Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[R.A.F.]

I haven't even made any changes to the verbiage of the pages of my solar website other than the blog page in quite awhile. I'm quite happy with it now. In fact I just paid to renew my website hosting on thesurfaceofthesun.com a few months ago. I'm not embarrassed in the least.

That's the point...you should be.

Apparently, your "learning curve" is best represented by a flat line.


What a maroon...

 

[D'rok]

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510588

I think you did everything in your power to NOT apply the pinch discharge concept and maths to solar flares, even though the authors mentioned that is EXACTLY what Alfven did. I suppose it's also just a "pure coincidence" that solar flares just so happen to produce these same types of polarized gamma ray bursts that are indicative of discharge pinch processes in plasma? It's also just a pure coincidence that electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere produce gamma rays too I suppose?

I simply read the paper and answered the question you asked based on what I read. Unfortunately, the paper doesn't give the answer you want it to give.

Will you now discontinue citing this paper as support for your wackadoodle ideas about the sun?

Didn't think so.

 

[DeathDart]

Clatu: Humans it is not your planet.

 

[DeathDart]

Distinct EM wave trapped inside Larmor Radius waveguide sheath.

Slow wave speeds up going from high density, high impedance space, to
low density, low impedance space.

Some particles are locked in when the wave is traveling slowly and can
maintain acceleration as the wave speeds up.

Sol's surface has magnetic regions that act like dynamic traveling wave
charged particle accelerators. You don't need to have fantastically high
voltages to accelerate particles. Any way it is hard to keep such a high
voltage concentration from being shorted out by the highly conductive
plasma environment.

Source: http://www.atoe.com/SolarCorona.html

 

[DeathDart]

The Magnetic Line of force is curved, it was easier to show it as a straight line.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You said "quantitative evidence." What quantitative evidence was there in that paper that supported your assertion?

Well, for starters there is quantitative evidence presented in that paper to demonstrate that the plasma pinches that Alfven personally associated with solar flares and coronal loops, at the current levels suggested by Alfven, would in fact produce polarized gamma rays, and oh ya, we see gamma rays in solar flares. How about noting that point Das? The second paper even demonstrates that not only does the sun produce gamma rays as Alfven's plasma pinches would "predict", they are also "polarized" to some degree as Alfven's theory would also "predict". Come on! All this political foot dragging is simply amazing to me.

Ok, granted, the POLARIZATION aspect isn't linked until you get to the second paper, but the original paper demonstrates that coronal loop activity, as described by Alfven, at the amps Alfven used, would in fact produce gamma rays. That is in fact "quantitative evidence" of a "cause/effect" relationship to GAMMA RAY EMISSION that are see in solar flares.

I'm not going any further into your response until I hear you cop to at least the quantitative gamma ray "cause/effect" production "evidence" presented in the first paper.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Alright, I'll bite.

How *EXACTLY* does the SERTS data 'contradicts' my theories in your opinion? Honestly Das, that just doesn't compute from my perspective and I don't recall you ever demonstrating any such thing. Could you round me up a link to the conversation in question so I understand what you're talking about?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Electrical discharges like lightning on Earth and the sparks in a toy plasma ball require the breakdown of a dielectric medium.

So what? That is just ONE TYPE of an "electrical discharge", specifically an electrical "discharge" through a "gas". So what?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

That doesn't prevent a PLASMA (or a liquid or a solid) from experiencing an "electrical discharge"! One very specific TYPE of an electrical "discharge" (in a gas or liquid or solid or plasma) doesn't negate another in another state, plasma, gas, liquid or solid! Your argument is a non-sequitur fallacy!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/non+sequitur

Only a complete crackpot, living in pure denial would attempt to hide behind a non-sequitur fallacy.

 

[dasmiller]

Well, for starters there is quantitative evidence presented in that paper to demonstrate that the plasma pinches that Alfven personally associated with solar flares and coronal loops, at the current levels suggested by Alfven, would in fact produce polarized gamma rays, and oh ya, we see gamma rays in solar flares. How about noting that point Das?

I'll note that you made an inference chain including facts that were not presented in the paper. That's not even remotely like quantitative evidence.

For solar flares, was there a comparison between an analytically predicted value and an observationally derived value? Yes or no? If no, then there's no quantitative evidence presented to support the plasma pinches in solar flares.

I'm not going any further into your response until I hear you cop to at least the quantitative gamma ray "cause/effect" production "evidence" presented in the first paper.

