Supersonic plasma jets discovered

March 27, 2017
ESA’s Swarm has been used to improve our understanding about vast sheets of electric current in the upper atmosphere. Birkeland currents carry up to 1 TW of electric power to the upper atmosphere – about 30 times the energy consumed in New York during a heatwave. They are also responsible for ‘aurora arcs’, the familiar, slow-moving green curtains of light that can extend from horizon to horizon. Recent observations by Swarm have revealed that they are associated with large electrical fields and occur where upwards and downwards Birkeland currents connect through the ionosphere. Scientists have also discovered that these strong electric fields drive supersonic plasma jets.. Credit: University of Calgary/ESA

Information from ESA's magnetic field Swarm mission has led to the discovery of supersonic plasma jets high up in our atmosphere that can push temperatures up to almost 10 000°C.

Presenting these findings at this week's Swarm Science Meeting in Canada, scientists from the University of Calgary explained how they used measurements from the trio of Swarm satellites to build on what was known about vast sheets of electric current in the .

The theory that there are huge electric currents, powered by solar wind and guided through the by Earth's , was postulated more than a century ago by Norwegian scientist Kristian Birkeland.

It wasn't until the 1970s, after the advent of satellites, however, that these 'Birkeland currents' were confirmed by direct measurements in space.

These currents carry up to 1 TW of electric power to the upper atmosphere – about 30 times the energy consumed in New York during a heatwave.

They are also responsible for 'aurora arcs', the familiar, slow-moving green curtains of light that can extend from horizon to horizon.

While much is known about these current systems, recent observations by Swarm have revealed that they are associated with large electrical fields.

Birkeland currents carry up to 1 TW of electric power to the upper atmosphere – about 30 times the energy consumed in New York during a heatwave. They are also responsible for ‘aurora arcs’, the familiar, slow-moving green curtains of light that can extend from horizon to horizon. Recent observations by Swarm have revealed that they are associated with large electrical fields and occur where upwards and downwards Birkeland currents connect through the ionosphere. Scientists have also discovered that these strong electric fields drive supersonic plasma jets. Credit: University of Calgary/ESA

These fields, which are strongest in the winter, occur where upwards and downwards Birkeland currents connect through the ionosphere.

Bill Archer from the University of Calgary explained, "Using data from the Swarm satellites' electric instruments, we discovered that these strong electric fields drive supersonic plasma jets.

"The jets, which we call 'Birkeland current boundary flows', mark distinctly the boundary between current sheets moving in opposite direction and lead to extreme conditions in the upper atmosphere.

"They can drive the ionosphere to temperatures approaching 10 000°C and change its chemical composition. They also cause the ionosphere to flow upwards to higher altitudes where additional energisation can lead to loss of atmospheric material to space."

David Knudsen, also from the University of Calgary, added, "These recent findings from Swarm add knowledge of electric potential, and therefore voltage, to our understanding of the Birkeland current circuit, perhaps the most widely recognised organising feature of the coupled magnetosphere–ionosphere system."

Information from ESA’s magnetic field Swarm mission has led to the discovery of supersonic plasma jets high up in our atmosphere that can push temperatures up to almost 10 000°C. Birkeland currents carry up to 1 TW of electric power to the upper atmosphere – about 30 times the energy consumed in New York during a heatwave. Recent observations from ESA’s Swarm mission have revealed that they are associated with large electrical fields and occur where upwards and downwards Birkeland currents connect through the ionosphere. Scientists have also discovered that these strong electric fields drive supersonic plasma jets. Credit: University of Calgary/ESA

This discovery is just one of the new findings presented at the week-long science meeting dedicated to the Swarm mission. Also presented this week and focusing on Birkeland currents, for example, Swarm was used to confirm that these currents are stronger in the northern hemisphere and vary with the season.

Since they were launched in 2013, the identical Swarm satellites have been measuring and untangling the different magnetic signals that stem from Earth's core, mantle, crust, oceans, ionosphere and magnetosphere.

