Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Sat May 12, 2018 3:31 am

Are Sunspots Counter-Rotating Birkeland Currents?

It has been suggested on this thread that the Juergens, Milton, Scott and Thornhill (JMST) model of the Electric Sun is a viable working hypothesis of how the Sun derives its radiant energy.
Galactic Tilt C.jpg
Sun's axial tilt

It was further suggested that that the solar cycle subtly reveals how electrons are delivered to the Sun thus powering the solar discharge. The process is complicated by the Sun’s axial tilt in relation to the galactic equator and therefore any rotating Birkeland Currents the Sun encounters in the galactic plane. When currents approximately align themselves with the Sun’s poles we are at solar minimum. The Sun shows large Polar Coronal Holes and few, if any sunspots. The situation is reminiscent of Don Scott’s picture of the Electric Sun.
electric sun minimum.gif
Solar Minimum

As the relationship between the incoming current alters and the aligned current drifts away from the Sun’s polar regions the current becomes more filamentary, sunspots appear at ‘active longitudes’ the organised dipole magnetic field becomes chaotic before eventually ‘flipping’, this is solar maximum.
electric sun maximum.gif
Solar Maximum

Over approximately 22 years one cycle is completed. Not all cycles are identical and to my mind the picture that presents itself is not one of a hypothetical internal dynamo but one of fluctuating external currents.

Recently, Don Scott has written a paper looking at the nature of Birkeland Currents. One of the predictions to come from this ground-breaking work was that Birkeland Currents could be revealed by the property of counter-rotation. (1)

If Birkeland Currents are subtly delivering electrons to the Sun then we could expect to find indications of counter-rotation in certain solar features; with intense magnetic fields, perhaps sunspots are a good place to start.

Sunspots and Helicity

Research has revealed that sunspots and active regions (ARs) exhibit both magnetic and electrical helicity, there is also an indication that helicity is found globally over the solar surface.

Initial observations revealed what researches labelled a ‘hemispheric helicity sign rule’, this rule suggested that in the Sun’s northern hemisphere helicity was negative, that is left-handed, whilst in the Sun’s southern hemisphere helicity was positive, or right-handed. More recent observations suggest that this simple rule is not so simple after all.

Research in the late 1990’s during Solar Cycle 22 revealed that “...84% of active regions in the northern hemisphere have negative helicity, and 81% in the southern hemisphere have positive helicity… Each active region contains a mixed sign of current helicity but in most cases the so-called imbalance rh of current helicity over a whole region is extreme; namely, most active regions show a predominant sign. This indicates that a predominant twisting (left-handed or right-handed) of magnetic flux tubes in an active region may be general. In other words, there occurs a predominant twisting of magnetic structures not only for unipolar spots with obvious vortex structure but also for active regions of different types…We found that the evolution of the surface current helicity in active regions has a good correlation with monthly mean sunspot number during the cycle 22.” The authors went on to suggest that their helicity observations ruled out one variant of the solar dynamo model namely the ‘global convection theory’. (2)

Initial studies indicated that the hemispheric helicity rule appeared to hold but further observations were needed to be certain.

Global Helicity

During Solar Cycle 22 the Sun’s North Magnetic Pole (NMP) was located in the Sun’s Northern Hemisphere; likewise the Sun’s South Magnetic Pole (SMP) was located in the Sun’s Southern Hemisphere. Observations of the Sun at solar minimum found that negative helicity was prevalent in the Sun’s Northern Hemisphere, whilst positive helicity was found to be prevalent in the Sun’s Southern Hemisphere in accordance with the ‘hemispheric rule’. The helicity asymmetry was present at high solar latitudes particularly above 40 degrees. (3) At solar minimum the helicity rule was applicable to the whole Sun not just ARs.

Opposite helicity revealed

Studies using measurements obtained from 1997 to 2004 revealed a difference in helicity between weak and strong magnetic fields. It was found that strong magnetic fields i.e. those greater than 1000G and associated with the umbra of sunspots display an opposite helicity to weak magnetic fields i.e. those between 100G and 500G which are associated with sunspot penumbra.

