First sightings of solar flare phenomena confirm 3-D models of space weather

Mar 27, 2014
This is an image of a solar flare. Scientists have for the first time witnessed the mechanism behind explosive energy releases in the Sun's atmosphere. Credit: NASA/SDO and AIA

Scientists have for the first time witnessed the mechanism behind explosive energy releases in the Sun's atmosphere, confirming new theories about how solar flares are created.

New footage put together by an international team led by University of Cambridge researchers shows how entangled looping from the Sun's surface slip around each other and lead to an eruption 35 times the size of the Earth and an explosive release of into space.

The discoveries of a gigantic energy build-up bring us a step closer to predicting when and where large flares will occur, which is crucial in protecting the Earth from potentially devastating . The study is published in The Astrophysical Journal.

While solar flares have long been a spectacular reminder of our star's power, they are also associated with Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) – eruptions of solar material with a twisted magnetic structure flying out of the Sun and into interplanetary space.

Space weather such as CMEs has been identified as a significant risk to the country's infrastructure by the UK's National Risk Register. Late last year The UK's MET Office announced it would set up a daily space weather forecast to work with the USA's Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC).

The paper's lead author, Dr Jaroslav Dudik, Royal Society Newton International Fellow at the University of Cambridge's Centre for Mathematical Sciences, said: "We care about this as during flares we can have CMEs and sometimes they are sent in our direction. Human civilisation is nowadays maintained by technology and that technology is vulnerable to space weather. Indeed, CMEs can damage satellites and therefore have an enormous financial cost."

"They can also threaten airlines by disturbing the Earth's magnetic field. Very large flares can even create currents within electricity grids and knock out energy supplies."

One such event hit the Earth before technology was as integrated into human civilization as it is now, but still had a marked effect. In 1859 the Carrington storm made night skies so bright that newspapers could be read as easily as in daylight and telegraph systems caught fire.

Knowing the standard scientific models are right is therefore very important. The standard 3D model of solar flares has shown that they occur in places where the magnetic field is highly distorted.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

In these places, the magnetic field lines can continuously reconnect while slipping and flipping around each other. In doing so, new magnetic structures are created.

Long before the flare the magnetic field lines are un-entangled and they appear in a smooth arc between two points on the photosphere (the Sun's visible surface) – areas called field line footpoints.

In a smooth, none-entangled arc the magnetic energy levels are low but entanglement will occur naturally as the footpoints move about each other. Their movement is caused as they are jostled from below by powerful convection currents rising and falling beneath the photosphere.

As the movement continues the entanglement of field lines causes magnetic energy to build up.

Like a group of straight cords which has been twisted, the lines will hold the energy until it becomes too great and then will release it, "straightening" back to the lower energy state.

Co-author Dr Helen Mason, Head of the Atomic Astro-Physics Group at the University of Cambridge, said: "You build the stress slowly until a point where they are no longer sustainable. The field lines say they have had enough and 'ping', they go back to something simple."

That "ping" creates the and CME. The word "ping" belies its power of course. Temperatures in the hotspots of the ejection can reach almost 20 million Degrees Celsius.

The theory remained unconfirmed until Dudik was reviewing footage of the Sun for an unrelated project last year.

It is no surprise it has taken so long to make the discovery. The technology that created the video is part of the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) satellite mission which was only launched in 2010 by NASA.

It watches the Sun in the ultra-violet with the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) capturing ultra-high-definition images every 12 seconds.

The final piece of the theoretical jigsaw was put in place in 2012 by French scientists – a paper published just six days before the flare occurred. Dudik admits that the serendipity the discovery is hard to ignore. But in science, fortune favours the prepared: "Suddenly I knew what I was looking at," he said.

What Dudik witnessed was the ultra-violet dance caused by the lines slipping around each other, continuously "unzipping" and reconnecting as the footpoints of the flare loops move around on the surface. But during the flare, the footpoint slipping motion is highly ordered and much faster than the random motions entangling the field before the flare.

Dudik's observations were helped by the sheer size of the flare he was looking at – it could encompass 35 Earths. Not only that, the flare was of the most energetic kind, known as an X Class flare, and it took around an hour to reach its maximum.