As well as a package of instruments to do this, each satellite has an electric field instrument positioned at the front to measure plasma density, drift and velocity.

The different sources that contribute to the magnetic field measured by Swarm. The coupling currents or field-aligned currents flow along magnetic field lines between the magnetosphere and ionosphere. Credit: ESA/DTU Space

Rune Floberghagen, ESA's Swarm mission manager, said, "The electric field instrument is the first ionospheric imager in orbit so it's very exciting to see such fantastic results that are thanks to this new instrument.

"The dedication of scientists working with data from the mission never ceases to amaze me and we are seeing some brilliant results, such as this, discussed at this week's meeting.

"Swarm is really opening our eyes to the workings of the planet from deep down in Earth's core to the highest part of our atmosphere."

Explore further: Swarm reveals why GPS satellites lose track over the equator between Africa and South America

Related Stories

Unravelling Earth's magnetic field

March 21, 2017

ESA's Swarm satellites are seeing fine details in one of the most difficult layers of Earth's magnetic field to unpick – as well as our planet's magnetic history imprinted on Earth's crust.

Swarm's precise sense of magnetism

May 8, 2014

(Phys.org) —Although they were launched only five months ago, ESA's trio of Swarm satellites are already delivering results with a precision that took earlier missions 10 years to achieve.

Magnetic oceans and electric Earth

October 4, 2016

Oceans might not be thought of as magnetic, but they make a tiny contribution to our planet's protective magnetic shield. Remarkably, ESA's Swarm satellites have not only measured this extremely faint field, but have also ...

Magnetic complexity begins to untangle

June 23, 2015

After a year in orbit, the three Swarm satellites have provided a first glimpse inside Earth and started to shed new light on the dynamics of the upper atmosphere – all the way from the ionosphere about 100 km above, through ...

Recommended for you

Dawn of a galactic collision

December 14, 2017

A riot of colour and light dances through this peculiarly shaped galaxy, NGC 5256. Its smoke-like plumes are flung out in all directions and the bright core illuminates the chaotic regions of gas and dust swirling through ...

44 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
With all due respect to the journalists who put this stuff together, this historical recounting removes very important aspects of learning from the history which has occurred ...

"The theory that there are huge electric currents, powered by solar wind and guided through the ionosphere by Earth's magnetic field, was postulated more than a century ago by Norwegian scientist Kristian Birkeland. It wasn't until the 1970s, after the advent of satellites, however, that these 'Birkeland currents' were confirmed by direct measurements in space."

A far more informative history can be found here ...

Kristian Birkeland's Terrella
https://plus.goog...CxcGEvuo

Students need more than just the timeline.

The need help in reconstructing the underlying REASONS and EVIDENCE which motivated both sides of the debate -- essentially information about the controversy itself.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
From that link ...

"Birkeland was roundly criticized by mathematical theoretical physicists who never left their desks to do the kind of experimental data-gathering that he had done. They claimed that his theory was impossible because mutual repulsion of like charges within any current stream coming from the Sun would dissipate that stream before it reached Earth. The theorists did not yet know that the plasma surrounding the Sun, and in which all the planets reside, is a good electrical conductor for exactly that kind of stream of charges. Birkeland had stood out under the aurora and measured it ...

A particularly tenacious English mathematician, Sydney Chapman, who was interested in geomagnetism, continually denigrated Birkeland and criticized his work for half a century. Chapman's ideas about auroras involved the kinetic theory of neutral gases and a 'dynamo' which he said was driven by tidal flows in Earth's ionosphere ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
(cont'd)

"Fifteen years after Birkeland's death, Chapman admitted that plasma from the Sun caused the auroras. But he continued to belittle Birkeland's work.

As late as 1967, Chapman said that Birkeland's 'direct observational contributions to auroral knowledge were slight.' An American scientist and electrical engineer, Alex Dressler, a former editor of the prestigious journal, Geophysical Research Letters, questioned Chapman about Birkeland. 'I asked him whether Birkeland's work had any influence on him at all. He glanced at me and said, 'How could it? It was all wrong.' ...

