Mathematical Criticism of the Electrical Sun

[earls]

Okay, this has already been written once in several mails, now it is collected in one concise message. Is the sun a ball of hot gas with fusion in the centre or is it a discharge according to Juergens? Well, let’s see what mainstream physics has to say about it.

Total Energy produced by the Sun in 1 second:

From the general mainstream model the fusion in the core of the sun produces 4.3 million tonnes (4.3 109 kg) equivalent of energy per second so with the well known equation E = MC2 (Thanks Albert !, E is energy, M is the totall mass and C is the velocity of light 3 108 m/s) we can find the total power P:

P = 4.3 109 x (3 108)2 / 1 second = 3.9 1026 Joules/s

With an arbitrary voltage of a billion volts from the Sun and exterior space, according to Juergens in a “double layer” above the suns surface and P = UI (where U is the total potential drop in Volts and I is the total current in Amperes), we can calculate a current

I = P / U = 3.9 1026 / 109 = 3.9 1017 A.

So, now we come to the circuit around the sun, inflowing current in the equatorial plane and outflowing current along the poles of the sun, this all in accordance with Alfvén’s circuit model (see Cosmic Plasma, page 55, Figure III.7).

Learning from the Earth where the current sheet thickness is on the order of the Earth’s radius, therefore we will assume that the current flowing to the sun has a thickness on the order of the suns radius.

Now we look at what may be observed near Earth if indeed this current flows in the circuit, driving the energy output of the sun as in Juergens’ model.

For a plane current sheet we can estimate the magnetic field by using Maxwell's equations. One equation, Ampere's Law, says that the variation of the magnetic field produced by a current is given by:

curl B = mu0 (J + epsilon0 dE/dt),

here curl is an operator that basically takes the derivative of the magnetic field in all three cartesian coordinates. In the case when we have a sheet of current, we can simplify this equation. We assume time stationarity (the sun shines at basically the same rate without major variations so that is no real problem) which means that any time derivative, like dE/dt will be 0. Assuming an infinite sheet in the x and y direction there is only variation in z and the equation simplifies to:

dB/dz = mu0 J,

and here we can make an estimate of the variation of the magnetic field from one side of the current sheet to the other by changing this differential into a difference dB/dz -> delta B / delta z. The delta B we do not know but the delta z is the thickness of the current sheet, so we find:

Delta B / L = mu0 J,

where we know L, the radius of the sun (7 108 m), and we can calculate J from the total current I (above) and saying that it flows through a “ribbon” of L wide and a circumference of 2 pi REarth-sun (1 AU = 1.5 1011 m),

J = 3.9 1017 / (2 pi 1.5 1011 7 108 = 6 10-4 Amp/m2

and thus with mu0 = 4 pi 10-7 we find for the magnetic field near the Earth produced by that current system:

delta B = mu0 J L = 0.5 Tesla

Now, what magnetic field strengt his measured near the Earth? We measure field in the nano-Tesla range (see e.g. data from the Cluster spacecraft in the solar wind (the middle part in the linked plot), so that means that this model is roughly 1 billion (American) 109 times too strong, give or take a factor of 3!

And then other observations, e.g. by the Ulysses spacecraft over the poles of the sun (here is a plot of the magnetic field strength measured by the mission from start to date), have not shown any signature AFAIK of strong toroidal magnetic fields associated with the outflowing currents.

I guess that basically puts the lid on Juergens’ model.

Some may already be familiar with this post. I share it, because other skeptics in addition to this one did not receive an valid refutation of his calculations and a thread was locked. I personally believe "solid" criticisms dealing with calculations deserve at least that.

I know in my heart that this is at best a very weak assault, because too many assumptions are made... Especially those gathered from "mainstream scientific data" which we here are all aware already had a bias...

To address his discrepancies however, I think each variable of the equation(s) should be modified to (at least) achieve the consistency with the required data, then work backwards as to discover exactly where we should look for evidence (data).