I'm going to have to turn that around on you. I've quoted the parts of the paper that I felt were relevant. I've stated that I did not find a single example of a number produced by an analytical model of a solar flare that was then shown to be similar to a number derived from observational data about that flare.

If there really is such a thing in the paper, then for heaven's sake, quote it! Prove me wrong.

 

[dasmiller]

Alright, I'll bite.

How *EXACTLY* does the SERTS data 'contradicts' my theories in your opinion? Honestly Das, that just doesn't compute from my perspective and I don't recall you ever demonstrating any such thing. Could you round me up a link to the conversation in question so I understand what you're talking about?

<sigh> okay . . .

Having skimmed the article
a) Since the material in question was ejected by a flare, it's not obvious to me (and maybe it's obvious to others) that the ionization levels would be similar to those in the photosphere
b) Even if we assume that they are, Ne VII may be the most common, but Ne II and III are still well-represented
c) Do we have reason to believe that Ne VII does not contribute to continuum absorption?
d) There was about 6x as much oxygen as neon, making the 'neon layer' more of an 'oxygen layer.'
e) The article refers to everything but H and He as 'trace elements,' suggesting that that the layer-formerly-known-as-neon-but-possibly-better-named-as-oxygen is primarily H and He.

Does this mean that you believe the relative abundances of the various Ne ionizations in the paper do not reflect the relative abundances in the photosphere? If so, why reference the paper?
<snip>
So . . . you're referencing an article titled "Photospheric abundances of Oxygen, Neon, and Argon . . ." with the caveat that we should ignore the part about photospheric abundances of oxygen, neon, and argon?

The paper is about relative abundances of oxygen, neon, etc. It says that the O:Ne ratio is ~6; how do we assume that the ratio is less than 0.1 without ignoring the paper's conclusions?

Seriously - You quoted ionization data from paper on element abundances to support your model of the photosphere, but you don't believe the paper's conclusion on abundances and don't think the ionization data applies to the photosphere? (FWIW, I didn't notice anything in the paper that implied that the ionization data should apply to the photosphere)

It's not that I don't like it, it's that I'm baffled by the fact that you cited the paper at all. As far as I can tell, you (MM), Ben, the authors, and I agree that the ionizations that you quoted from that paper don't apply to the photosphere. By your standards, it's an irrelevant piece of data from a fundamentally flawed paper, and you're using it to support your model?

But the SERTS data showed neon in the whole range of ionization states, not just the ones that you wanted. Using the SERTS data to show that solar Ne is all in high ionization states is like using using the Hindenberg to show that dirigibles are safe.

By the time we got down to +2, the emissions were about 2 orders of magnitude lower. That's still billions of times more Ne+2 than your transparent Ne layer allows.

<snip>

"My" theory isn't that detailed; I'm not a solar physicist. Ne should be present (at relatively low concentrations) throughout the sun, so I'd expect to see Ne lines from the photosphere. I don't know enough about how the ionization states relate to temperature to have an opinion about whether we'd see much Ne+3 from the photosphere vs. the corona. You'd have to ask one of the others.

First, I don't think the conversations demonstrated that highly ionized neon would work. They simply proved that if there was any significant amount of neon at lower ionization states, it wouldn't work.

Second, the SERTS data also confirmed that a lot of the neon was NOT in high ionization states.

Finally, the SERTS data showed a broad mix of elements in the corona, which is not consistent with your near-homogeneous element layers.

The SERTS data does not provide supporting evidence for your model. If you keep citing it, I will be forced to come up with more bad analogies (e.g. that Hindenberg line).

<shrug> still leaves too much Ne at lower ionization states. By several orders of magnitude.

and in summary:

FWIW, about 2400 posts back, MM posted a link to a SERTS paper from 1990: Photospheric abundances of Oxygen, Neon, and Argon derived from the XUV spectrum of a coronal flare (post 1529)

I don't feel that it validates MM's model (and I think I've been pretty clear about that over the last few weeks), but he did post a link.

 

[iantresman]

Electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere, lightning, cannot occur in the atmosphere of the Sun because lightning requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium, an insulator, and the Sun's atmosphere is plasma, a conductor.