When Birkeland died, the Nobel awards committee was considering his name ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
(cont'd)

"Lucy Jago says of this pioneer, 'Birkeland now has a crater on the Moon named for him, which, together with Birkeland Currents and the wider acceptance of his work, should prevent his memory from fading, but rejection of his theories probably slowed the advance of geomagnetic and auroral physics for nearly half a century.' ...

Another writer said of him, 'Misunderstood in his lifetime, some of Birkeland's ideas about our universe are now considered brilliantly prophetic.' But Birkeland was not misunderstood. He was just tenaciously opposed by lesser men."

That history is recounted in Don Scott's The Electric Sky.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
Another historical recounting which retains the human element -- from which students of science and laypeople can learn ABOUT the nature of scientific discovery -- is available at Ian Tresman's site:

https://www.plasm..._current

"The history of Birkeland Currents appears to mired in politics. [17]

After Kristian Birkeland suggested 'currents there are imagined as having come into existence mainly as a secondary effect of the electric corpuscles from the sun drawn in out of space,' (1908), his ideas were generally ignored in favour of an alternative theory from British mathematician Sydney Chapman.

In 1939, the Swedish Engineer and plasma physicist Hannes Alfvén promoted Birkeland's ideas in a paper published on the generation of the current from the Solar Wind. [18] One of Alfvén's colleagues, Rolf Boström, also used field-aligned currents in a new model of auroral electrojets (1964). [19] ...

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
(cont'd)

In 1966 Alfred Zmuda, J.H. Martin, and F.T. Heuring reported their findings of magnetic disturbance in the aurora, using a satellite magnetometer, but did not mention Alfvén, Birkeland, or field-aligned currents, even after it was brought to their attention by editor of the space physics section of the journal, Alex Dressler. [20]

In 1967 Alex Dessler and one of his graduates students, David Cummings, wrote an article arguing that Zmuda et al had indeed detected field align-currents. [21] Even Alfvén subsequently credited (1986) that Dessler "discovered the currents that Birkeland had predicted" and should be called Birkeland-Dessler currents. [22]

In 1969 Milo Schield, Alex Dessler and John Freeman, used the name 'Birkeland currents' for the first time. [23] ...

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
(cont'd)

In 1970, Zmuda, Armstrong and Heuring wrote another paper agreeing that their observations were compatible with field-aligned currents as suggested by Cummings and Dessler, and by Bostrom, but again made no mention of Alfvén and Birkeland. [24]

In 1970, a group from Rice University also suggested that the results of an earlier rocket experiment was consistent with field-aligned currents, and credited the idea to Boström, and Dessler and his colleagues, rather than Alfvén and Birkeland. [25] In the same year, Zmudu and Amstrong did credit Alfvén and Birkeland, but felt that they '... cannot definitely identify the particles constituting the field-aligned currents.' [26]

It wasn't until 1973 that the navy satellite Triad, carrying equipment from Zmuda and James Armstrong, detected the magnetic signatures of two large sheets of electric current ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
(cont'd)

"Their papers (1973, 1974) reported 'more conclusive evidence' of field-aligned currents, citing Cummings and Dessler but not mentioning Birkeland or Alfven." [27]

Yet a third important historical detail retains the human aspect of this controversy:

https://www.thund...oras.htm

"On one occasion, when Chapman was a guest of Alfvén's in Sweden, Alfvén built a replica of Birkeland's terrella experiment, which produced auroras on a magnetized sphere suspended in a vacuum. Alfvén hoped that if Chapman could see how plasma behaves in the laboratory, he would be more amenable to discussing it. Chapman refused to look at the experiment."

When we remove the human elements of these debates, we misinform students and laypeople on the nature of scientific discovery, which as a consequence leaves us vulnerable to repeating those very mistakes.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2017
It's important to emphasize that science journalism which fails to teach the human nature of scientific controversies can be expected to generate students who fail to recognize human nature's role in scientific theory-making. This is more broadly recognized in the sociology of science as "scientism".

