and omega, solrey.

If you're simulating the expected signature of a transiting exoplanet, say, or the formation of galactic bubble, CDM and DE are irrelevant (and ignored completely) ... to take just one example.

[mharratsc]

Ms. Nereid asked:

Well, it's just the abstract; did you read the paper, to check a) the full context of this phrase, and b) what has been, in fact, actually ignored (in the body of the paper itself)?

No, ma'am- I don't have $34 to spend on it... could you possibly take a look?

and:

Astronomy has taken a word in use for decades in the electronics industry and inappropriately applied it to observations that I don't think are applicable.

Ah jargon!

'Twas ever thus, no? I mean, you may know perfectly well, when you cook the evening meal, that what you have is a sweet potato and not a yam, but you'll surely give a botanist a headache, won't you?

Sure, but what I was refering to didn't make it into your quote...

I said:

Personally, I think they are using the term 'open magnetic field lines' in regards to a 2-dimensional analysis of a 3-dimensional field-aligned current, or Birkeland current... but that's just my thinking on it.

In which I was suggesting that they were ignoring electrodynamics, and the source of their object of study- an electric current.

It was also discussed:

You could translate the first highlighted part as "the reified schematic representation of a field strength at a particular point in a given 3-dimensional vector field"... such a thing cannot be be anchored in a coronal hole (nor anything else for that matter) and it cannot extend to infinity.

How so?

This seems similar to a recent exchange we had, concerning "frozen in" ... perhaps it's just an approximation, a simplification? One that's good enough for the purposes of the model (and observations) under discussion? Somewhat analogous perhaps to the ESA doing their mission planning, implementation, and management using Newtonian gravity rather than GR (but not NASA's, in mixing up metric and imperial units)? Or Peratt assuming, in his 1986 papers, that gravity doesn't exist?

This was in regards to the following from the abstract:

The steady fast wind originating on open magnetic field lines in coronal holes,

I cannot fathom how this is considered an "approximation" nor a "simplification". This is a reification of a 2-dimensional drawing artifice into a 3-dimensional object. There is no such thing in reality as an 'open' vector field. If they are going to refer to a linear magnetic field departing the surface perpendicular to that surface, then they seriously need to indicate the helical nature of that field, and how matter does not 'blow' in a corkscrew.

You're very much a stickler for quoting papers and whatnot, so I would think that you would be much more adamant about 'good physics' than this, ma'am.
If it has an electrical component, and EM force is 29 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, it hardly seems reasonable to me to ignore it in modeling a 'wind' when the matter composing that 'wind' is ionized and being accelerated by the Sun's E-field.
You might as well ignore the temperature or weight of the material being ejected, for pity's sake. :\

[Nereid]

Mike H,

Clearly I misunderstood your post; apologies.

I'll respond, more appropriately, later.

[Lloyd]

* Webo, this discussion is helping me understand electric currents better too.
* By the way, this site, http://www.international-electrical-sup ... rrent.html says:

... in a copper wire of cross-section 0.5 mm², carrying a current of 5 A, the drift velocity of the electrons is of the order of a millimetre per second. To take a different example, in the near-vacuum inside a cathode ray tube, the electrons travel in near-straight lines ("ballistically") at about a tenth of the speed of light.

* So maybe a spark would have comparable velocity of electrons, while lightning would likely have room to accelerate close to light speed.
* I just did a search on "electric current * solar wind", which brought up this interesting paper.
Auroral particle acceleration processes: the legacy of Hannes Alfvén
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... archtype=a

R. Lundin
Swedish Institute of Space Physics, P.O. Box 812, S-981 28 Kiruna, Sweden
Received 18 January 2000;
revised 2 May 2000;
accepted 30 June 2000.
Available online 6 December 2001.
Abstract
Impacting corpuscular radiation was believed to be the main cause for the aurora even before the space age. However, the means by which charged particles become energized, eventually impacting into the upper atmosphere was a matter of controversy - a controversy which died out only very slowly with time. Hannes Alfvén was the lead scientists in the 1950:ies and 1960:ies who dared to challenge the ruling paradigm of space plasma physics - by 1958 suggesting field-aligned electric “discharges” as the cause of the aurora. Field-aligned electric acceleration of charged particles became a matter of debate for nearly three decades with indirect proofs for its existence steadily mounting with time, yet all the time meeting strong objections. In retrospect one may wonder why rebutting was so important. Why clinging to the concept of infinite conductivity along magnetic field lines? The reason was simple, because it challenged a ruling paradigm in space plasma physics, requiring a strong modification of “ideal MHD”.
- The notion of “frozen-in-field-lines”, invented by Hannes Alfvén, is a useful concept in describing large scale morphologies. However, observations from space plasma experiments shows that the condition of frozen-in-field-lines is violated in most interesting regions where plasma acceleration occurs. Alfvén wanted to remedy what he considered the “misuse of MHD” by emphasizing currents instead of magnetic fields in space plasma physics.
- In this paper I will review the energy and momentum coupling originally proposed by Alfvén and their consequences for the acceleration of charged particles. Plasma acceleration processes, well known and recognized from studies of planetary magnetospheres in our solar system, are applicable also for more remote space objects in the Universe - such as stars and galaxies. The many astrophysical implications of his theories is perhaps the most important legacy of Hannes Alfvén. In fact, new evidence for his theories are emerging from contemporary deep space data.