I believe that this is an over-generalization, and while plasmas are generally highly conducting, and high conductivity is generally assumed, this is not always the case. Alfvén calls such plasmas "pseudo-plasmas". He writes:

As a result of new factual knowledge, the "first approach" has been proven to describe only the properties of the "pseudo-plasma," a fictitious medium, which has rather little to do with real plasma. Hence we must now take a "second approach" (Alfvén, 1968). The basic difference between the first and second approaches is to some extent illustrated by the terms ionized gas and plasma which, although in reality synonymous, convey different general notions" (Ref: Sec.15.3.2)​

While the Sun's interior (a high density homogeneous plasma) could be considered to be a highly conductive medium with infinite conductivity, it would not apply to most other space plasmas such as the Sun's atmosphere, and interplanetary and interstellar space.

This is not to suggest support for any other part of this thread.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Pinches, flares, gamma ray bursts and evidence

You said "quantitative evidence." What quantitative evidence was there in that paper that supported your assertion?

Well, for starters there is quantitative evidence presented in that paper to demonstrate that the plasma pinches that Alfven personally associated with solar flares and coronal loops, at the current levels suggested by Alfven, would in fact produce polarized gamma rays, and oh ya, we see gamma rays in solar flares. ...

I disagree. Neither this, nor anything else you have presented regarding Wu, Chen & Li (2005) in any way constitutes either quantitative or qualitative evidence for plasma pinch phenomena associated with solar flares. I see only one reference to solar flares in that paper, and this is it (from page 3 of the arXiv PDF preprint):

Another kind of high-energy transients similar to GRBs is the solar hard X-ray flare. Alfven & Carlqvist (1967) suggested exploding discharges of electric double layers to be responsible for solar flares. In their model, the energy release and particle acceleration of a flare are produced by the disruption discharge of a current of 10¹¹ - 10¹² A, flowing in a solar atmosphere circuit with a typical length 10⁹ - 10¹⁰ cm and inductance ~ 10 H.

I make note of the fact that the authors are explicit about the association of double layers with solar flares, and do not mention pinch phenomena in association with solar flares, despite having every opportunity to do so. This fact falsifies any claim for quantitative association of pinch phenomena with solar flares from this paper.

The paper otherwise deals with pinch phenomena associated with γ-ray bursts (GRBs). The energetics of the two phenomena, solar flares & GRBs are so far removed from each other that it makes no sense at all to claim even a qualitative link between the two, based solely on this paper or their original paper (Li & Wu, 1997). Solar flares emit energy on the order of 10²⁷ - 10²⁸ ergs/sec and the total kinetic energy of a coronal mass ejection (CME), the most energetic of solar flare phenomena, can be on the order 10³⁰ ergs. The whole sun emits about 3.8x10³³ ergs/sec. GRBs, on the other hand, are associated with core collapse supernova, which involve ejecta kinetic energy about 10⁵¹ ergs (those are the short GRBs, where the GRB lasts 2 seconds or less; this is about 1% of the total energy, most of which is emitted as neutrinos). Compare that to the total radiant energy throughout the entire interior of the sun at any time, roughly 10⁴⁷ ergs. Even the entire Milky Way Galaxy shines with about 3.6x10¹⁰ solar luminosities (about 10⁴⁴ erg/sec give or take an order of magnitude). So Mozina is trying to casually compare phenomena that involve more energy than the entire galaxy emits in a year, more energy than it takes to blow the sun to smithereens, with flare phenomena that typically produce about 1/100,000 of the sun's luminosity and even at their most grand might come up with 1/1,000 of the sun's luminosity. This kind of comparison just does not wash, not even qualitatively, the two phenomena are just too different in energy scale. One must produce a more detailed argument to support the claim. Long GRBs, usually associated with merging neutron star binaries, are similar in energy but slightly less luminous.

Now, if the purpose is to claim a valid scientific association of plasma pinch phenomena with solar flares, why appeal to a paper on plasma pinches in GRBs? Why not just appeal to papers that explicitly deal with plasma pinch phenomena and solar flares? For instance: Severnyi, 1958; Severnyi, 1959; Spicer & Chen, 1974 (abstract only); Haruki & Sakai, 2001 or Ji, Wang & Goode, 2004 (abstract only).