[davesmith_au]

Giday Earls, might pay to post a link to where said criticism came from, or at least who gave it. From what I've read so far, it totally misrepresents the model as put by Don Scott and Wal Thornhill more recently anyhow. Both men have moved forward with Juergens’ model, this author is still stuck in a rut. There's also the treatment of it as an electrostatic model, when in fact it's electrodynamic. This is obviously not a plasma physicist writing the "critique", but then, what else is new in the pseudoskeptic debunkers club?

Cheers, Dave.

[earls]

Hi Dave, thanks for the reply.

You won't be surprised by the source: http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainst ... c-sun.html

Until it is literally spelled out for them, I doubt "they" will open their minds and look deeper into the EU model and what it represents.

"electrostatic model, when in fact it's electrodynamic"

An excellent point I overlooked... This seems to be a very, very common error.

[nick c]

hi earls,
I am not a mathematician or scientist, but is this not essentially the arguments presented by Tim Thompson, that is the simple "pith ball" model? or as Dave S stated above, a static as opposed to dynamic model.

Wal Thornhill has already referred Thompson to low-pressure gas discharge physics as being the appropriate model to use, not simple electrostatics. As a pseudoskeptic, Thompson refuses to address his remarks to this model because it refutes his beliefs and he can’t find any authority to quote that has ever considered the possibility. In the gas discharge model, interplanetary space is an extensive plasma region termed the ‘positive column,’ which is characterized by almost equal numbers of positive charges (ions) and electrons. The plasma is electrically ‘quasi-neutral,’ like a current-carrying copper wire. And like a copper wire, it is a region with a weak electric field that causes a steady drift of electrons toward the more positive ‘sink.’
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm
highlights added

Also note, that the BAUT mathematical criticism lacks mention of the terms plasma and heliosphere. Certainly, these terms are an essential part of the ES hypothesis. From that supposed mathematical refutation, the behaviors of currents in plasmas, the fact that the ES theory requires the consideration of the vastness of the surface area of the heliosphere as a source of galactic electrons, and the effect of an electron drift, are not taken into consideration.

The author of the refutation attempt is dismissing the original Juergens model. This is essentially a strawman as that model was revised long ago, to accomodate the effect of the heliosphere, which extends to more than 90 AU.

I guess that basically puts the lid on Juergens’ model.

Essentially, he is refuting something that is not the ES theory as it presently stands. I have to question the sincerity of this author and others at BAUT as we know they are intelligent and certainly must be aware that they are beating up on a strawman. I guess that is why they are known as "pseudoskeptics" around here.
The ES hypothesis has not been mathematically modeled as of yet. Plasmas dynamics are notoriously complicated. I am sure that the future will bring some more math modeling into the picture. But again, mainstream has confused the purpose of math...they would rather have an incorrect but elegant math model rather than a qualitative description, presently with little math modeling, that appears to explain observations.

nick c

[MGmirkin]

Reminds me of comments by Thompson, Bridgman, Ellenberger, Schroeder, and a few other folks...

Often from the position that an electrostatic argument can "prove" that electrodynamics can't happen, which is patently absurd. Oversimplified treatment often simply miss the mark or don't deal with the subject as the subject deals with itself. IE, by not dealing with electrodynamics, the author misses the point entirely. The EU and ES are generally not electroSTATIC models, where charges simply flow together and neutralize one another. They utilize electroDYNAMICS (including currents and circuits).

There is a private discussion going on with some skeptics of the EU model. Might eventually lead to a FAQ page dealing with questions and answers. Slow going, but hopefully worthwhile as reasonable question lead to reasonable responses if not definitive answers. I won't divulge any names or specific topics. We'll just say they've ranged a bit. While I don't think I've been specifically forbidden from discussing the conversations, it would probably be indiscreet. So, for now I'll leave it at that. We'll see where the conversations lead. Now that I'm back up and running with the internet, I might be back a bit more often. Granted various projects are vying for my time. ;o]

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[Steve Smith]

Earls,

I have Don Scott's reply. I can't post it here because the embedded equations don't translate to this forum. I'll email it to those who want it, or who want to post it on Bad Astronomy.