Science historian John Burnham explains in How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States why it is that science journalists stopped reporting on the controversies of science ...

The Men of Science
https://plus.goog...2XYML8vU

The Science Journalist
https://plus.goog...vZu18D9L

The short form of that history is explained in the second part: It occurred with the advent of Relativity and quantum mechanics, when science's explanatory appeal became a much harder sell for laypeople.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
From Burnham's book ...

"One reason that nineteenth-century evangelical popularization of science receded in the twentieth century was that what scientists had to communicate -- beyond image and attitude -- grew much more difficult to put into popular form after 1900 ...

by the midcentury period, popularizers of all varieties were bemoaning the fact that pure science had become so complicated that they could hardly explain it. The science of the new century did not necessarily confirm the gospel of certain progress, unity, and reductionism of an earlier day. Biologist Francis Sumner of the University of California in 1937 summarized the dilemma for example of those who read about the new physics ..."

(cont'd)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2017
Alfvén hoped that if Chapman could see how plasma behaves in the laboratory, he would be more amenable to discussing it. Chapman refused to look at the experiment

This is a similar response that jonesdumb (and others) give to the ongoing Safire Experiments. They would rather pontificate fanciful imaginings of how they believe they think space plasmas should work rather than relying on actual experiments. Is it any wonder they refer to plasma phenomena as woo? BTW, Birkeland's findings 100 years ago still fit squarely into jonesdumb's woo category, still unable to grasp electric discharges.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
(cont'd, Francis Sumner speaking ...)

"'There would seem to be a vast inconsistency between the traditional notion of the man of science, with his uncompromising insistence on evidence and his lofty scorn of guesses and unproved assumptions, and the quasi-mystic who tells us all these strange things about space and infinity and who describes with such assurance the detailed intricacies of an infinitesimal world forever beyond the range of human observation.'

While innumerable newspapermen of the 1920s tried to explain relativity, and in later years other baffling ideas, or to explain why something could not be explained, only a few scientists attempted to draw conclusions for the public from the unsettling findings of the new physics and other mathematical or abstract studies ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
(cont'd)

"Popularizers of every stripe found themselves instead portraying confusion. They therefore often had to readjust what they were doing, because they could no longer appeal to the paradigmatic act of explaining the mystery. They were, rather, being called upon to explain the confusion, which was particularly difficult without the vision of ultimate unity that earlier popularizers had enjoyed and exploited ...

The result of this challenge to the unity of science was to encourage popularizers to redouble the emphasis that had been developing on portraying the results, rather than the ideas, of science ...

The first step in destroying the classic uplift [of the] popularization of science was [the reduction of] the context of science in popularizing and at the same time emphasizing 'facts' so that 'science' in the new mode of popularization consisted of isolated bits and pieces ..."
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
Once a person understands the non-linear human aspects of how our ideas came to be, without a science journalist removing the parts which do not conform to a neat-and-tidy story ...

When that human component is added to an understanding of modern theory and a recognition of how that modern theory oftentimes contrasts with the direction that modern observations seem to be taking us into ...

And when all of that is understood within this much more fundamental mode-of-operation within which science journalism has existed for the past full century, as well as where it came from -- the "men of science" ...

... It is only when we look at this system, collectively, all at once, that individuals are capable of fully appreciating the significance of modern observations.

You don't get this meaning from the press releases themselves ...

... because, as Burnham explains, the point of the science journalism today is not to create that deeper understanding.

We should fix this.
691Boat
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2017
FYI HannesAlfven, I didn't read your spam postings.
It is really unfortunate for CantDrive that this data is all gathered using satellites, since that means that "scientists involved in astrophysics" are a part of this program and we all know from CantDrive that they have absolutely no working knowledge of plasmas. Bummer.
Adding to that, it is also unfortunate that they speak of these currents connecting, another point CantDrive likes to drive home as being pseudoscience.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2017
Re: "it is also unfortunate that they speak of these currents connecting"

You've misunderstood the debate. MAGNETIC reconnection has nothing to do with this ...