I should think it's a pretty good bet that some kind of pinch phenomena can be associated with at least some solar flares. After all, flares take place in pretty busy plasma phenomena, and pinches certainly do happen in plasma. But one must beware to argue in a sensible fashion. For instance, Wu, Chen & Li (2005) argue that pinches can explain the polarization of the γ-ray emission in GRBs. They may indeed be correct. However, it is already well established that pinches are certainly not necessary to explain polarization in GRBs. Granot, 2003, Nakar, Piran & Waxman, 2003 & Lyutikov, Pariev & Blandford, 2003 all demonstrate that synchrotron emission in the presence of a uniform or non-uniform magnetic field will produce the same level of polarization without a pinch. Eichler & Levinson, 2003 show that reflection of the γ-rays off of a baryonic sheath will also produce polarization of the observed amount. Hence, while it may be true that pinches can explain observed GRB properties, including polarization, it is equally true that pinches are clearly not required.

I maintain that (a) Wu, Chen & Li (2005) by itself does not provide any evidence, either quantitative or quantitative, regarding solar flares, (b) it makes a lot more sense to use the more explicit papers on pinches and flares to support the claim, and (3) in the matter of GRBs, pinches might be involved, but are certainly not necessary. Unfortunately for Wu, Chen & Li (2005), their paper apears in an obscure Chinese physics journal and so does not get much outside attention.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Comments on magnetic reconnection (again)

Million degree plasmas
Gamma rays.
X-rays
Neutron Capture Signatures
Highly ionized iron and wavelengths associated with these high ionization states.

Your side can't get "magnetic reconnection" to do squat on that list in a lab or in the Earth's atmosphere. The little bit of energy release that you can get from your experiments on "magnetic reconnection" is purely and totally reliant upon.......drum roll..................CURRENT. Turn off the current, and the party is over.

Well, nobody says that magnetic reconnection per se has anything at all to do with either neutron capture signatures or line emission from highly ionized iron, so both of those are sublimely irrelevant to the magnetic reconnection argument. As for the other three: million degree plasmas, gamma rays and X-rays, your full of prunes (as my grandmother used to say). We can & do get magnetic reconnection to do all of those in nature, and in controlled laboratory experiments. I have already outlined for you the controlled laboratory experiments where we actually watch true magnetic reconnection (a rearrangement of the topology of the magnetic field) happen in real time in real laboratory plasmas.

From 30 May 2010:

The fact that currents are flowing is not a sufficient reason to replace "magnetic reconnection" (which is a physically correct description of what actually happens) with "circuit reconnection" (which is not a physically correct description of what actually happens).
Just consider the basic physics implied by "circuit reconnection". Currents are flowing with a total energy E₁. The currents then "reconnect" and now have a total energy E₂, where E₂ is greater than E₁, and commonly very much greater. So one asks the natural question: Where does all that new energy come from? Certainly it is not spontaneously created out of nothing in the currents. One would naturally suspect that the magnetic field is the source, but what is the process? Mozina will tell you it must be magnetic induction, despite the fact that this is known to be impossible (see Magnetic Reconnection Redux VII). In laboratory experiments we see the magnetic field reconfigure first (that's the reconnection of magnetic field lines) and then we see the currents gain energy. These are the controlled ("empirical" according to Mozina's own criteria) laboratory experiments which Mozina chooses to reject because they disagree with his religious preconceptions (see, e.g., Comments on Magnetic Reconnection, Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III and Magnetic Reconnection Redux XI).

The primary lesson to take away from this, and all other threads involving Michael Mozina is that first, Mozina denies the validity of science; he will say that he does not, but he explicitly does. And second, his own "theories" (iron sun, cosmology, electric universe & etc.) are all purely religious conceptions, complete with a pantheon of demigods (Birkeland, Alfven, & etc.) who cannot ever be wrong or questioned on anything.

All of Mozina's arguments that magnetic reconnection are "pseudoscience" are themselves exactly that: pure & unadulterated pseudoscience. All he can ever say is "Afven said so", a religious acolyte parroting the ancient script of the demi-god. But you can rest assured that at no time will Mozina ever refer to physics, never demonstrate any physical reason for rejecting magnetic reconnection. He has religion and only religion to fall back on. That and pseudosciece, but never science.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Solar & Terrestrial Gamma Rays (again)

THE SINGLE MOST LIKELY CAUSE of gamma ray emissions in ANY atmosphere in the solar system is an electrical discharge and a plasma pinch. Period. They are KNOWN to produce gamma rays. They are known to produce polarized gamma rays too. These discharge process produce gamma rays in our atmosphere and they produce high them on Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, etc. The certainly are the CAUSE of gamma ray emission from the sun too.