* Here's another abstract about the Sun's electric current from space.
MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric current sheet
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=c ... right.html

P. L. Israelevich1, T. I. Gombosi2, A. I. Ershkovich1, K. C. Hansen2, C. P. T. Groth2, D. L. DeZeeuw2 and K. G. Powell3
1 Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel
2 Space Physics Research Laboratory, Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
3 Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
(Received 18 April 2001 / Accepted 15 June 2001 )
Abstract
The existence of the radial component of the electric current flowing toward the Sun is revealed in numerical simulation. The total strength of the radial current is ~ $3\times 10^9$ A. The only way to fulfill the electric current continuity is to close the radial electric current by means of field-aligned currents at the polar region of the Sun. Thus, the surface density of the closure current flowing along the solar surface can be estimated as ~4 A/m, and the magnetic field produced by this current is $B \sim 5\times 10^{-6}$ T, i.e. several percent of the intrinsic magnetic field of the Sun. This seems to mean that any treatment of the solar magnetic field generation should take into account the heliospheric current circuit as well as the currents flowing inside the Sun.

[mharratsc]

That second article you linked is golden! "Show me the math" becomes possible to a small extent with the release of this work!
Let's see if they keep up the good work with future papers and more precise modeling!

Additionally, from that same article, they confirmed the field-aligned (double layer) aspect of the polar circuit:

Indeed, near the magnetic pole the current flows from the Sun. This region of the upward current is surrounded by the downward current. This picture, to some extent, is reminiscent of the regions of field aligned currents in the Earth's polar ionosphere.

Hourglass config most clearly demonstrated by 'planetary nebula' that have been seen in glow mode, now confirmed(?) to be operating in dark mode on our own star?

Good stuff!

[Lloyd]

* Glad to hear that MHD paper is so useful, Mike. That persuaded me to share it on another forum.
* I noticed that the Alfven paper link above doesn't work, so here's another link to it, which I hope will work:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14160914/Hann ... ction-1976

[MGmirkin]

MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric current sheet
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2 ... right.html

I might note that their image:
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2 ... /Timg7.gif


is highly reminiscent of Don Scott's diagram of the Electric Sun model's draft circuit diagram:


I didn't see a specific delineation in their paper of which species of charged particles they were tracking, though I suspect that like Alfvén, their arrows indication the direction of electron drift? If so, then just as the difference in arrow direction between Alfvén's diagram and Scott's are moot so should describe the same current system (just following oppositely charged particles).

That is to say, Alfvén's diagram's arrows follow the direction of electrons, whereas Scott's diagram follows the "conventional current" (or positively charged species of particles). Since oppositely charged particles tend to flow in opposite directions in the same circuit (if they're both free to move, as in plasma), there is no contradiction (again, assuming Alfvén and the paper above use the direction of electrons rather than the protons / +ions of the "conventional current").

Scott's model has protons or +ions potentially (pun only partly intended) flowing inward at the poles and outward in the equatorial plane (solar wind), whereas in the same circuit electrons may be considered in such an idealized model to flow radially inward at the equator and outward at the pole. They're flip sides of the same coin and the "direction" of the current ("conventional current") is the same regardless; no contradiction. If, however, the paper above tracks protons / +ion species then it may contradict the model? Hard to say without further scrutiny...

Anyway, it seems interesting that the models seem superficially in accord at least that far. The paper also mentioned currents inside the sun. And, so too does Scott's model, as shown in the diagram above. Which may also account for the sunspot cycle (as illuminated in Scott's book: The Electric Sky).