“Another interesting implication…is that whereas we usually consider helicity variation as a function of latitude…another possibility is that helicity variation is more associated with solar cycle dependence and that the latitude dependence is just a derived relation from this solar cycle dependence of helicity and the butterfly diagram.” (4)
So not only was helicity and opposite helicity associated with ARs but an association with the solar cycle emerged.

Solar Cycle 24

Despite over a decade of observations there was still some debate over the ‘hemispheric helicity rule’, fortunately observations with the Hinode spacecraft allowed researchers to collect data covering the descending phase of Solar Cycle 23 and the ascending phase of Soar Cycle 24.

The improved data confirmed “…that the weak and strong fields have opposite helicity signs, as first pointed out in Zhang…” and “…on average sunspot umbra and penumbra show opposite helicity sign.” (5)

Moreover, the researchers analysed the data according to the particular phase of the solar cycle in which it was collected, what they found was “…ARs in the descending phase of solar cycle 23 do not follow the usual hemispheric helicity sign rule and the ARs in the ascending phase of solar cycle 24 do…” (6)

We find that the data revealed that Solar Cycle 22 and Solar Cycle 24 both displayed the ‘hemispheric helicity rule’ but Solar Cycle 23 did not. What was different between these solar cycles? During both Solar Cycle 22 and 24 the Sun’s NMP was located in the Sun’s Northern Hemisphere, whereas during Solar Cycle 23 the Sun’s SMP was located in the Sun’s Northern Hemisphere, the ‘hemispheric helicity rule’ is solar cycle dependent.

The Heliospheric Current Sheet?

Observations during solar minimum show that the ‘hemispheric helicity rule’ is a global phenomenon, this is what we would expect if incoming current was arriving at the Sun’s polar regions and higher latitudes; at solar minimum we also find the Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) described as a ‘ballerina skirt’.

At solar maximum the situation is quite different with the heliospheric magnetic field seemingly rotating independently of the Sun. As incoming current now arrives at the Sun’s equatorial regions the ‘hemispheric helicity rule’ breaks down and on odd numbered cycles the non-applicability of the ‘rule’ seems to be the norm.
I consider it to be even more perplexing to solar researchers wedded to the hypothetical dynamo model as the breakdown of the ‘rule’ is complicated by the morphology of the HCS. In 2014, researchers found that the HCS during solar maximum in 2012 took the form of two ‘cylinders’. (7)

This should not have been a surprise, the Ulysses spacecraft some 12 years earlier had made the same discovery. “With the source surface contours ending at 70 degrees, it has been possible to connect the nearly vertical current "sheets" in an arbitrary manner to obtain a single current sheet extending over the poles or multiple current sheets or "tube-like" structures… and have the appearance of a current sheet that was confined in latitude and longitude (tube-like). In view of the inevitable time variations that can occur during the long interval when the Ulysses data were being acquired, the possibility that the HCS adopted this quite different configuration during some solar rotations cannot be excluded.” (8)

“Nevertheless, the HCS is much like that observed near solar minimum except that it is nearly aligned with the rotation axis rather than being nearly equatorial. This conclusion agrees with speculations that, in effect, the sun's magnetic dipole rotates from the pole at minimum to the equator at maximum and continues rotating to yield the reversal in polarity [Saito et al., 1978]. Although such a phenomenological model is useful, we do not believe it actually describes the complex changes in the solar magnetic field nor the physics that lead to the polarity reversals.” (9)

The authors of the above paper not only dismissed the cylinder-like shape of the HCS at solar maximum they also dismissed the ‘simple’ model of a rotating dipole as not being sufficient to describe the “complex changes in the solar magnetic field nor the physics that lead to the polarity reversals.”