"These fields, which are strongest in the winter, occur where upwards and downwards Birkeland currents connect through the ionosphere."

Don Scott argues that magnetic reconnection is redundant of plasma physics processes (like Birkeland currents) which we already understand. He argues that you can arrive at the same geometry in two fundamentally different ways, and that the magnetic connection approach completely IGNORES the Birkeland current cause.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2017
@hannes/reeve
You've misunderstood the debate
you misunderstood the satire and hyperbole

go back and try that one again, but this time look for it

.

.

PS - instead of using Gish-Gallop on every thread you post to, try using something that can be validated using reputable sources, like: SCIENCE
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2017
Re: "you misunderstood the satire and hyperbole"

Yes, on second inspection, because it appears to be missing any aspect of wit to it.
691Boat
5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2017
Re: "it is also unfortunate that they speak of these currents connecting"

You've misunderstood the debate. MAGNETIC reconnection has nothing to do with this ...


If you think you have 2 electric currents with no magnetic fields connecting together, you should really publish that! New science right there!
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2017
Hi 691Boat. :)

Mate, have you now dropped your claim that you were merely "asking questions" out of a desire to learn/understand properly what your interlocutors are pointing out?

In any case, your above derisive tone and obvious ignorance; intentional ignorance at at that!..., because you "didn't read" what HannesAlfven posted that was relevant to the above article's claims re "discovery" of what was long predicted/known to exist by those who (unlike you above) DID NOT REFUSE to LOOK and actually consider the evidence presented! Wilfull ignorance of subject matter/evidence is unacceptable in science.

If you want to claim that you are being polite and asking questions with the desire to learn, then NOT READING what is posted for your info is NOT GOOD, mate. Don't be influenced by 'certain' stalking troll 'gangs' personal longstanding feuds/attacks campaigns. Think/read for yourself; leave snide, hypocritical remaks and intentional ignorance to the nasty 'gangs'. :)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2017
To some extent, I can sympathize with all of the confusion and controversy over magnetic reconnection.

When you think about it, it's very odd that astrophysicists insist upon both (1) reifying magnetic field lines as real-world three-dimensional entities, while (2) simultaneously rejecting that there is no aether which might explain phenomena like radio waves and magnetic fields.

It's very difficult for me, personally, to reconcile these two positions as somehow consistent.

If you believe that magnetic field lines can do things like break, merge or reconnect, you might simply be refusing to ask the logical question which comes after:

Is there an aether?

The key thing to realize with all of this is that there is some apparent overlap in the terminology: Astrophysicists need magnetic reconnection to solve certain problems in their framework. What's important to understand is that these problems can also be solved without it, in other ways, in other frameworks.
PPihkala
2.8 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2017
This refusal to accept Birkeland currents as real is very similar to what happened with plate tectonics by Wegener. Now that the discoverer and his opponents have died, it is common knowledge that plate tectonics have shaped the words landmasses as they are today.
bschott
4.6 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2017
This refusal to accept Birkeland currents as real...

I don't see anyone who is not accepting that they are real, just debates and confusion over the physics surrounding them. On one hand you have the usual EU claim that electrical currents generate all of the magnetic fields in the universe which is experimentally destroyed in every plasma chamber since there is never a current alignment until a magnetic field is present (hence why HA's quoted posts mention "FIELD ALIGNED CURRENTS" 5 times)...but you also have the mainstream phenomena they deem as magnetic reconnection in which they have magnetic flux separating at a midpoint as a result of interaction with other magnetic fields...which is also physically impossible.

The most accurate statement above?

If you think you have 2 electric currents with no magnetic fields connecting together, you should really publish that! New science right there!

Published as a work of fiction perhaps....
bschott
not rated yet Mar 28, 2017
separating at a midpoint as a result of interaction with other magnetic fields...which is also physically impossible.