In a word: Hogwash. The vast majority of planetary gamma ray emission (maybe all of it) is due to charged particles (almost exclusively electrons) being accelerated to high velocities and subsequently obeying the classical laws of physics, namely that all accelerated charged particles will emit electromagnetic radiation. No doubt electrical discharges of the old fashioned variety (sudden discharge of separated charges across an insulating barrier) are involved, especially in terrestrial gamma ray flashes associated with thunderstorms & lightning. However, there is no reason to believe that there is a pinch in site anywhere. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I reject plasma pinches as a cause of anything in a planetary atmosphere.

As for the sun, it would not surprise me to find plasma pinches, or just about anything else that plasmas do, since there is a lot of plasma in, on and around the sun. However, one must not go overboard. Mozina says "They certainly are the CAUSE of gamma ray emission from the sun too." That is most certainly not at all true, as I have outlined in the past.

From 13 Feb 2009:

RHESSI does not observe fusion processes. All of the gamma rays observed by RHESSI are identifiable as positron annihilation, neutron capture or nuclear de-excitation (mostly the latter). I have seen it suggested that deuteron fusion could take place in hot solar flares, but I am unaware of any observational evidence to support such speculation. But I am aware that there is no evidence for CNO or PP fusion from RHESSI data.

None of those gamma rays has "squat" to do with either electrical discharges or plasma pinches, period.

From 18 Feb 2009:

Well, let us look into this. I believe I said: "RHESSI does not observe fusion. What does RHESSI observe? It observes gamma rays. Now your paper uses gamma ray observations of solar active region 10039, 23 July 2002. The gamma rays in your paper are 0.511 MeV and 2.2 MeV. You say in your paper that those gamma rays are characteristic of positron annihilation and neutron capture. I said "All of the gamma rays observed by RHESSI are identifiable as positron annihilation, neutron capture or nuclear de-excitation ...".

So your paper and my quote above are in fact in complete 100% agreement: The gamma rays observed by RHESSI do not include the gamma rays of any fusion reactions. Indeed, despite your emphatic "Not true" above, your own paper does not support your claim. Your paper does not include any direct observational evidence for fusion reactions observed by RHESSI. Considering your own oft expressed disdain for anything less than a controlled laboratory experiment, I find it somewhat amusing that the claims in your paper are so indirect as to be nearly invisible.

Your entire argument rests on the time difference between the positron annihilation and neutron capture signals, and the fact that the time differences are qualitatively similar to free neutron and ¹³N lifetimes. That's it. Your "observational evidence" for CNO reactions in the corona rest entirely on that one fact. It is a dubious claim at best, and notably one with absolutely no physical justification presented in the paper, aside from a vague reference to high energy events.

In your paper you say: "H⁺ ions may be accelerated in the loop to energy levels that surpass the coulomb barriers for the ¹²C(¹H, gamma)¹³N and ¹⁴N(¹H, gamma)¹⁵O reactions at the feet of the loop". Incredibly, there is no reference cited to support this claim. In fact the relevant physics is totally ignored beyond that one-liner. What is the reaction rate & cross section? You don't say. What is the effect of electron screening? You don't say. What is the proton population density? You don't say. What are the CNO nuclear population densities? You don't say. You never would have gotten away with that kind of sloppy writing had you published this in a peer reviewed journal.

The minimum temperature required to barely start CNO fusion is about 13,000,000 Kelvins. Now the quote from your paper specifies "... at the foot of the loop." But we see in, for example, Warren & Reeves, 2001 that the hot spots where temperatures exceed about 10,000,000 Kelvins are above the loop, not at the foot of the loop. So not only does your paper provide zero direct evidence of fusion, but observations indicate that the high temperatures you require are located at the opposite end of the loop from where you want it to be.

But your paper leaves a serious question ignored. The CNO reactions emit their own gamma rays. RHESSI is a gamma ray telescope. So if there are CNO reactions in the corona, why do we not see the direct gamma rays? They are certainly in the energy range RHESSI should see, so why don't we see them? This is a question not addressed in your paper at all. You spend all of your effort on gamma rays already identified as positron annihilation and neutron capture, and then don't even bother to mention the possibility of observing the direct CNO gamma rays. Why is that?