[Steve Smith]

It took some re-translation of the format in Word but it works now...


A casual reading of this mathematical attempt to falsify the Electric Sun hypothesis reveals several misstatements, and unsupported assumptions.

1. Juergens hypothesized a solar voltage = 1010 V, not 109. The exact value is of course conjectural. But if you are going to claim you are refuting Juergens, you ought to at least quote him correctly.

2. Therefore, the writer’s stated required current value is wrong (too high) by a factor of ten (if he is claiming to refute Juergens). Juergens’ total current value is 4 x 1016 A. But these exponential magnitudes are just guesses at present.

3. His (the writer’s) assumption that the required current has to be in the form of an equatorial sheet having a thickness equal to the Sun's diameter is pure conjecture and not related to anything Juergens ever suggested. Juergens never claimed the solar electric current was confined to an equatorial sheet.

4. Imposing structural details of Alfvén’s model onto Juergen’s model is unwarranted. But even Alfvén suggested his proposed current sheet was only partially equatorial. Alfvén, of course, never suggested the Sun is fully externally powered. So mixing the two models is completely inappropriate.

Alfvén’s contention was that there is substantial electrical activity near to the Sun that explains several otherwise enigmatic (for gravity-only fusion hypotheses) observed properties. He also postulated that the equatorial current sheet balloons out as it approaches the Sun – becoming unlike a sheet formation and becoming field-aligned:

It seems to be a general rule of cosmic physics that field-aligned currents frequently manifest themselves as luminous filaments. If the current in [the ballooned out flow] is spread over an extended region, we should expect filaments. Equatorial streamers in the solar corona may be explained in this way.1

As a starting point we all agree that the Sun does in fact have a magnetic field. The writer of the (mathematical) proof correctly points out that Maxwell’s equations are dominant in such situations. He cites:

∇ x H = j + ∂D/∂t

where B = µH, j = current density, and D = ε E which demonstrates the requirement of considering electric currents whenever we have magnetic fields. In his book Cosmic Plasma2 Alfvén points out that in order to produce the well-known spiral shaped solar magnetic field, a spiral current is required. Given the value of the observed field strength (~ 2 x 10 -9 T) at a radial distance from the Sun of one astronomical unit (Earth’s orbital radius), he calculates the magnitude of the causative total current as being I0 = 3 x 109 Amp.

The writer of the "proof" states that:

The Ulysses spacecraft over the poles of the sun have not shown any signature AFAIK of strong toroidal magnetic fields associated with the out flowing currents.

He should be aware that the maximum solar latitude attained by the Ulysses probe was 80.2 degrees. So to imply Ulysses sought out the electric current (or magnetic field strength) directly over the Sun’s poles is inaccurate. Also such currents may be field-aligned and not produce toroidal magnetic structures. Alfvén stated that the exact location of current paths and structure was yet to be determined.

The model predicts that there should be currents near the [Sun’s] axis strong enough to match the current in the equatorial plane. … They may be distributed over a large region and may in part flow at medium altitudes.3

He (Alfvén) goes on to state that the presence of the electric current (in the polar regions) would produce a force on the solar atmosphere via the Lorentz relation:

Df = I ds x B

that would tend to decelerate the rotation of the Sun in those high latitudes and thus be an explanation of the observed fact that this is indeed the case.

Conclusions:

1. Observed magnetic fields around (and due to) the Sun require the presence of electric currents.

2. The exact locations and paths taken by those currents are not yet clear – but they must exist if the magnetic fields exist (unless we want to deny the validity of Maxwell’s equations).