If it had happened in a smaller flare, the slipping motion might not have been visible, even with NASA's technology to help. Although only seen in an X Class flare to date, the mechanism might well be something which happens in all flares, said Dudik: "But we are not yet certain."

The importance of seeing the evidence of theory cannot be underestimated said Dr Mason: "In recent years there have been a lot of developments theoretically but unless you actually tie that down with observations you can speculate widely and move further away from the truth, not closer, without knowing it."

Explore further: Mid-level solar flare seen by NASA's SDO

More information: The paper, Slipping Magnetic Reconnection During an X-Class Solar Flare Observed by SDO/AIA by J. Dudık, M. Janvier, G. Aulanier, G. Del Zanna, M. Karlicky, H. E. Mason, and B. Schmieder, is published in The Astrophysical Journal: iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/784/2/144/

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Mid-level solar flare seen by NASA's SDO

Mar 13, 2014

The sun emitted a mid-level solar flare, peaking at 6:34 p.m. EDT on March 12, 2014, and NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, or SDO, captured an image of it. Solar flares are powerful bursts of radiation. ...

NASA's SDO shows images of significant solar flare

Feb 25, 2014

The sun emitted a significant solar flare, peaking at 7:49 p.m. EST on Feb. 24, 2014. NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, which keeps a constant watch on the sun, captured images of the event.

SOLIS observatory gives new insights into space weather

Jul 11, 2013

(Phys.org) —Shifts in the magnetic field just above the surface of the Sun lead to liftoff of interplanetary "space storms," according to new results from the Synoptic Optical Long-Term Investigation of the Sun (SOLIS) ...

Sun continues to emit solar flares

Oct 28, 2013

After emitting its first significant solar flares since June 2013 earlier in the week, the sun continued to produce mid-level and significant solar flares on Oct. 27 and Oct. 28, 2013.

Sun spits out mid-level solar flare

Feb 04, 2014

The sun emitted a mid-level solar flare, beginning at 11:57 p.m. EST on Feb. 3, 2014, and peaking at midnight EST. NASA released images of the flare as captured by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory.

NASA's SDO sees sun emit a mid-level solar flare

Oct 24, 2013

The sun emitted a mid-level solar flare that peaked at 8:30 pm EDT on Oct. 23, 2013. Solar flares are powerful bursts of radiation. Harmful radiation from a flare cannot pass through Earth's atmosphere to ...

Recommended for you

Hubble sees 'ghost light' from dead galaxies

7 hours ago

(Phys.org) —NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has picked up the faint, ghostly glow of stars ejected from ancient galaxies that were gravitationally ripped apart several billion years ago. The mayhem happened ...

When did galaxies settle down?

14 hours ago

Astronomers have long sought to understand exactly how the universe evolved from its earliest history to the cosmos we see around us in the present day. In particular, the way that galaxies form and develop ...

Image: Hubble views the whirling disk of NGC 4526

15 hours ago

This neat little galaxy is known as NGC 4526. Its dark lanes of dust and bright diffuse glow make the galaxy appear to hang like a halo in the emptiness of space in this image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space ...

Planet-forming lifeline discovered in a binary star system

Oct 29, 2014

Scientists using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have detected a streamer of dust and gas flowing from a massive outer disk toward the inner reaches of a binary star system. This never-before-seen ...

User comments : 46

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2014
Re: "Knowing the standard scientific models are right is therefore very important. The standard 3D model of solar flares has shown that they occur in places where the magnetic field is highly distorted."

Reductionism at its finest.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (12) Mar 27, 2014
Magnetic field lines don't do a thing, they are merely mathematical constructs to help people visualize the field. Only electric currents create magnetic fields, what they are seeing is those currents twisting around one another. The exploding circuit described by Alfven decades ago is what these pseudoscientists are trying to explain in pseudoscientific terms. When instabilities arise in the current, the entire inductive energy of the circuit can be released explosively. No magic field lines need be invoked.
"Magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience" Alfven
http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf
no fate
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2014
Magnetic field lines don't do a thing, they are merely mathematical constructs to help people visualize the field. Only electric currents create magnetic fields, what they are seeing is those currents twisting around one another. The exploding circuit described by Alfven decades ago is what these pseudoscientists are trying to explain in pseudoscientific terms. When instabilities arise in the current, the entire inductive energy of the circuit can be released explosively. No magic field lines need be invoked.
"Magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience" Alfven
http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf


You're fucked. Seriously.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2014
Hmm, solar flares, wonder how fast cantthink will chime in?