Then there is the curious publication venue: The Journal of Fusion Energy. Just read the "Aims and Scope" of this journal: "Journal of Fusion Energy features contributions and review papers pertinent to the development of thermonuclear fusion as a useful power source. Intended to serve as a journal of record for publication of research results, the journal also provides a forum for discussion of the broader policy and planning issues that have played, and will continue to play, a crucial role in the fusion program. To this end, the journal presents articles on important matters of policy and program direction." So you submitted a paper on stellar astrophysics to a journal that specializes in nuclear reactor technology and social policy. If you are so confident in your claims, why did you not submit your paper on stellar astrophysics to a journal that publishes papers on stellar astrophysics? You chose a venue that would effectively hide your results from the very community of scientists whom you should most want to read the paper. Why did you do that?

Finally, just for grins, allow me to quote the very first sentence of your paper: "Deep seated magnetic fields accelerate H⁺ ions, an ionized neutron decay product, upward from the suns core." You complain loudly about other people appealing to magnetic fields when they should be appealing to electric fields. And yet in your very first sentence, you yourself tell us that magnetic fields accelerate protons. So how do they do that if they don't do that? And isn't that part about "ionized decay product" a bit misleading? Surely there are plenty of protons laying around that did not fall out of neutrons only yesterday (or yesteryear & etc.).

So, I stand by what I said before: RHESSI does not observe fusion processes. Furthermore, I cite your paper as a specific reference to back me up. After all, your paper specifically says the gamma rays observed come from positron annihilation and neutron capture, and nowhere claims that they come directly from CNO reactions.

From 24 Feb 2009:

Why should neutron capture signals be unusual? After all, it's not as if neutrons are unusual, and that's really about all you need; a few neutrons, a few nuclei and - voila, neutron capture. In Earth's atmosphere, and I suppose any planetary atmosphere (why not?) neutron capture gamma rays are observed in the polar regions, maybe connected with auroral displays, when energetic solar wind protons impact the upper atmosphere. We see narrow line emission from neutron capture (neutrons are knocked loose by protons and then are captured by other nuclei), and we see narrow line emission from nuclear de-excitation (collisionally excited nuclei relax to the ground state by emitting gamma rays); see for instance Letaw, et al., 1989, who identify neutron capture on ¹⁴N and ¹⁶O, and Compton scattering of annihilation gamma photons; Share & Murphy, 2001, who don't identify line sources in their abstract; Share & Murphy, 2002, who identify ¹⁴N de-excitation and ¹²C spallation; Harris, Share & Leising, 2003, who show that gamma ray line emission from Earth's atmosphere is modulated on the period of the solar cycle, consistent with solar wind excitation as the ultimate source.


Well, if it's "most likely" you want, then we can easily rule out electrical discharges. The links you provide refer to gamma rays associated with sprites & lightning, Terrestrial Gamma-Ray Flashes (TGFs). But TGF gamma rays, and lightning gamma emission are broadband, exactly as one would expect from an electrical discharge. However, I am talking about narrow line emission, which you will never see from an electrical discharge. And furthermore, the narrow line emission is readily identifiable with specific known sources; i.e., nuclear de-excitation, neutron capture, positron annihilation & etc. Fusion reactions, CNO processes included, produce narrow line gamma ray emissions which will be easily identifiable with the parent process. That's why I made the point in critiquing your paper that you rely on the other narrow lines for a weak indirect argument, and totally ignore the direct narrow line emission from the CNO reactions. Find those narrow lines in coronal loops and you will have something to say about CNO fusion in the solar atmosphere.

While sprites & lightning cannot themselves generate narrow line gamma ray emission, it has been suggested that they can excite nuclei, which will then decay to the ground state, with associated narrow line emission. Whether or not this is in fact the case remains unclear (Boggs, et al., 2005). So you can get high energy from electrical discharges, at least in principle, but then that was never a point in dispute.

You are left bereft of direct evidence. You have no direct evidence of CNO fusion in the solar atmosphere, and no direct evidence of electrical discharge in the solar atmosphere. In both cases you have to rely on pure faith, exactly what I am supposed to be doing

From 23 Jun 2009:

You see gamma rays from Earth's atmosphere, and indeed some of them are generated by electrical discharges associated with lightning and thunderstorm activity, most likely rapidly decelerating electrons (i.e, Smith, 2009) or inelastic neutron scattering (i.e., Paiva, 2009). But there are always mysteries, and the brightest terrestrial gamma ray flahs yet observed was not associated with a thunderstorm and remains unexplained (Smith, et al., 2006).

