Is charge carriers movement per se an electric current?

[antosarai]

I'm no physicist, but as I understand it mere charge carriers movement alone is not an electric current. To have an electrical current first and foremost you must have tension, potential difference, voltage. Charge carriers movement is not cause but consequence of an electric current. If, say, a CME is shot from the Sun, the movement of all its charges is not an electrical current, such movement being induced by mechanic, not eletric forces. To have an electric current charge carriers must be moving orderly in a complete circuit, such movement induced by an electric field originating from two poles with different electric potential, where charge recombination will occur once a current is started.

Of course, I can be wrong. So, pointed contradictions will be well received.

[crawler]

The present classic explanation is i think that there are many kinds of electricity....
1. Electrons drifting along inside a wire (conductor) due to a voltage difference.
2. Electrons flying throo space (negative plasma).
3. Protons flying throo space (positive plasma).
4. Negative ions flying throo space or throo air or water etc.
5. Positive ions flying throo space or throo air or water etc.

A. I think that all of these can be due to a voltage difference (ie due to an electric field)(ie due to charge).
B. I think that all of these can be due to (instead of an electric field of charge) a magnetic field.

But i dont really understand much of the above. More than that, i don believe much of the above.
Ivor Catt & Forrest Bishop tell us that there is no such thing as charge or voltage.
And then i can introduce my own theories on top of Catt & Bishop -- & my theories are correct.

[antosarai]

I think of Ohm's Law: V=IR.
No V, no I.

[jacmac]

nick c:

A CME is an electric current, or part of an electric current coming from the Sun.

Yes.
C E R Bruce recognized the force to create a CME is the electromagnetic force.
https://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/astro.htm

The "surface" of the sun affords an example of the relatively stable processes of continuous neutralization. It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it is an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.

Mr. Bruce was a leading expert in lightning in England in the mid 1900's,
and became a pioneer in recognizing the electric nature of the sun.

[mcfc16]

No, the movement of charged particles in this case does not constitute a current. It would be the case if there was only one charge involved. Or if there was an excess of one charge over the other. It would also be the case if the positive and negative particles were separated.
When it comes to the solar wind, CMEs, etc, we are dealing with a flow of charged particles where the sum of the + charges is cancelled out by the sum of the - charges. It is therefore overall charge neutral. As must be the case*. Any charge imbalance in the plasma is limited to ~ the Debye length. At 1 AU, in the solar wind, that is ~ 10m.

* See Alvfen, 1939, 'A Theory of Magnetic Storms and of the Aurorae'

The correlation of the magnetic storms and aurorae with the solar activity indicates that they are due to some agent emitted from the sun. As this agent causes magnetic and electric disturbances on the earth, it probably consists of charged particles. But, as Schuster has shown, the emission of a sufficient amount of particles, all having the same sign, is impossible because it would give rise to an enormous space charge. This difficulty is avoided if the emitted agent is assumed to consist of the equal amount of positive and negative particles.
Consequently the general nature of the current system during the main phase of a magnetic storm must be somewhat as follows. The stream approaching the earth contains positive and negative charge in equal amounts so that the electric current is zero.
Through the action of the magnetic field of the earth the paths of the positives and of the negatives become differentiated, but until the particles reach the forbidden region, the space charge is always zero because the positives and negatives neutralize each other.

Obviously, Alfven and Schuster had no in-situ measurements to support their 'assumption', but it is very basic plasma physics that says it must be so. Of course, modern in-situ measurements support their 'assumption' of quasi-neutrality.

Of course, there is one other argument as to why the solar wind must be overall charge neutral, that is not mentioned by Alfven - as well as a build up of a massive space charge, the Sun would charge up to the opposite sign! And promptly explode due to Coulomb repulsion.

[mcfc16]

nick c:

A CME is an electric current, or part of an electric current coming from the Sun.

Yes.
C E R Bruce recognized the force to create a CME is the electromagnetic force.
https://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/astro.htm

The "surface" of the sun affords an example of the relatively stable processes of continuous neutralization. It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it is an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.

Mr. Bruce was a leading expert in lightning in England in the mid 1900's,
and became a pioneer in recognizing the electric nature of the sun.