Oh look, already there!!!

Oh, and look Hannes too!!!

Amazing how certain key words always bring out the EU loonies!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2014
"Magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience" Alfven
http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf
And here we go again! The zombie argument that cantthinkforhimself trots outs every third article or so, which has been shown to be utterly dead wrong, irrefutable evidence for which has been provided to cantthinkforhimself several times, and which evidence he has NEVER been able to counter despite opportunities to do so! What kind of stupid troll keeps posting the same argument he has been shown to be wrong over and over again?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2014
irrefutable evidence for which has been provided to cantthinkforhimself several times,

Not hardly, TT just trotting out the same pseudo crap.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2014
TT just trotting out the same pseudo crap

The difference between my crap and yours is that mine is pseudo, but yours is real.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2014
Magnetic field lines don't do a thing, they are merely mathematical constructs to help people visualize the field.

The physical reality of field lines is irrelevant, as is the physical reality of electrons & protons. We know from experience that models of atomic & nuclear physics based on the assumption that electrons & protons & neutrons are physically real will accurately & precisely reproduce the phenomena of nuclear & atomic physics, and allow for accurate & precise predictions. Likewise, we know from experience that treating field lines as if they are physically real will accurately & precisely reproduce observed phenomena and allow for accurate & precise predictions.

"Magnetic reconnection" is an English language description of the mathematical process. Whether or not physical field lines physically reconnect is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that phenomenology is accurately & precisely reproduced & predicted, which in fact it is.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2014
Reductionism at its finest

Is it? Reductionism is the philosophical principle that complex systems can be understood by reducing them to the collective behavior of simple components. I don't think that's what we are seeing here, although, even if it is, so what? What's wrong with that?

No, what we see here is classical science. The theory of fields & particles has produced a prediction for the phenomenology that leads to solar flares. Observation has discovered the precise phenomenology predicted by theory. In other words, what we have here is the mutual consistency between theory & observation, which is surely one of the fundamental goals of all science.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2014
Not hardly, TT just trotting out the same pseudo crap.
No, Tim is patiently trying to explain to you why the quasi-religious fully pseudo-scientific meandering nonsense that is EU cannot work in the real world by providing links and citations to solid experimental and theoretical evidence of exactly why the nonsense doesn't work. He has given more concise and believable evidence supporting the "mainstream" theories in 6 weeks than you have in 6 years on this site. He has done so in a manner that invites you to learn about the wonder of physics instead of just shooting you down with facts, and he has display remarkable restraint in providing measured response and credible data to counter your childish tantrums and demands that mysteries of 30 years ago somehow still apply to the subject.

He has absolutely trounced every argument you have made, and even answered your petulant appeals to authority by showing your misunderstanding of that same authority. Now you're just pouting.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2014
"Magnetic reconnection" is an English language description of the mathematical process. Whether or not physical field lines physically reconnect is irrelevant.


It's quite relevant. Let me edit your comment so it reflects reality;
""Magnetic reconnection" is an English language description of the mathematical process which has already been described by others decades ago, but due to a complete misunderstanding of the plasma processes involved pseudoscientists insist on reinventing the wheel...Poorly at that."

No, Tim is patiently trying to explain to you why the quasi-religious fully pseudo-scientific meandering nonsense that is EU cannot work in the real world by providing links and citations to solid experimental and theoretical evidence of exactly why the nonsense doesn't work.