Yet it is the premise of this thread that this is exactly what happens and no hypothetical hidden dynamo is required. (10)

The Pseudo-Alfven Circuit

The rotation of the Sun’s magnetic field on this thread is equated with a ‘pseudo-Alfven circuit’, at solar minimum ethereal Birkeland Currents arriving at the Sun’s polar regions are subtly revealed by a global solar hemispheric helicity signature. As the arriving currents rotate away from the Sun’s polar regions they filament forming AR’s with a marked increase in intensity and showing counter-helicity; the whole cycle taking approximately 22 years as can be seen in this short animation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCBhowvC6tA).

The authors of the referenced papers attribute the helicity and opposite-helicity of ARs to hidden ‘flux tubes’ generated by a hidden dynamo by an unknown yet complex process, how simpler is it to assume that helicity and opposite-helicity is a phenomenon associated with external ‘flux tubes’, Birkeland Currents rotating independently from their focus- the Sun?

References:

1. Scott. Donald. E. 2015, Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model, Progress in Physics Vol. 11 No. 2 (April 2015)
2. Bao. Shudong and Zhang. Hongqi. 1998, Patterns of Current Helicity for Solar Cycle 22, The Astrophysical Journal 496:L43-46, 1998 March 20
3. Pevtsov. Alexei A and Latushko. Sergei M. 2000, Current Helicity of the Large-Scale Photospheric Magnetic Field, The Astrophysical Journal 528:999-1003, 2000 January 10
4. Zhang. Mei. 2006, Helicity Observations of Weak and Strong Fields, The Astrophysical Journal 646:L85-L88, 2006 July 20
5. Hao. Juan and Zhang. Mei. 2011, Hemispheric Helicity Trend for Solar Cycle 24, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 733:L27, 2011 June 1
6. Ibid.
7. Wang. Y.M, Young. P.R and Muglach. K. 2014, Evidence for Two Separate Heliospheric Current Sheets of Cylindrical Shape During Mid-2012, The Astrophysical Journal 780:103, 2014 January 1
8. Smith. E.J, Balogh. A, Forsyth. R.J, McComas. D.J. 2001, Ulysses in the south polar cap at solar maximum: Heliospheric magnetic field, Geophysical research Letters Vol.28, No. 22, 2001 November 15
9. Ibid.
10. At solar maximum images of the Sun show an equatorial chevron pattern, according to the view expressed on this thread this is due to current arriving at the Sun’s equatorial regions in the form of ‘tubes’ or ‘cylinders’. The atmosphere of Venus also displays a chevron pattern. Is it possible that stars and planets will exhibit such features when impinging Birkeland Currents are not aligned with their rotational poles?
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby jacmac » Sat May 12, 2018 7:35 am

Research has revealed that sunspots and active regions (ARs) exhibit both magnetic and electrical helicity, there is also an indication that helicity is found globally over the solar surface.

Robert,
I have stopped reading your post right there !
Please give a definition of your meaning of "helicity"
???
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Sun May 13, 2018 2:39 am

Jack,

“The concept of magnetic helicity was introduced to solar physics in the 1980s and has attracted great attentions since then. It is a physical quantity that measures the topological complexity of magnetic field such as the degree of linkage or twistedness in the field and has been considered important in modeling many solar phenomena such as coronal mass ejections. The helicity of magnetic fields may be characterized by several different parameters such as magnetic helicity and current helicity.”

Keep in mind that conventional solar physics attributes the twistedness of solar features such as sunspots, coronal loops etc. to twisted ‘flux-tubes’ emerging from within the Sun. It is thought that this twistedness is a feature of the solar dynamo, differential rotation, turbulent convection etc. As I have pointed out one study of ‘helicity’ has ruled out one version of the solar dynamo model.

See: https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4830

Regards,
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby celeste » Sun May 13, 2018 9:08 am

Robertus Maximus wrote:The Heliospheric Current Sheet?

Observations during solar minimum show that the ‘hemispheric helicity rule’ is a global phenomenon, this is what we would expect if incoming current was arriving at the Sun’s polar regions and higher latitudes; at solar minimum we also find the Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) described as a ‘ballerina skirt’.

