That would be true if Electric Universe had any validity. But elementary physics (maybe the EU proponents should learn some
) tells us that the maximum charge on the sun is not substantial (less than 100 Coulombs).
I have repeatedly stated why i used that paper, not because of their very rough theoretical estimate of what the charge could be, but because it demonstrates (contrary to popular scientific opinion) that the sun and other bodies
can have a net charge and a resultnig E-field, a fact widely denied until very recently by most astronomers. They are only considering the charge created by the separation caused by protons and electrons in the suns gravitational field, and it is based on pure theory, no observations or confirmation is offered. Infact the authors make some very crude assumptions, some that could throw the value off by a significant amount.
I feel like i have said this 1000 times now, it is a useful paper because it does show that the Sun can, and probably does, exhibit a substancial net charge. And the people who wrote this paper seem amazed that the effect the suns electric field has been ignored by pretty much everyone apart from them when they address it in this paper.
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2001/24/aah2649.pdf
The purpose of this paper is remind of the existence of the global electrostatic field of the Sun and other stars, since it has been ignored by the authors of textbooks and review papers during the last several decades. Consequently, it has probably not been taken into account in the concerning works.
Weird that, maybe plasma cosmologists are correct when they say that standard atronomers largely ignore the effects of charge and E-fields in the cosmos due to the way they are taught about magnetism in space seldom with reference to the electrcal currents that produce them, and what the circuitry of these currents are.
Magnetism was known to exist in the middle ages. They knew, even back then, that a piece of iron could act on another - at a distance.
But, the early astronomers (like their modern brethern) were simply unaware of electrical phenomena. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) had already mathematically explained the shape of the orbits of the planets when Isaac Newton published his treatise on gravity in 1687. Once that occurred, nothing more was needed to explain and predict the planetary motions that could be observed in those days. Everything was solved.
This, of course, was all long before Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) flew his kite in a thunder storm or James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) developed his equations relating magnetic and electric fields. But, electric fields were difficult to measure. And astronomers didn't know they needed to know about them. So, they never got included in the "accepted" model of how the solar system or the cosmos works.
That is why, to this day, most astrophysicists have never taken courses in electromagnetic field theory or experimental plasma discharges. They attempt to describe the actions of plasma by means of equations that are applicable only to fluids like water - and magnetic effects. This is what Alfven called 'magneto-hydrodynamics'. They do not realize, as he did, that the prefix 'magneto' implies 'electro'. And that, in turn, explains why astrophysicists blithely talk about stellar winds, vortex trails, and bow shocks instead of electrical currents in plasmas, electrical fields, z-pinches, and double layers.
- Anthony Peratt, Fellow of the IEEE, former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy, member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory
That paper then goes on to say:
The purpose of this paper is remind of the existence of the global electrostatic field of the Sun and other stars, since it has been ignored by the authors of textbooks and review papers during the last several decades. Consequently, it has probably not been taken into account in the concerning works.
[....]
More recent books and review papers on the solar corona or the Sun have generally omitted the effect of electric field (e.g. Parker 1963; Newkirk 1967; Gibson 1973; Athay 1976; Zirin 1988; Bird & Edenhofer 1990; Foukal 1990; Stix 1991; Low 1996). Since we have not found any paper mentioning a reason why the field should not exist, it seems that it was simply forgotten.
Whoops! Astronomers just
forgot that space is filled with charge and E-fields, so naturally that makes it OK to completely leave the effects of these fields out of their models.
I also like that paper as it shows that the conventional idea that everything in space is neutral to be wrong, quite substancial charge can build up, and produce quite substantial E-fields.
It is possible that the claim about the electrical neutrality of stars originates in a misunderstanding of net charge on a star. For example in the textbook by Glendenning (1997; p. 71), there is subsection entitled \Electrical Neutrality of Stars", in which the upper limit on the net charge is derived. The net positive charge has to be smaller than 10−36 qA Coulombs, where q is elementary electric charge (charge of proton) and A is number of baryons in the star. Hence, the author concludes that \the net charge per nucleon (and therefore the average charge per nucleon on any star) must be very small, essentially zero". Of course, we must agree that the charge per nucleon is negligible, even the charge of a small macroscopic volume of plasma is usually negligible. In this sense, we can speak about the neutrality. However, it is necessary to realize that the number A is very large (e.g. A 1057 for an one-solar-mass star) resulting in a signicant global charge of the star as a whole. If a reader is not attentive enough, he or she can easily accept the wrong concept of global neutrality of a star evoked by the title.
And some of their assumptions are outlined.
If the mass Mr is given in solar masses and charge Qr in Coulombs, then Qr = 77:043 Mr.
Inspecting the conditions assumed in the derivation procedure of the eld (3) in more detail, it is clear that the result is valid for an ideally quiet, perfectly spherical, non-rotating star. Obviously real stars do not have physical properties completely identical to ideal stars and this causes the instantaneous global charge of a given star to differ from the value Q of an ideal star. Nevertheless, the star permanently tends to set up this charging and we can assume it as a rough approximation (rough but much better than exact neutrality)
So the very theoretical nature of this paper would lead me to question the accuracy of their final value. If it was an observational paper showing evidence of this E-field, then that would be much better evidnce, but it really is just pure theory at this point. You would think that a subject like this would have more attention, but astronomers are not taught to think in terms of electricity. This demonstrates why there is so much resistance to EU ideas, even though adequate reasons to dismiss it are rarely given.
And it states that this effect of the suns E-field is very significant on the particle level, hundreds of times more powerful than gravity, which would seem consistant with the E-field producing the acceleration observed as the solar wind exits the sun, and is what EU proponents have been saying for years.
If we study the dynamics of an electrically charged elementary particle or ion, with mass mx and charge qx, then the electrostatic force acting between this particle and charge Qr is −qx(mp−me)=(2qmx) multiple of gravitational force. Thus, the magnitude of the force represents about 50% of the magnitude of gravity, if the star acts on proton, and it is about 918 times more intensive than gravity, if the star acts on electron.
This has been one of the outstanding problems in solar physics, and another outstanding problem is the coronal heating problem, that may also beable to be explained by taking into account the effect of the suns E-field on particles on its surface. But most astronomers dont even know that the sun has an E-field, let alone a net charge, they are not taught that as it is surprisingly ignored by most textbooks and university courses. This is becasue it is a relatively new concept.