As usual, a fallacious argument which seems to be your ONLY M.O. This argument has absolutely nothing to do with the EU, but that doesn't slow the diarrhea flowing from your keyboard.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
Not hardly, TT just trotting out the same pseudo crap.
@cd
lets see here:
you give an argument for EU which is based upon a fallacy, and Tim Thompson (Tim) refuted it with legitimate science that uses EMPIRICAL DATA
this is the trend here:
your EU is based upon a FALLACY, and is supported only by hallucinations. it makes NO PREDICTIONS that can be verified (BEFORE HAND, NOT AFTER THE FACT, Like you always seem to post).
Tim always presents data supported by: PHYSICS, OBSERVATION, EXPERIMENTATION & most importantly, EMPIRICAL DATA

which one is the pseudoscience?
pseudoscience=a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status

given the above statement, so far:
cd85 = 0
Tim= every post refuted using empirical data & scientific method

Hmmm.... looks like cd is supporting the pseudoscience, not Tim
yep
2 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2014
Mysteries from thirty years ago still apply because the standard model of the sun was decided over eighty years ago.
Legitimate science? Thermonuclear gravity created suns, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, no thanks Captain high priest of cosmic fairy tails, much prefer a 99% plasma reality without "scientific Status" or assumptions stated as facts.
Hey, but you guys keep the faith m'kay...

no fate
1.3 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2014
"The physical reality of field lines is irrelevant, as is the physical reality of electrons & protons." - TT

Students, if your professor says something of this nature please try to remember that since we are physically real, it is the physical reality that matters, math which accurately describes this reality is important for calculation, prediction and experimentation only. When the math doesn't describe reality, it is useless. (refer to the fiction mentioned by Yep)

"Tim= every post refuted using empirical data & scientific method"

Against the EU this is easy, their theory is fundamentally flawed so they will never be able to produce a shred of experimental evidence to support it, or build a working model around it...just "EPIC FAIL" material.

By the definition of pseudoscience as posted by Stumpy, everything proposed by theoretical astrophysicists to account for the observed motions of the universe is pseudoscience whether the community want to acknowledge it or not.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2014
Against the EU this is easy, their theory is fundamentally flawed so they will never be able to produce a shred of experimental evidence to support it, or build a working model around it...just "EPIC FAIL" material.

Right. That directly flies in the face of reality being the EU is based upon experimental evidence starting with Birkeland, Langmuir, Bennett, et al... If you choose to ignore these facts only so you can cling to your desire to support magical magnetism, so be it. Oddly, the EU agrees with Maxwell that magnetic fields are created by electricity unlike the fateless one.

By the definition of pseudoscience as posted by Stumpy

We do agree here though...
no fate
2.8 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2014
"Right. That directly flies in the face of reality being the EU is based upon experimental evidence starting with Birkeland, Langmuir, Bennett"

Find one experiment in which they DIDN'T use a magnetic field to control the plasma...or one experiment where they produced energy without a field...just one.

One experiment in which any plasma, not already under the influence of a magnetic field actually generates one? Where is your experiment where you generate any electrical current without a time variant magnetic field or interacting ones? What confines the energy in an electron? Experimentally,what is the longest lasting stable Z-pinch?

I say magnetic fields focus and direct energy on all scales (oddly enough this is the only means to do this), you say energy happens, then creates a magnetic field....one example please.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2014
Mysteries from thirty years ago still apply because the standard model of the sun was decided over eighty years ago.
Legitimate science? Thermonuclear gravity created suns, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, no thanks Captain high priest of cosmic fairy tails, much prefer a 99% plasma reality without "scientific Status" or assumptions stated as facts.
Hey, but you guys keep the faith m'kay...


And that you seem to hold the opinion that there has been no change in our understandings of solar physics, MHD, magnetism or plasmas in the last 80 years, or even the last 30, or 10, sets you firmly in the sights of those fraudsters that promote EU junk science as anything beyond the quasi-religious pseudo-science it is!
no fate
3.5 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2014
"And that you seem to hold the opinion that there has been no change in our understandings of solar physics,"

His point, if I interpreted it correctly, is that regardless of all we have learned and despite the changes in our understanding of solar physics, this new knowledge and understanding is still being applied to an 80 year old structural model which is not supported by the data we have been gathering over the last 30 years. (it's not a pressure/gravity balance)

If we reverse engineer the sun/solar system based on this data, our model looks nothing like the one the mainstream still adheres to, although it is still round....perfectly.