At solar maximum the situation is quite different with the heliospheric magnetic field seemingly rotating independently of the Sun. As incoming current now arrives at the Sun’s equatorial regions the ‘hemispheric helicity rule’ breaks down and on odd numbered cycles the non-applicability of the ‘rule’ seems to be the norm.
I consider it to be even more perplexing to solar researchers wedded to the hypothetical dynamo model as the breakdown of the ‘rule’ is complicated by the morphology of the HCS. In 2014, researchers found that the HCS during solar maximum in 2012 took the form of two ‘cylinders’. (7)


May we be looking at the same behavior on a larger scale here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#/m ... _photo.png
Galaxies Sa or Sb have a "ballerina skirt", while you may describe SBc as having a current sheet consisting of two cylindrical cross sections, 180 degrees apart (as in reference 7)? Perhaps we are not looking at different "types" of galaxies, but different phases in a galactic scale version of the solar cycle?
celeste
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun May 13, 2018 2:03 pm

Robertus Maximus wrote:“The concept of magnetic helicity was introduced to solar physics..


It looks a lot like magnetic reconnection stuff.
And it is based upon the false idea that we only see Zeeman effects in the solar spectra.
The paper is referring to such Spectro-polarimeter observations.
The magnetic fields of that order are physically impossible, as these magnetic
fields need very very strong and consistent currents to exist at all.

The sun becomes a lot simpler if we most of these Zeeman effects as Stark effects.
And I think I kind of proved this in the "magnetic reconnection" thread on this forum.
The Safire project already produced electrical fields similar as we see on the sun.
This means that the mainstream magnetic model is just bullshit.
The sun is mostly electric, not magnetic.
Only the polar regions have strong magnetic fields, and at places where
electric currents are strong.

The dark spots have strong Stark effects, and these will have strong electrical fields.
The electrical fields make them dark as they produce free electrons.
And we also can explain the lines on the surface.
Electrical currents are flowing through the plasma from one dark spot to the other.
And solar flares are simply caused by shortcuts in this electrical circuit.
It all becomes so simple and logical.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby celeste » Sun May 13, 2018 6:46 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
It looks a lot like magnetic reconnection stuff.
And it is based upon the false idea that we only see Zeeman effects in the solar spectra.


Perhaps you could start a thread on ALL the effects seen in the spectra? I’ve been puzzled by all this myself. We should see Stark,Zeeman,Doppler,effects etc, and yet, the mainstream doesn’t just put everything on the Zeeman effect, but on the Doppler effect too. What I am getting at specifically, is that the mainstream sees many blue stars as “ oblate spheroids”, even though the sun is amazingly spheroidal. The determination of the shape, comes not from actual observations (most stars are effectively visual point sources at their distance), but from the spectra. Basically, if a star is spheroidal, most of the light comes to us from that central region ( and is not redshirted or blue shifted). Only the material out at the edge, is coming towards or receding from us, and gets a Doppler shift. If the mainstream sees a lot of redshifted and blueshifted light, they think it’s coming from out at the edges of the star, ( due to Doppler shift), and match the oblateness of the star to that. What I suspect ( you are better equipped to judge this idea), is that other stars are also amazingly spheroidal, and the plotting of the shapes comes from not accepting The line splitting due to electric fields, but putting that off on the Doppler shift.
celeste
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby jacmac » Sun May 13, 2018 9:51 pm

Thank you Robert.
jacmac
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby celeste » Mon May 14, 2018 3:15 pm

"With two example sunspots we show that the helicity parameters change sign from the inner umbra to the outer penumbra, where the sign of penumbra agrees with the sign of the active region as a whole. "

That is what has been missing. The boundary conditions. And here at last we have them.

Let me spell this out clearly: from the work of Don Scott,(and others) , we know that Bessel function filaments should have a magnetic field that falls off with 1/sqr root r. We also know from Scott's recent papaer, how the electric field falls off gradually with radius. This may lead you to believe that Birkeland currents fall of gradually with radius. This is not true, and all filaments have a sharp and definite edge.
celeste
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby celeste » Mon May 14, 2018 5:08 pm

All I mean, is what Schaumburg showed for fluid flow in a pipe. That is, simply, that where a fluid meets the pipe, there should be little relative motion. Or, you could say, water may spiral along inside a pipe, but match at thee boundary. This is the same thing we see in sunspots. The background magnetic field has some large scale helictity. A small scale Birkeland current flowing along that background field will have many reversing helicities. But at the boundary, the helicities should match.