No, afraid not. A CME is not part of an electric current coming from the Sun. The emission mechanism is magnetic reconnection, which we observe to occur on the Sun. And the spectrum of the photosphere is most certainly not that of an electric arc! Having read some of the linked content to this guy Bruce, it is safe to say that plasma physics was not his strong point! For instance, he says;

Several other lines of evidence seem to support, if not confirm, the proposed theory. In the first place, it has been shown by Waldmeier and others that highly charged atomic nuclei have actually been observed travelling out through the solar corona at high velocities. These must in the course of time lead to the formation around the sun of a fairly extensive positively charged atmosphere.

The solar atmosphere, just like the solar wind, must remain quasi-neutral. Any attempt by opposite charges to separate, would result in the formation of an ambipolar electric field, which will bring the plasma back into quasi-neutrality. This process is important in explaining the quasi-neutral nature of the solar wind itself. All things being equal, electrons, being ~ 1800 times less massive than protons, should all easily reach escape velocity due to thermal acceleration. The ions, for the most part, being far more affected by gravity, should not.
So, naively, we would expect a solar wind composed almost totally of electrons! Of course, Alfven tells us why that is impossible. As the electrons try to part company from the ions, the resulting electric field will retard them, and accelerate the ions, ensuring that equal numbers of both leave and remain. It is known as the 'exospheric model'. Early results from the Parker Solar Probe seem to support it.

[jackokie]

@mcfc16 Could you point us to lab experiments that confirm magnetic reconnection actually exists?

Thank you.

[mcfc16]

@mcfc16 Could you point us to lab experiments that confirm magnetic reconnection actually exists?

Thank you.

They've been doing them at Princeton since 1995. Just Google 'Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory'.

Furthermore, it has been detected in-situ multiple times in the magnetosphere by a few missions. Themis, Cluster, and, most recently, MMS, come to mind.

In addition, we can actually observe it occurring on the Sun. There are some YT videos out there that show it.

[Cargo]

ions ... affected by gravity

Not that I want to pinch a loaf of bread to explain space expansion and the time continuum, but this is quite the rabbit hole assumption that comes from gravity-rules education.
Oops
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/how ... hs-gravity

large flows of heavy oxygen (O+) ions streaming away from Earth, seemingly in defiance of gravity

The wonders of the universe will never cease if all we use is gravity. Arguable something that is both undefined and misdefined since it's theory was invented.

[Cargo]

Look at the Gravity pulling the ions down, so obvious
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4eiYIyGiJM

[antosarai]

As I see it, a bad example. The very high V forces charge separation, ionizes the air reducing r, and current i flows. Charge carriers are eletrons going back and forth (AC current). No ions involved. No gravitational forces considered.

[mcfc16]

ions ... affected by gravity

Not that I want to pinch a loaf of bread to explain space expansion and the time continuum, but this is quite the rabbit hole assumption that comes from gravity-rules education.
Oops
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/how ... hs-gravity

large flows of heavy oxygen (O+) ions streaming away from Earth, seemingly in defiance of gravity

The wonders of the universe will never cease if all we use is gravity. Arguable something that is both undefined and misdefined since it's theory was invented.

So, plasma physicists are all wrong, and observation is all wrong. Fine. Can you point me to the plasma physicist who does explain the quasi-neutrality of the solar wind, given that electrons are demonstrably ~ 1800 times less massive than ions, and are therefore affected far less by gravity than ions? Preferably in the peer-reviewed literature. Unless you think massive particles are not affected by gravity? Which would seem to be controverted by evidence! And that more massive particles are not affected more than less massive ones?
How does it work in your world?

[mcfc16]

As I see it, a bad example. The very high V forces charge separation, ionizes the air reducing r, and current i flows. Charge carriers are eletrons going back and forth (AC current). No ions involved. No gravitational forces considered.

Of course there are ions involved. The solar wind, and CMEs are ~ equal numbers of ions and electrons. There is no significant charge separation. I explained that. The plasma itself reacts to bring itself back into balance, by the setting up of an ambipolar field. And if no gravitational forces are involved, you'd better explain that to the plasma physicists who used gravity to come up with this model! Who is questioning it, and where is their work written up? You are basically saying that plasma physicists don't understand plasma physics. Including Alfven. So, who does?

[antosarai]

The bad example I mentioned is

Look at the Gravity pulling the ions down, so obvious
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4eiYIyGiJM

[mcfc16]

The bad example I mentioned is

Look at the Gravity pulling the ions down, so obvious
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4eiYIyGiJM

Sorry, yes, I wasn't going to say anything, but that has zero relevance to what happens on the Sun!