I can still remember the "flappy tape" model of the "Van Allen" belt from the seventies...thanks to 30 years of observations we updated that to a structured magnetic system and can now better analyze not only the system, but it's interaction with the space around it.

Accurate models are validated by confirmations, not surprises.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2014
you say energy happens, then creates a magnetic field

No, I say electricity happens which then creates the magnetic field. Electricity is not energy, nor is magnetism magical. Misinterpretations of basic facts is one reason the EU is maligned, not to mention the volumes of false "knowledge" bandied about as facts.
no fate
5 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2014
you say energy happens, then creates a magnetic field

No, I say electricity happens which then creates the magnetic field. Electricity is not energy


Electrical current is the flow of particles, we refer to it as energy. One example where this happens without a magnet or a magnetic field please.

If you are just going to keep preaching the EU philosophy, at some point you will have to provide at least a single shred of evidence to validate your claims.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2014
Electrical current is the flow of particles, we refer to it as energy. One example where this happens without a magnet or a magnetic field please.

If you are just going to keep preaching the EU philosophy, at some point you will have to provide at least a single shred of evidence to validate your claims.

You are the one preaching philosophy, I'm stating a fact that electricity is not energy. Your ignorance blinds your ability to understand the difference.
no fate
5 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2014
Whatever you want to call it...make it without a magnetic field and show me my ignorance, prove what you say or stop saying it...or what the hell, continue to prove my evaluation of you from my first post in this thread correct. At least you have the ability to verify something....
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2014
His point, if I interpreted it correctly, is that regardless of all we have learned and despite the changes in our understanding of solar physics, this new knowledge and understanding is still being applied to an 80 year old structural model which is not supported by the data we have been gathering over the last 30 years. (it's not a pressure/gravity balance)
I read his statement over again, and I don't know that this was his point. I think his point is that the "mysteries" which Alfven, Arp, Wallace and others identified 30 or more years ago remain "mysteries" and that the EU model explains these "mysteries" better than "mainstream" science does. By saying this, I think he ignores all of the information gathered over the last 30 years on the subjects, such that those "mysteries" are not "mysteries" any more. (The solar neutrino problem is an example).

That is not to say there are no longer mysteries (there are many), its the ignoring of what we have found out I address.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2014
Whatever you want to call it...make it without a magnetic field and show me my ignorance, prove what you say or stop saying it...or what the hell, continue to prove my evaluation of you from my first post in this thread correct. At least you have the ability to verify something....

You get the basics down and it will be obvious. Remember that magnetic fields are not magical. Without electricity they cannot exist, maybe start with Maxwell and go from there.
no fate
5 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2014
Whatever you want to call it...make it without a magnetic field and show me my ignorance, prove what you say or stop saying it...or what the hell, continue to prove my evaluation of you from my first post in this thread correct. At least you have the ability to verify something....

You get the basics down and it will be obvious. Remember that magnetic fields are not magical. Without electricity they cannot exist, maybe start with Maxwell and go from there.


A fridge magnet proves you wrong, you can't prove what you claim...refer to back to my first post.
cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2014
Whatever you want to call it...make it without a magnetic field and show me my ignorance, prove what you say or stop saying it...or what the hell, continue to prove my evaluation of you from my first post in this thread correct. At least you have the ability to verify something....

You get the basics down and it will be obvious. Remember that magnetic fields are not magical. Without electricity they cannot exist, maybe start with Maxwell and go from there.


A fridge magnet proves you wrong, you can't prove what you claim...refer to back to my first post.

More of your ignorance on display, the fridge magnets have what are described as amperian currents. As stated previously, back to the basics...
no fate
4 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2014
"That is not to say there are no longer mysteries (there are many), its the ignoring of what we have found out I address." - Maggnus

I could not have said this better myself Maggnus, it fuels my views regarding science.

In simplest terms, DM and DE are the result of trying to preserve the constant of G in mathematical equations.

http://astro.unl....ula.html

The answer on this link is C. Except that M is 75% higher than observations tell us. Instead of throwing out the equation as useless for the calculation, it was decided to accept M as correct and begin a search for the rest of what MUST be there because the equation says it is. I won't flood post examples of equations using G that are observed to be off when the sun/stars are involved... just say almost all of them involving satelite and probe trajectories and regarding galactic motion.

Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2014
could not have said this better myself Maggnus, it fuels my views regarding science.

In simplest terms, DM and DE are the result of trying to preserve the constant of G in mathematical equations.
Well, that's a whole different subject, and even more off topic than canthinkforhimself's usual attempts to highjack any article that has the words "magnetic", "plasma", "electric" , "flare" , "solar" or any of their derivatives in the title.
no fate
5 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2014
A fridge magnet proves you wrong, you can't prove what you claim...refer to back to my first post.

More of your ignorance on display, the fridge magnets have what are described as amperian currents. As stated previously, back to the basics...


Your "Amperian currents" describe the unpaired electron spin state in a magnet which give rise to the external magnetic field.

http://books.goog...;f=false

There is no potential, no flow of electrons, therefore no electrical current as verified by any amp meter.

So, back to the search for anything to support the fundamental basis for your theory, one example of electricity manifesting without a field please.
no fate
5 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2014
could not have said this better myself Maggnus, it fuels my views regarding science.

In simplest terms, DM and DE are the result of trying to preserve the constant of G in mathematical equations.
Well, that's a whole different subject, and even more off topic than canthinkforhimself's usual attempts to highjack any article that has the words "magnetic", "plasma", "electric" , "flare" , "solar" or any of their derivatives in the title.


Your right. Sorry.
aroc91
5 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2014
Your "Amperian currents" describe the unpaired electron spin state in a magnet which give rise to the external magnetic field.

http://books.goog...;f=false

There is no potential, no flow of electrons, therefore no electrical current as verified by any amp meter.

So, back to the search for anything to support the fundamental basis for your theory, one example of electricity manifesting without a field please.


Unfortunately, I explained this to him before. He sees the word "current" and assumes it's the same thing.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2014
Your "Amperian currents" describe the unpaired electron spin state in a magnet which give rise to the external magnetic field.


Yep, and that orbit/spin state constitutes the current which gives rise to the external magnetic field, just as your link states.

yep
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2014
http://www.david-...d_16.htm

"Accurate models are validated by confirmations, not surprises."
That's a great quote no fate.

The solar neutrino issue does not confirm the standard model of the sun or disprove EU. If anything learning they are charged sub particles bolster the EU case along with revising our standard model of particle physics. There is still quite a bit of mystery with assumptions of oscillations during travel and correlations to sunspots and solar wind, which does not bode well for an internal origin at the core of standard sun theory.

It's the misunderstanding of what we have found that I address.
no fate
5 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2014
Your "Amperian currents" describe the unpaired electron spin state in a magnet which give rise to the external magnetic field.


Yep, and that orbit/spin state constitutes the current which gives rise to the external magnetic field, just as your link states.


As Aroc stated. You see the word current and become confused. There is no electricity in that spin state, just a magnetic field. This is why we don't detect any energy/electrical current when we test a magnet for it. The orbitals remain bound in the atomic structure, you get that electricity is impossible without particle migration right? You do know, being an EU guy and and expert on electricity and all that bound electrons...not moving outside of their host atom....cannot possibly be part of an electric current? Or do you.....
no fate
5 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2014
From paper Yep linked: "all currents (conduction and Amperian) may contribute to B but only conduction currents may contribute to H. H is the analogue of the displacement field D in electrostatics."

Does the fact that they differentiate between an Amperian current and a conduction current clear things up a bit for you? B is the magnetic field, H is the electric field. Amperian currents carry no electricity and therefore cannot contribute to the electric field.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2014
There is no electricity in that spin state, just a magnetic field.

Definition of electricity- The flow of electric charge
Electron- particle of electric charge.
The flow of electrons in atomic orbit creates a surface current, which creates the field. Not magic!

This is why we don't detect any energy/electrical current when we test a magnet for it.

No, as Yep's link states...
"We can visualise each dipole in the material as resulting from the flow of current around a small loop. If all these loops (dipoles) are identical then the currents at the interfaces between adjacent elements cancel and only at the surface of the material is there a net current."
Without the circuits produced by surface currents there is no field.