I seem to recall he notes that it, in his opinion, has to do with the primary current in the diagram's rise in strength or fall in strength influencing the direction of the secondary current. That is to say, when the primary current is increasing in strength, the secondary current in the diagram points one way, but when the primary current is falling in strength (not changing its own direction, just reducing strength), the secondary current reverses direction. Hence the sunspots cycle and change polarity as the primary current changes. One assumes that the lulls in between cycles are where, in Scott's model, the primary current is constant (a maxima or minima in a roughly sinusoidal curve tracking its strength's ups and downs). Hope that's not too confusing for anyone here...

I forget what technical name he used for it. Trying to find the specific reference to it, but haven't tracked it down yet. Seems to recall he indicated it was a well known effect in electronics WRT oscillating currents inducing secondary currents that change as the primary current changes.

Best,
~MG

[MGmirkin]

Or Peratt assuming, in his 1986 papers, that gravity doesn't exist?

You're not actually claiming Peratt says gravity does not exist, are you? Have you read his papers, at all?

Or, if I'm being charitable, perhaps I've misread your statement or taken it out of context, and you only meant that in his 1986 papers the PIC simulations were "fully electromagnetic" in nature and had not as yet incorporated the much weaker gravitational force (in addition to the electromagnetic force), rather than claiming he actually believed gravity to not exist at all.

I ASSUME you're referring to the following "1986" papers (if not, please be more specific with your reference; many of his papers are listed and freely available to read online here, so there's no reason not to include specific reference):

(Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I & II)
http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCos ... 6TPS-I.pdf
http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCos ... TPS-II.pdf

If so, I specifically refer you to page 13 of 16 (pg. 775 of the original text of which a portion was scanned to PDF format) in the 2nd paper (Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies) wherein he specifically treats gravitational extensions to the plasma model, defining "very small particles" (in dusty plasmas), "grains" (electromagnetic term is "negligible"; but ostensibly still present to some degree) and "Large Solid Bodies" (gravitationally dominated), then going on to specifically talk about methods of extending particle simulations to include gravitational forces (in additional to the fully electromagnetic forces already included in the simulations).

So, I'm fairly certain Peratt would strenuously object to any claim that he thinks "gravity doesn't exist at all." Especially when he has gone to pains to specify manners in which gravitational interactions can be included in particle simulations (in addition to electromagnetic forces already in use).

One can just as easily find reference to gravity in the next paper down the list:

(The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe; pg 21, in particular)
http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/Pe ... tBeams.pdf

The inclusion of stars on the main sequence is expected to account for the morphology of Sa and SBa type galaxies, where the increasing role of gravitation makes its presence felt in the dynamics of late time galaxies (Lerner 1986). Attempts to bridge the fully electromagnetic plasma model consisting of plasma clouds (each simulation particle) to include the gravitational forces between the particles representing stellar clusters is currently underway (Peratt 1986b).

Again, gravity is not claimed to "not exist" as seems implied above. It is specifically stated that late time galaxies feel the growing effects of gravity (one assumes, as charged particles are increasingly neutralized and aggregated through Marklund Convection and/or other neutralization processes and the strength of electromagnetic interactions wanes).

Just so we're all on the same page with Peratt...

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[Nereid]

* Here's another abstract about the Sun's electric current from space.
MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric current sheet
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=c ... right.html

P. L. Israelevich1, T. I. Gombosi2, A. I. Ershkovich1, K. C. Hansen2, C. P. T. Groth2, D. L. DeZeeuw2 and K. G. Powell3
1 Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel
2 Space Physics Research Laboratory, Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
3 Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
(Received 18 April 2001 / Accepted 15 June 2001 )
Abstract
The existence of the radial component of the electric current flowing toward the Sun is revealed in numerical simulation. The total strength of the radial current is ~ $3\times 10^9$ A. The only way to fulfill the electric current continuity is to close the radial electric current by means of field-aligned currents at the polar region of the Sun. Thus, the surface density of the closure current flowing along the solar surface can be estimated as ~4 A/m, and the magnetic field produced by this current is $B \sim 5\times 10^{-6}$ T, i.e. several percent of the intrinsic magnetic field of the Sun. This seems to mean that any treatment of the solar magnetic field generation should take into account the heliospheric current circuit as well as the currents flowing inside the Sun.

That's a great find Lloyd!

Now there is a quantitative value we can apply to at least one point on the x-axis of Thornhill's Fig. 9; namely 4 (Amp/m2), which is also G.