The easiest way to describe magnetic reconnection accurately, is that the particles comprising a current following a field of flux interact with a second field at the boundary between the two, and the particles following that field (if present). If there are particles present in both fields you have 2 current flows interacting at a boundary (region of increased flux) which then produce the energetic reaction seen in flares as the increased flux accelerates the particles causing the perpendicular fields being generated by both currents to attract and the particles within the currents to collide and disperse energetically (this is easily seen in any flare footage, as the remaining particles follow the flux back to the suns surface after a flare). The other outcome, with no particles present is that the particles jump fields at the boundary.
bschott
not rated yet Mar 28, 2017
The other outcome, with no particles present is that the particles jump fields at the boundary.

In this instance you get Bremsstrahlung radiation of various frequencies depending on particle velocity which is due to the field directionality. At no point does the flux "break". We are watching ions/electrons in one field encounter a second field and interact, the field geometry alters in a fluidic manner upon the interaction (same as trying to put two + poles of permanent magnets together...you can do it with enough force but you are compressing the flux field of both magnets to do this) and when it is visible due to particle presence MHD equations describe the particle motion....and the flux at the field boundary as this is the "visible" portion of the interaction. Experimentally, we have seen that parallel lines of flux can be "temporarily cleaved" apart by an impinging field, but the field geometry returns as soon as the impinging field is removed.
691Boat
5 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2017
The key thing to realize with all of this is that there is some apparent overlap in the terminology: Astrophysicists need magnetic reconnection to solve certain problems in their framework. What's important to understand is that these problems can also be solved without it, in other ways, in other frameworks.


I think the more important thing to realize is that you can't just ignore the magnetic field when you talk about your electric field stuff. Sure, you can solve all the scenarios you want regarding the electric field, but if in all your solutions you have ignored or disregarded the magnetic field, you only have a partial solution at best.
As far as I know, when you merge or connect an electric field, the magnetic field has to tag along as well.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2017
Re: "The easiest way to describe magnetic reconnection accurately ... If there are particles present in both fields you have 2 current flows interacting at a boundary (region of increased flux) which then produce the energetic reaction seen in flares ..."

The problem with this is that it follows rather directly the pattern of the debate that is outlined above for the history of Birkeland currents: The astrophysicists want to say that they can explain the energy of flares by simply thinking the matter through from observation to principles.

But, what is always missing from this logic is the fact that no astrophysicist ever thought -- from principles -- to a Birkeland current, a double layer, a z-pinch.

It's arguably wishful thinking that we can formulate theories in plasma physics from principles.

We have two orthogonal ways of approaching the problem here, and the history seems to consistently favor the experimental approach.
691Boat
5 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2017
Hi 691Boat. :)
Mate, have you now dropped your claim that you were merely "asking questions" out of a desire to learn/understand properly what your interlocutors are pointing out?

I have read a fair amount of the EU stuff, so already have a good enough baseline understanding to see where their flaws are. With Tuxford, I had no idea what he was claiming. If you want to merge multiple threads that are unrelated, feel free. I knew nothing about Tuxford's claims. I am aware of the EU claims and "theories", so why don't you go ahead and add something of value for once? Instead of criticizing how something is being said, argue towards the validity of the claims, or just get over yourself.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2017
Re: "I think the more important thing to realize is that you can't just ignore the magnetic field when you talk about your electric field stuff."

I honestly don't think anybody really is ignoring the magnetic field.

"Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model", Donald E. Scott

https://www.highb...197.html
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2017
Re: "I have read a fair amount of the EU stuff, so already have a good enough baseline understanding to see where their flaws are."

No offense intended, but even the wikipedia definition makes it clear in the first sentence that Birkeland currents do indeed follow along magnetic field lines ...

"A Birkeland current is a set of currents that flow along geomagnetic field lines connecting the Earth's magnetosphere to the Earth's high latitude ionosphere. In the Earth's magnetosphere, the currents are driven by the solar wind AND INTERPLANETARY MAGNETIC FIELD and by bulk motions of plasma through the magnetosphere (convection indirectly driven by the interplanetary environment)."

Of course, the argument not conveyed here is that they extend beyond just the Earth system.
bschott
5 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2017
and the history seems to consistently favor the experimental approach.