Even more simply, a river flowing fast along its center, still has slow current at the shore. This is an intuitively obvious “ matching of boundary conditions”. The sunspot data shows the same. No matter what the helictity at the center of the sunspot, at the edge, it should match the background helictity. This is what the mainstream has found.
celeste
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Tue May 15, 2018 11:33 am

celeste wrote:May we be looking at the same behavior on a larger scale here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#/m ... _photo.png
Galaxies Sa or Sb have a "ballerina skirt", while you may describe SBc as having a current sheet consisting of two cylindrical cross sections, 180 degrees apart (as in reference 7)? Perhaps we are not looking at different "types" of galaxies, but different phases in a galactic scale version of the solar cycle?

I would agree with that statement. Like stars, galaxies are a product of their environment both physical and temporal. Cyclical behaviour may well occur on timescales beyond our ability to observe, Anthony Peratt did model galaxy evolution over periods of tens to hundreds of millions of years- no doubt someone will now post an exception!
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby celeste » Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:16 pm

Robertus Maximus wrote:
celeste wrote:May we be looking at the same behavior on a larger scale here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#/m ... _photo.png
Galaxies Sa or Sb have a "ballerina skirt", while you may describe SBc as having a current sheet consisting of two cylindrical cross sections, 180 degrees apart (as in reference 7)? Perhaps we are not looking at different "types" of galaxies, but different phases in a galactic scale version of the solar cycle?

I would agree with that statement. Like stars, galaxies are a product of their environment both physical and temporal. Cyclical behaviour may well occur on timescales beyond our ability to observe, Anthony Peratt did model galaxy evolution over periods of tens to hundreds of millions of years- no doubt someone will now post an exception!

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubb ... axies.html
Robert, this article would seem to support your ideas of current direction during the solar cycle. First get the correlation, that they see high redshift galaxies as more spiral, less redshifted galaxies as more likely to be barred. Their interpretation is higher redshift means farther away, therefore we are seeing them back in time, therefore they are younger galaxies. The actual observation, without interpretation, is just high redshift means more likely spiral. Next, keep in mind that when we sort galaxies into shapes, we use those primarily oriented face on, rather than edge on. Then realize that plasma itself causes redshift, in proportion to free electron density.

I know this seems a long way around, but the end result is that when we look down on the plane of a spiral galaxy (looking down the galaxy’s rotation axis), we see through more electrons than when we look down on the barred spiral. This fits with your model for the solar cycle, where at solar minimum,we have more current coming from the polar direction, and the Parker spiral shape of the current sheet.
celeste
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:40 am

celeste wrote:https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubb ... axies.html
Robert, this article would seem to support your ideas of current direction during the solar cycle. First get the correlation, that they see high redshift galaxies as more spiral, less redshifted galaxies as more likely to be barred. Their interpretation is higher redshift means farther away, therefore we are seeing them back in time, therefore they are younger galaxies. The actual observation, without interpretation, is just high redshift means more likely spiral. Next, keep in mind that when we sort galaxies into shapes, we use those primarily oriented face on, rather than edge on. Then realize that plasma itself causes redshift, in proportion to free electron density.

I know this seems a long way around, but the end result is that when we look down on the plane of a spiral galaxy (looking down the galaxy’s rotation axis), we see through more electrons than when we look down on the barred spiral. This fits with your model for the solar cycle, where at solar minimum,we have more current coming from the polar direction, and the Parker spiral shape of the current sheet.

Interesting article celeste. I seem to recall that when Anthony Peratt modelled galaxy formation the early form generated by the interacting Birkeland Currents was that of a Barred Spiral that later evolved into a spiral form. Barred Spiral galaxies are therefore ‘young’ galaxies and not “reaching full maturity as the "formative years" end” as the authors contend.