3. We know now that the aurora displays (plasma glow discharges) that we see both here on Earth and on various other planets are due to electric currents coming from the Sun moving down into the "cusps" (indentations) of the magnetospheres (plasmaspheres) of those bodies. It would not be surprising if the Sun also received electric current from the galaxy via a similar morphology to produce its plasma arc discharges.

4. It has taken establishment astrophysics over a century (after Birkeland first described this mechanism) to recognize its existence. It is premature to deny the possibility of a similar mechanism on the Sun.

5. Juergens’ model implies that the outer surface of the heliosphere is the collector of the necessary current stream from the nearby region of our galaxy. Inside the heliopause (within the "solar wind" plasma) the movement of electrons would consist of a "drift current" moving inward toward the Sun superimposed on a vastly stronger "Brownian (random) motion" and therefore be difficult to measure. For a summary of Juergens’ computation see Appendix C of The Electric Sky.

6. The Electric Sun model is still in its infancy. Whether or not it is correct in each one of its details is not as important as realizing that the phenomena observable at and above the photosphere are indeed highly electrical in nature.

7. Those who demand that ES proponents state exactly how, where, and by what paths electrons get to the Sun seem not to be even more outraged by the claim that invisible "missing matter" exists and is responsible for dozens of otherwise inexplicable observations. Am I the only one to see the irony in that?

1 Alfvén, H. Cosmic Plasma, D. Reidel, 1981, p. 56.

2 Op cit.pp. 53-55.

3 Op cit. p. 56.

[earls]

Wow, thank you very much Don and Steve. Very concise and informational.

This reply most definitely should be posted on BAUT after the topic is immediately reopened... Though I seriously doubt any of the skeptics will wish to concede any of the points made.

I think a Don made a very important point that YES, currently, the data is NOT available to say "this is absolutely, positively the way it is," but there is absolutely undeniable phenomenon taking place that would lead any rational thinking person to the same conclusion once they can evolve from the dogma that has been drilled into their skulls. Most unfortunate.

Thanks again for the reinforcement and clarification.

[mnemeth1]

Links to Jurgen's work, a video on the model, Scott's model, and Alfven's work:

http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyq ... -sun-model

Nice Steve.

[Steve Smith]

Make sure you note that it is Don Scott's reply that I posted and not mine.

[Solar]

Very much appreciate the work there Don & Steve.

I find the entirety of the debate sort of odd to say the least. Mnemeth1 was looking for more published papers in support of the electric model. Within 30 minutes of searching via Goggle I was able to come up with eight such published papers by people in the mainstream (see last post).

The electrical aspects of solar activity has long been in the scientific literature. As a result there isn't a single post in BAUT's supposed refutation of the Electric Sun model that isn't a contradiction of that literature. The oddest part is that many of those who claim to refute the Electric Sun model have long had access to even more EU complementary literature via journal subscriptions. Much more than individuals simply Goggling for it.

So I don't really understand, or care to, the nature of such ... psychology, because the information is readily available from sources analogous to 'their own mouths'.

[mnemeth1]

Make sure you note that it is Don Scott's reply that I posted and not mine.

done

thanks, didn't catch that.

[james weninger]

As far as the Ulysses spacecraft not measuring toroidal magnetic fields:
Look at the double helix nebula. Here is a spiral structure on the scale of multiple light years,with a spiralling period of 10,000 years. From earth, we can clearly see the spiralling motion. Now imagine you are living near one of the stars in that nebula. You send your spacecraft over that star,looking in vain for any toroidal motion or fields. You don't see it. You are in the middle of a giant helical spiral, and yet your spacecraft measures nothing. The spacecraft does not measure toroidal fields, because it is caught up in that field. Again I am suggesting toroidal motion for our sun as well. With a spiraling period equal to earth's precessional cycle. Not measurable from Ulysses or any craft tavelling WITH the sun.

[lcwdixon]

Replying to Steve Smiths message of Mon Feb 2 at 7.02. I would be grateful for a copy of Don Scotts reply with the equations.

Laurence Dixon

[Steve Smith]

See above. It is there.