Nobody is arguing that electric currents cannot generate gamma rays. Nobody is arguing that electric currents are not responsible for some of the observed gamma rays. But we have been all over this ground as well in previous conversations, and so you must have known in advance how I would answer, since you have asked the very same question before. So I refer you & the curious reader to previous posts with detailed answers about where gamma rays come from: No RHESSI Fusion & CNO Redux.

You seem to make the rather simplistic & unrealistic assumption that the mere presence of gamma rays is by itself a direct indicator of electric currents. But we have already discussed narrow line emission, for instance, which cannot be generated by electric currents. You need to stop jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

Well, there are a few examples, all over two years old. It's just the same thing over & over ad infinitum. This is the thread that will never end because we will be having this same conversation again two years from now, five years from now, ten years from now. Mozina knows "squat", as they say, about physics and it appears that he will continue to know "squat" about physics for many years to come.

 

[iantresman]

All of Mozina's arguments that magnetic reconnection are "pseudoscience" are themselves exactly that: pure & unadulterated pseudoscience. All he can ever say is "Afven said so", a religious acolyte parroting the ancient script of the demi-god. But you can rest assured that at no time will Mozina ever refer to physics, never demonstrate any physical reason for rejecting magnetic reconnection. He has religion and only religion to fall back on. That and pseudosciece, but never science.

I don't think that is reason to label someone's comments as pseudoscience. This forum is just that, a discussion forum, and not necessarily a scientific platform. Perhaps the better question is why did Alfvén say what he did, where, and what critical responses have (or perhaps not), disputed Alfvén's arguments.

I think it is incontrovertible that astrophysics identify a phenomenon called "magnetic reconnection". I think that Alfvén said that the name of the phenomenon (Alfvén called it magnetic merging) may give a misleading impression of what actually is going on. I don't think that these views are mutually exclusive.

So that Alfvén's name is not merely repeated, a peer reviewed paper on Alfvén's views can be found in Heikkila, W. J., "Elementary ideas behind plasma physics" in Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 144, no. 1-2, May 1988. (Online in full).

Note: My comments are not intended to be scientific. I welcome any peer-reviewed (scientific) criticism of Alfvéns and Heikkila's views on the subject.

 

[DeathDart]

Physical Separation and Charging of Plasma

A curved magnetic field line with its axis and termination points on the surface.

It rotates from the surface to some extent above the surface.

It drags material from the surface as it rotates upward.

At some point in the rotation the plasma channels on one or both ends detach.

The magnetic circuit is still intact.

The dragged along plasma, begins to experience charge separation as the field line keeps rotating.

With out a complete plasma circuit the charge separation can rise to significant values.

As the field line rotates back toward the surface a plasma circuit is re-established and the charge is dissipated.

Just a guess.

 

[iantresman]

In a word: Hogwash. The vast majority of planetary gamma ray emission (maybe all of it) is due to charged particles (almost exclusively electrons) being accelerated to high velocities and subsequently obeying the classical laws of physics, namely that all accelerated charged particles will emit electromagnetic radiation. No doubt electrical discharges of the old fashioned variety (sudden discharge of separated charges across an insulating barrier) are involved, especially in terrestrial gamma ray flashes associated with thunderstorms & lightning. However, there is no reason to believe that there is a pinch in site anywhere. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I reject plasma pinches as a cause of anything in a planetary atmosphere.

I believe that lightning (a form of pinch in our planetary atmosphere, highlighted in bead lightning, ref.) may emitted gamma rays. See for example "Thunderstorm Gamma Rays Linked to Lightning", National Geographic News, October 11, 2007 (not peer reviewed, but see q.v. in Geophys. Res. 2004).

That is not to contradict you, as I also believe that you are quite correct that pinches accelerate charged particles as you described, resulting in the emission of radiation at various wavelengths.

 

[DeathDart]

Direct, single step acceleration of even an electron to gamma ray energies, does not appear possible because of atmospheric density and collision losses during acceleration.

A high temperature lightening stroke may create a temporary low vacuum environment where it is possible to accelerate a particle.

A multistage system of energy transfers from low to high altitudes may also be possible. Sprites?

 

[dasmiller]

Well, at least part of the thread will slow down for the next month. Michael & GM have been suspended (again).

 

[iantresman]

Well, at least part of the thread will slow down for the next month. Michael & GM have been suspended (again).

Do we know why they have been suspended? Is there a thread where the reasons are provided, so that we can learn, and ensure that we don't fall into the same problems ourselves?

This is not an endorsement of their views.