Indeed. Which is why we haven't read anything about the Sapphire experiments mentioned above other than that they are ongoing. Anyone who has performed plasma experiments, been present during plasma experiments, or understands how magnetism and electricity work will not endorse EU theory...they can't...it's wrong. All plasma REACTS to magnetic fields in order to align and form their own currents, when in proximity they react to the fields each current generates and cause the flux to restructure to accommodate the additional flux generated by the current. Magnetic fields are the only ways we have of manipulating any SA particles to control their motion or for study. EU theory states the particles align first.....HOW?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2017
Re: "Indeed. Which is why we haven't read anything about the Sapphire experiments mentioned above other than that they are ongoing."

The topic has been discussed at length actually. It simply appears that you do not know where to look.

Let me be ABSOLUTELY clear that you will NEVER hear me talking about the Safire experiment, because I want to give the freedom to those experimenters to follow the evidence WHEREVER IT LEADS THEM.

The point of this is not to confirm EU theory. It is to create models which may or MAY NOT add credence to the EU. It is a tool for elaborating a model into whatever nature has to say.

People are VERY serious about that, and don't forget it. Everybody in the EU community is on the SAME EXACT PAGE ON THIS ...

... which is why you don't see anybody (except for the experimenters, actually) talking about it.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2017
Re: "All plasma REACTS to magnetic fields in order to align and form their own currents, when in proximity they react to the fields each current generates and cause the flux to restructure to accommodate the additional flux generated by the current. Magnetic fields are the only ways we have of manipulating any SA particles to control their motion or for study. EU theory states the particles align first.....HOW?"

I am seeing a lot of people who I am quite sure have never actually had a discussion with the theorists go online and incorrectly paint the theory for others. I get the impression that none of these people have studied the Essential Guide -- where all of these details are covered in detail. What I see happening is a chain of people who are forwarding conjectures from each other into the comments box.

It creates substantial noise. Please question your approach to asking these questions.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2017
There is no ambiguity for me in this explanation:

https://www.thund...apter-6/

"In space, the neutral gas pressure is usually negligible, and so the balance between the I × B force and the pressure force cannot occur. The only way the situation can be resolved is for the I × B force to disappear. This implies that I and B (current direction and magnetic field direction) are parallel and, by vector algebra, the cross product is zero.

IF OTHER MAGNETIC FIELDS ARE PRESENT, as they are known to be through much of cosmic space, then the I × B force must be calculated USING THE TOTAL MAGNETIC FIELD, that is, by adding the current's own B to the general B, added using vector algebra."

If people are thinking that the Safire experimenters are making mistakes at this sort of level, then all I will say is that you are greatly misunderstanding what is going on.
bschott
not rated yet Mar 28, 2017
@ Hannes - So the Fundamentals of EU theory are NOT that all magnetic fields are a product of electrical currents? Yes or no will do.....
HannesAlfven
3 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2017
Re: "So the Fundamentals of EU theory are NOT that all magnetic fields are a product of electrical currents? Yes or no will do....."

Absolutely not.
bschott
5 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2017
Re: "So the Fundamentals of EU theory are NOT that all magnetic fields are a product of electrical currents? Yes or no will do....."

Absolutely not.

Well that's a start, but it does not align with the posts of CD85 for the last several years. You would think that someone from the EU would have tried to set him straight. Coincidentally when the EU contacted the maker of the Primerfields series he had to reject their offer of collaboration due to the differences in EU theory vs. what he observed during 6 months of plasma experiments....citing the fundamental physics as they actually happen vs. what the EU claims were at that time.
Hannes, I rarely disagree with your posts. You stick to what is known about plasma, it's history of experimentation and the people involved, and you rarely make the claims of your counterpart here....so if the EU theory does not have electricity "happening" first I apologize.

Can you briefly quote EU physics at the SA level?

691Boat
5 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2017
Hannes, I rarely disagree with your posts. You stick to what is known about plasma, it's history of experimentation and the people involved, and you rarely make the claims of your counterpart here...