You still are trying to link "energy" and "electricity" as analogous, the fact of the matter is there is a difference. Electricity is defined merely as the flow of electric charge and is not electrical energy.
https://www.thund...icity-2/
no fate
5 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2014
You can keep trying to paint the truth the color you want it, but at the end of the day it still is what it is. You have not, cannot, and will never be able to to experimentally validate the EU theory because plasma wont do what you need it to do to prove you correct...this proves you INCORRECT. Your thunderbolts link is merely the written statement of your flawed theory, it can only be used to support your stance if it can be verified. To do this, refer to the challenge repeatedly issued in this thread that you keep running away from like a scared rabbit.

"The flow of electrons in atomic orbit creates a surface current, which creates the field. Not magic!"

You claim this is a current of electrical energy creating the magnetic field in a magnet. Prove there IS electrical energy there.

FYI, ONE orbital doesn't "flow". It orbits, that is why it is an orbital.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2014
I'm not making a claim about electrical energy, you are. I'm making a claim about electricity, which is defined by the movement of electrical charge. It is you who are confusing the two and painting the truth to fit your philosophy.
no fate
5 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2014
I'm not making a claim about electrical energy, you are. I'm making a claim about electricity, which is defined by the movement of electrical charge. It is you who are confusing the two and painting the truth to fit your philosophy.


Run rabbit, run.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2014
Electricity is defined merely as the flow of electric charge and is not electrical energy.
https://www.thund...icity-2/
@CD
it is also a well known fact that linking to a PSEUDOSCIENCE site as a reference is SPAMMING and TROLLING

IF THERE IS LEGITIMATE SCIENCE in your pronouncement, and there is legitimate science in what you have to say, why cant you find a source that is legitimate?

just do that ONE SIMPLE THING! forget your pseudoscience sites as a reference and post a site that can be relied upon

you've done it before... now do it again
aroc91
5 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2014
I'm making a claim about electricity, which is defined by the movement of electrical charge.


Spin is not a charge and is not a classical movement. It's a quantum phenomena. It's not analogous to physical spin/movement.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2014
I'm making a claim about electricity, which is defined by the movement of electrical charge.


Spin is not a charge and is not a classical movement. It's a quantum phenomena. It's not analogous to physical spin/movement.

Spin may not be "charge", but an electron is a charged particle. The spin/orbit constitutes movement of that charged particle which constitutes, by definition electricity. As stated repeatedly, electricity is a different phenomena than electrical energy.
aroc91
5 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2014
The spin/orbit constitutes movement of that charged particle


No it doesn't. Quantum spin is not a physical movement or spin. Therefore, there is no movement of charge, aka current. Therefore, magnetism in a bar magnet is not derived from an electric current. Therefore, your assertion that all magnetism is the result of current is wrong.

http://www.askama...otation/

yep
3 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2014
"In a similar manner to the definition of polarisation P for a dielectric we define a magnetisation M for a magnetic material.
Each small volume dt of a magnetised material will possess a magnetic dipole moment dm. The magnetisation is defined as the magnetic dipole moment per unit volume
We can visualise each dipole in the material as resulting from the flow of current around a small loop. If all these loops (dipoles) are identical then the currents at the interfaces between adjacent elements cancel and only at the surface of the material is there a net current.
The effects of the magnetic dipoles within the material may be modelled by surface currents, or surface current densities, known as Amperian currents.
These Amperian currents are similar in effect to the surface polarisation charges that were introduced to explain the behaviour of dielectrics."
"The differences between the neutrino "flavours" is merely one of different quantum states and therefore different masses"
yep
1 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2014
Aka sub particles of very low energy in a stable orbital configuration. An electron and positron combined without annihilation or bogus antiparticles.
Time for new models.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2014
"Magnetism is a force in nature that is produced by electric fields in motion. This movement can involve electrons 'spinning' around atomic nuclei, flowing through a conducting wire or ions moving through space in an organized stream."

https://solarsyst...ckground

Someone at NASA agrees...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.