Taking the Sun's power output as 3.8 x 1026 W, and its radius as 7 x 108 m, it would seem that the resistance, at the surface of the Sun, per square metre, is 3.8 million ohms, assuming the Sun is powered by a current whose value is estimated in Israelevich et al. (2001). That seems rather high for a plasma, even that of the Sun's photosphere (where the degree of ionisation is, what, ~10-4), doesn't it? It also seems inconsistent with the full range of estimated values of the conductivity of the photosphere and chromosphere reported in Kubat and Karlicky (1985).

[Nereid]

Or Peratt assuming, in his 1986 papers, that gravity doesn't exist?

You're not actually claiming Peratt says gravity does not exist, are you? Have you read his papers, at all?

Or, if I'm being charitable, perhaps I've misread your statement or taken it out of context, and you only meant that in his 1986 papers the PIC simulations were "fully electromagnetic" in nature and had not as yet incorporated the much weaker gravitational force (in addition to the electromagnetic force), rather than claiming he actually believed gravity to not exist at all.

The part that's taken out of context is, I think, my own statement!

Here's what I wrote:

This seems similar to a recent exchange we had, concerning "frozen in" ... perhaps it's just an approximation, a simplification? One that's good enough for the purposes of the model (and observations) under discussion? Somewhat analogous perhaps to the ESA doing their mission planning, implementation, and management using Newtonian gravity rather than GR (but not NASA's, in mixing up metric and imperial units)? Or Peratt assuming, in his 1986 papers, that gravity doesn't exist?

To explain in somewhat more detail ...

The "frozen in" condition is a simplification, an assumption, that one may make when developing models of plasmas; it'd be quite extraordinary to find a space physicist who would insist that this was anything more than a simplification, an assumption, to be used with all due care.

When the ESA does planning, implementation, and management for their space missions, the key people involved are surely well aware that use of Newton's law of universal gravitation is a simplification, an assumption, to be used with all due care.

In Peratt's two 1986 papers (yes, you got them right), he made a simplification, an assumption, in developing his model; namely that gravity doesn't exist.

Many a space physicist will develop models which do not incorporate the assumption of "frozen in" (to explore 'magnetic reconnection' perhaps); for some missions, ESA scientists will use GR instead of Newton (e.g. GAIA); Peratt explained, in the second of his two papers (and in more detail in his book), how to develop his model so as to begin to incorporate gravity.

To make my point clearer, perhaps, by turning the contrast way, way up: just about every professional doing space physics, involved in ESA missions, and Peratt knows that QED is by far the best explanation of/theory of/etc electromagnetism ... yet QED is not used, by anyone; it's as if it doesn't exist! Instead, classical electromagnetism (essentially Maxwell's equations) plus a bit of atomic physics (particle masses, line emission, that sort of thing) is all that's used.

Just so we're all on the same page with Peratt...

The funny thing is, we were always on that page!

By the way, there's a lively discussion going on on those two 1986 papers (and his book), right here in the Thunderbolts Forum; would you care to join in?

[Aardwolf]

...ESA scientists will use GR instead of Newton (e.g. GAIA)...

Nereid,

What exactly are ESA scientists using GR instead of Newton for? GAIA's orbit calculation?

[Nereid]

...ESA scientists will use GR instead of Newton (e.g. GAIA)...

Nereid,

What exactly are ESA scientists using GR instead of Newton for? GAIA's orbit calculation?

OK, one more for today (now five).

GR enters into the mission planning in quite a few ways (GAIA in 2004 is a good place to start for more details; check out 4.17 - "Relativity and Reference Frame"); if the planning is done well, and up to spec, then GR will be suitably embedded in to the implementation and management phases too. However, by far the biggest use of GR will be in the data analysis (plans for which are, of course, a vital part of the mission planning).

Here's a couple of extracts, to give you an idea of where GR is being used:

The second version of the relativistic model based on S. Klioner approach has been implemented in GDAAS
[...]
In Spring 2004 S. Klioner and F. Mignard arranged a meeting with ESOC to discuss the mission requirements for the Gaia orbit tracking. This resulted into a very positive exchange whose results are reported in the Minutes of the 5th meeting of the RRFWG. Following this meeting S. Klioner has investigated the magnitude of the relativistic effect in the motion of Gaia on its Lissajous orbit in which it shows that according to the level of modelling differences between prediction can be larger than the 10 mm/s in velocity, well above the Gaia requirement.
[...]
A major action has been brought to completion this year regarding the relationship between the TCB and the Gaia proper time (time that would be read on an ideal on-board clock) from an investigation by F. Mignard, M.T. Crosta and S. Klioner. A practical representation meeting the Gaia need is provided in the relevant technical note. The inverse relationship and a software to be implemented in GDAAS should follow in 2005.