I am in agreement with bschott. This issue that I run into is the widely varying interpretations of the EU theory among its defenders here.
Thanks for your posts, Hannes.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2017
The "Official Representative of the Electric Universe @ Phys.org" has been bestowed upon me by others, it is not a claim I make for myself nor have I ever done so.
Also, there are "widely varying interpretations" of all theories, ideas, and beliefs, this is by no means unique to the EU.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2017
Hi 691Boat. :)

Your (and bschott's) responses to HannesAlfven following my earlier post, indicates my interventions/reminders re guiding principles/ethics of Science/Humanity discourse (ie, polite, objective, fairminded exchanges, with civil respect and desire for mutual understandings rather than ego/bias driven insults and misunderstandings etc) are bearing fruit! In that the animosities, insults, derisiveness and cross-purpose misunderstandings are gradually dispelling. Wouldn't you call that "doing something useful" towards raising (compared to longstanding previous) level/quality of PO Forum discussion/comment goes, 691Boat? :)

As for "being useful re scientific matters per se": Been there! Done that! For years now! The trouble was, a 'gang' of stalking, trolling, bot-voting saboteurs keep voting me '1' in order to 'hide' my original/constructive science/logics ideas/contributions from the innocent readers who set their 'reading filter' to 2.5 or above.

continued...
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2017
@691Boat cont...

If you doubt my word re 'gang' behavior here (and in old physorg, since renamed physform, now defunct), then ask around! But be sure you don't 'just believe' all you hear from the 'gang' involved, or those influenced/misled by same! They are hardly objective/fair about it all. I have been a thorn in their side for years, exposing/highlighting their anti-science-discourse antics/malignancies despite all their concerted attacks trying to discredit the evidence presented based on a number of "Internet Forum Experiments" which I conducted that proved beyond all doubt what they were: nasty internet losers trying to bully and sabotage anyone who wanted fair and objective discourse instead of the interminable troll-driven mayhem and 'feuds' based on misunderstandings caused by their sabotage and lies campaigns ruining otherwise valuable/interesting science/logics discourse on the idea not the person. Now I concentrate on helping others discuss better. Cheers. :)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2017
It's not a big deal in my view to get a technical detail wrong. What matters much more is whether or not a person is able to learn from it, and on what levels.

To do it right, this process of questioning our conception of the universe involves enormous self-awareness. There is a very important chart that comes from the authors of the book, "Immunity to Change", which I've annotated with science-related context ...

https://plus.goog...cm=false

What this chart shows is that the most difficult problems require adaptive thinking and an ability to critique our own worldviews.

Science education does not teach us that these things are important -- yet, it turns out that you cannot do the highest level conversations without people who have intense self-awareness.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2017
It's not a big deal in my view to get a technical detail wrong
@hannes/reeve & the eu cult
that really depends on the detail and how it's used
for instance: we can test the technical details to determine if your plasma processes formed the grand canyon or made moon craters...
and the evidence shows that neither happened

we can also test basic understanding of physics and the scientific method - we can follow the conclusions to a logical argument based on the eu conclusions about known validated factual evidence versus reality

so to continue to promote the eu based upon their inability to provide reputable peer reviewed science or when they make an argument that is directly refuted by empirical evidence that is validated - that is called pseudoscience

therein lies the problem with your arguments

PS- linking to your personal google plus page is part of the problem
it is neither science, scientific nor reputable source material
IOW - it's pseudoscience
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2017
@hannes reeve cont'd
Science education does not teach us that these things are important
1- repeating a lie doesn't make it more true the more you post it

2- until you actually can provide empirical evidence that demonstrates that no schools teach adaptive thinking or logic, etc during the courses, as a part of a course or as a means to consider data in science then you are continuing to spread a lie based upon your interpretation of events, which is influenced by your conspiracist ideation and pseudoscience beliefs

mit.edu/ocw

pseudoscience advocacy isn't reputable, nor is it science in any way, shape or form

neither is repeating lies based upon pseudoscience dogma

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.