This observation alone throws into question the standard redshift-distance relation.

Like stars, galaxies are products of not only their ‘age’ but their environment, extending your observation- which incidentally, I agree with- to Elliptical Galaxies, then we could equate Elliptical Galaxies to Red Giant stars, both entities are usually surrounded by what astronomers refer to as “hot gas” and both could ‘evolve’ respectively into spiral galaxies (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714101631.htm) or main sequence stars as I suggested here: https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16964

Closer to home, we can use Earth’s electrical environment as an analogy of solar minimum conditions. The plasmasphere would equate to the Heliospheric Plasma Sheet and Slow Solar Wind. The North and South tail lobes we can equate to the Fast Solar Wind. The Van Allen belts would be analogous to the toroidal shape of the corona at solar minimum. Furthermore both the Earth and Sun are highly negatively charged but both are gaining yet more negative charge (see: Dr Michael Clarage, Earth as Electrical Transformer: http://mclarage.blogspot.com/2017/05/earth-as-electrical-transformer.html?view=flipcard)

It could well be that the ‘pattern’ of ‘solar minimum conditions’ is a scalable plasma phenomenon.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:30 pm

The Stellar Cycles of Alpha Centauri AB and Betelgeuse: a Comparison

Alpha Centauri AB

Alpha Centauri is the closest star system to the Sun. The system consists of three different kinds of stars. Alpha Centauri A is a G-class star similar to our Sun, Alpha Centauri B is a K-class star with about 90 percent of the Sun’s mass and finally, Proxima Centauri a M-class dwarf.

Alpha Centauri AB follow an elliptical orbit about a common centre, at periastron they are separated by 11.2AU whilst at apastron they are 35.6AU apart. The orbital period is approximately 80 years. Proxima Centauri orbits the central pair at an estimated distance of 13,000AU with a period of 550,000 years. (1)

X-ray telescopes have observed the central pair for nearly forty years and reveal that both stars exhibit a stellar cycle similar to our Sun’s solar cycle. (2, 3)

Astronomers observe the Alpha Centauri system to gain a better understanding of stellar dynamos, as with our own Sun it is assumed that stellar cyclical activity originate with an enigmatic internal “dynamo”.

The premise of this thread is that such cycles are evidence of external Birkeland Currents which provide all Sun-like stars with their radiant energy including our Sun.

Alpha Centauri A exhibits an approximate 20 year cycle, Alpha Centauri B’s cycle is approximately 8 years. First impressions may reveal no correlation between the two cycles but consider the following image:

AB Centauri Stellar Cycles 3.jpg
Alpha Centauri AB Stellar Cycles

This image is a 2D representation of a 3D cycle over time. The inner waveform is that of Alpha Centauri A representing its stellar cycle minima and maxima over 80 years. The outer waveform is that of Alpha Centauri B, again it represents its stellar cycle minima and maxima as it ‘orbits’ Alpha Centauri A over 80 years.

What may not be immediately obvious in a linear graph now appears in the reworked image of the Alpha Centauri AB system. Are the two stars intercepting different sets of concentric Birkeland Currents? This is a possibility as the orbital dynamics of the system appear to have no influence of the two stellar cycles. Observation only provides us with cyclical activity data it would be interesting to see if Alpha Centauri A and B both exhibit an equivalent Hale magnetic cycle.

The cyclical behaviour of Alpha Centauri AB strongly suggests a stellar cycle much like the Sun’s sunspot cycle and possibly Hale cycle. Conventionally both Alpha Centauri A and B are considered ‘Sun-like’ stars, is a ‘Sun-like’ activity cycle important or necessary for stars to appear ‘Sun-like’? As mentioned previously it is the premise of this thread that external Birkeland Currents provide stars with their radiant energy, a cycle occurs due to the constantly changing relation between the impinging Birkeland Currents and the star’s rotational axis.

What if this relationship did not hold for all stars, would the appearance of the star change?

Betelgeuse

Betelgeuse is a red supergiant star. “The star is massive, currently 18 solar masses, large (950 solar radii), 105 times the luminosity of the Sun, and cool, 3650K. It is classified as a semi-regular pulsating star of spectral type M2Iab”. (4)

“The star possesses a massive wind amounting to 10−5 solar masses per year. This rate exceeds the solar wind by a factor of 109 (!) at least, and it is not known definitively what drives the wind. Dust is formed at a great distance (30R) and has no effect on the atmospheric extension or acceleration of the warm chromosphere. Most recently, a weak longitudinal magnetic field of 1G has been detected…” (5)

Observations of Betelgeuse have revealed a number of persistent ‘hot-spots’, “Most dramatically, one unresolved bright spot appeared on the disk. It occupied 10% of the area and produced 20% of the ultraviolet flux from the star. The spot is hot and at least 200K or more, warmer than the surrounding material at 5000K…” Further observations revealed that they “…appear to be localized around the rotational pole of the star.” (6)

The ‘hot-spot’ which has been known to fragment into a number ‘hot-spots’ (apart from a photometric variability period of 400−420 days Betelgeuse shows no solar-type cycle as such) is found at the polar regions of Betelgeuse, the spot is also associated with a number of other phenomena.

Betelgeuse is surrounded by a complex circumstellar envelope and bow shock, one study noted “…the coincidence of the position angle of the rotation axis of Betelgeuse with the symmetry axis of its large bow shock and with its velocity vector with respect to the ISM …is likely a chance alignment.”(7)

Another study speculated on another feature closely associated with the circumstellar envelope, namely the linear bar, the alignment of which was also considered coincidental: “We thus should consider the possibility that the linear bar is not related to Betelgeuse, but is an interstellar structure, which is by accident co-spaced with Betelgeuse…” and “…The bar might also be a linear filament in the interstellar cirrus, as also seen in the Galactic centre, whose possible origin is linked to the Galactic magnetic field”. (8)

It is proposed here that the ‘chance alignment’ is not due to chance, rather the bow shocks over the poles of Betelgeuse are double layers. Unlike the Sun, Alpha Centauri AB and quite possibly other ‘Sun-like’ stars, current arrives preferentially at the poles of Betelgeuse and remains focussed there; this picture of Betelgeuse is reminiscent of Don Scott’s picture of the Electric Sun.

electric sun minimum.gif
Electric Sun after Don Scott

According to the electric star hypothesis Betelgeuse may well be an ‘ordinary’ star surrounded by an extended anode glow. The ‘hot-spots’ “…are areas where electric charge is flowing with the greatest amperage.” (9)
Undoubtedly, Betelgeuse’s interstellar environment is different than that of the Sun but is Betelgeuse’s appearance solely a result of its environment? Perhaps the appearance of such stars is not only determined by their environment but also by how current arrives at their surfaces.

References:

1. http://www.daviddarling.info/images2/Alpha_Centauri_B_orbit.jpg
2. https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2018/06/07/scouting-alpha-centauri-at-x-ray-wavelengths/
3. Ayres. T. R. 2018: Alpha Centauri Beyond the Crossroads. The American Astronomical Society Vol. 2, No. 1. 2018 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/aaa88f
4. Dupree. A. K. 2011: Spots on Betelgeuse, what are they? Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 273, 2010 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2011IAUS..273..188D
5. Ibid. (4)
6. Dupree. A. K, Stephanik. R. P. 2013: Direct Ultraviolet Imaging and Spectroscopy of Betelgeuse. European Astronomical Society Publication Series, 2013 https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2780
7. Kervella. P, et al. 2018: The close circumstellar environment of Betelgeuse V. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 609, A67. 2018 https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/01/aa31761-17/aa31761-17.html
8. Decin. L, et al. 2012 : The enigmatic nature of the circumstellar envelope and bow shock surrounding Betelgeuse as revealed by Herschel. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 548, A113. 2012 https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2012/12/aa19792-12/aa19792-12.html
9. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2018/05/17/anode-glow-2/
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Previous

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests