Scott's EU Birkeland Current Blunders

[SelfSim]

I decided to create a new thread about a recent Electric Universe (EU) paper kindly posted by Michael, who used it to argue that it clearly demonstrates EU's math capabilities (on another thread here at CF).

The paper is as follows:
Magnetic Fields of Birkeland Currents by DE Scott, Ph. D. (EE)

The accompanying presentation by Scott at a recent EU pow-wow, follows: is here.

Put simply, Scott creates a model of a supposed 'Birkeland Current' in plasma, based on the following two key postulates:

i) A force free field is a minimum energy configuration and;
ii) The associated magnetic field, is purely intrinsic and not affected by external fields.

In Scott's words:

In cosmic plasma an electric current and its associated magnetic field are free to take on a minimum energy configuration. This arrangement is described as a force-free field ...

He then goes on to describe the nature of what he says is the resulting magnetic field and calls it a 'Birkeland Current Magnetic Field'. He proceeds to invoke an equation, articulated in cylindrical coordinates, for which he develops a numerical solution (using a computer).

Now, I assert that postulate (i) above is false to start with[sup]#1[/sup];
A charged plasma particle moving at constant velocity in a straight line, is in 'a minimum energy configuration' and yet this arrangement does not qualify as 'a force-free field', as postulate (i) asserts. Its circular magnetic field, which forms at right angles to its direction, can never re-orient itself to being parallel to its direction of travel!
A more formal definition of a 'force-free field' requires that a current density direction/vector ('j') and the magnetic field vector ('B') must be in alignment, (parallel or coincident with each other).

There are many, many more issues with this paper from a mainstream Physics perspective but I'm going to try and keep this simple, by taking them one at a time. I'll try to continue with each issue in its own dedicated post.

As I'm sure others will try to divert this thread from its intended focus, which is the paper itself, (in support of their own agendas), I may or may not respond to their attempts. I'm not really out to address their misconceptions ... the focus is intended to be on Scott's.

Best regards!

Footnote #1:
But wait !! We need to consider falsification of my own assertion! (See my next post).

 

[faroukfarouk]

EU also refers to the European Union. (It certainly blunders also...)

 

[SelfSim]

From my OP:

Footnote #1:
But wait !! We need to consider falsification of my own assertion! (See my next post).

Ok .. so another formal definition of a 'force-free field' comes from the magnetostatic equations for plasma, which says that a 'force-free field' is defined as having negligible plasma pressure, relative to its magnetic pressure.

So does my 'charged particle moving through free space' qualify as a legitimate test candidate for applying to Scott's postulates (in particular his 'force-free/minimum energy'' definition)?

The answer is: NO! It is not! There is no magnetic pressure! The absence of external magnetic fields acting on the intrinsic magnetic field of the moving particle means there are no magnetic forces present (F=qv X B)!
And if there are no magnetic forces, then there is no magnetic pressure!

So SelfSim's assertion in Post #1 has been falsified! (Such a 'shifty' poster, that SelfSim character! )

BUT WAIT!!! ...
.. Neither is Scott's described model a legitimate candidate .. for exactly the same reason!

This highlights yet another flaw in Scott's paper. He introduces a 'force free field' as an assumption which is totally contradicted by the lack of magnetic forces in his model!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I decided to create a new thread about a recent Electric Universe (EU) paper kindly posted by Michael, who used it to argue that it clearly demonstrates EU's math capabilities (on another thread here at CF).

The paper is as follows:
Magnetic Fields of Birkeland Currents by DE Scott, Ph. D. (EE)

The accompanying presentation by Scott at a recent EU pow-wow, follows: is here.

Put simply, Scott creates a model of a supposed 'Birkeland Current' in plasma, based on the following two key postulates:

i) A force free field is a minimum energy configuration and;
ii) The associated magnetic field, is purely intrinsic and not affected by external fields.

In Scott's words:He then goes on to describe the nature of what he says is the resulting magnetic field and calls it a 'Birkeland Current Magnetic Field'. He proceeds to invoke an equation, articulated in cylindrical coordinates, for which he develops a numerical solution (using a computer).

Now, I assert that postulate (i) above is false to start with[sup]#1[/sup];
A charged plasma particle moving at constant velocity in a straight line, is in 'a minimum energy configuration' and yet this arrangement does not qualify as 'a force-free field', as postulate (i) asserts. Its circular magnetic field, which forms at right angles to its direction, can never re-orient itself to being parallel to its direction of travel!
A more formal definition of a 'force-free field' requires that a current density direction/vector ('j') and the magnetic field vector ('B') must be in alignment, (parallel or coincident with each other).

There are many, many more issues with this paper from a mainstream Physics perspective but I'm going to try and keep this simple, by taking them one at a time. I'll try to continue with each issue in its own dedicated post.

As I'm sure others will try to divert this thread from its intended focus, which is the paper itself, (in support of their own agendas), I may or may not respond to their attempts. I'm not really out to address their misconceptions ... the focus is intended to be on Scott's.

Best regards!

Footnote #1:
But wait !! We need to consider falsification of my own assertion! (See my next post).

Newton's laws of motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force."


So now you are arguing against Dr. Scott because he uses the same force laws as you do????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/forcefree.pdf

"Hence, if a force-free magnetic field could be established in a (poorly) conducting medium, it would decay away slowly without changeto its spatial configuration".


Of course assuming that plasma is a poorly conducting medium would be absurd to start with, since it is it's highly conducting nature, that mainstream wants to say is the cause of those "frozen in" magnetic fields.

make up your minds please.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Perhaps you should study the motion of charged particles in EM fields.

Motion of a charged particle in electric and magnetic fields

"he velocity, electric and magnetic vectors are in in the same direction. Let they are aligned along x-axis. Since magnetic field and velocity vectors are parallel, there is no magnetic force."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you would stop ignoring the science:

Electric field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Electrostatic fields are E-fields which do not change with time, which happens when the charges are stationary....

...Electrodynamic fields are E-fields which do change with time, when charges are in motion."

Magnetic field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A magnetic field is the magnetic influence of electric currents and magnetic materials...

...Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin...

...All moving charged particles produce magnetic fields. Moving point charges, such as electrons, produce complicated but well known magnetic fields that depend on the charge, velocity, and acceleration of the particles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#cite_note-30"


It's not my fault you have a faulty misconception of what causes magnetic fields.

 

[SelfSim]

Ok, so given that neither:

a) the charged particle moving in free space nor;
b) Scott's 'thing' model;

seem to be legitimate candidates for a 'force free field', can we nonetheless use the charged particle moving in free space, to test Scott's math?

It seems we can, because (a) is a trivial case of the Scott 'thing' model. His math predicts the magnetic field strength drops off as (1/r[sup]0.5[/sup]), whereas for our moving a particle in free space, (or a long wire), the strength drops off only as 1/r.

So why isn't Scott's math prediction supported by extensive historical observations and lab tests of the magnetic field strength of the test particle (or long wire)?

It should!?!

 

[SelfSim]

Perhaps you should study the motion of charged particles in EM fields.

Motion of a charged particle in electric and magnetic fields

"The velocity, electric and magnetic vectors are in in the same direction. Let they are aligned along x-axis. Since magnetic field and velocity vectors are parallel, there is no magnetic force."

Well ok .. so just exactly how does Scott's model result in magnetic field and velocity vectors being parallel, when the trivial case of a charged particle moving at constant velocity in free space is unable achieve this miraculous feat all on its lonesome?

The rest of what you posted was apparently meant to be posted in some other thread. Never mind laddie ... we all make mistakes like that from time-to-time .. .. Forgiven! (This time!).

 

[Michael]

Well ok .. so just exactly how does Scott's model result in magnetic field and velocity vectors being parallel, when the trivial case of a charged particle moving at constant velocity in free space is unable achieve this miraculous feat all on its lonesome?

Who said anything about 'lonesome' particles when he's talking about "current"? You're still harping on this even though you *agreed* that Birkeland currents produce spiraled magnetic lines? Really?

You sort of missed the whole point of his presentation IMO, specifically the flow of *current*, and the changing magnetic configurations that occur over a distance from r.

 

[Michael]

Put simply, Scott creates a model of a supposed 'Birkeland Current' in plasma, based on the following two key postulates:

i) A force free field is a minimum energy configuration and;
ii) The associated magnetic field, is purely intrinsic and not affected by external fields.

Eh? I think you missed the *whole* point of the paper. Let me quote Celeste from Thuinderbolts for you:

Michael and zendo, There is an irony in this objection. What his last paragraph hints at (the "green lines"...then establishes the particle trajectory), is the very reason why Scott's model works. It's what all of us have been missing the whole time. It's not that Donald Scott failed to recognize this, but he was the first to recognize this. The critic has unknowingly stated the basis for Scott's model.
We all knew that a single charged particle moving through space should generate an azimuthal field. We all made the mistake of thinking that more particles moving together, just makes a larger azimuthal field. We forgot that the azimuthal field from one particle, becomes part of the field for the rest of the particles. Oops! Fortunately Scott (and ironically his critic),are setting us straight.

I believe that you missed the whole point of his paper. His model specifically describes the magnetic field effects from *other* particles within the current stream. They describe the various magnetic field configurations that occur at various distances r from the core of the filament.

It's not a model about a *single* particle, it's model about the *whole current thread*, and how it is arranged. Like Markland convection models, Scott's model shows that 'concentric plasmas" form inside the thread. Iron is likely to be at the *center* of coronal loops, whereas hydrogen is likely to be further from the core.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's not a model about a *single* particle, it's model about the *whole current thread*, and how it is arranged. Like Markland convection models, Scott's model shows that 'concentric plasmas" form inside the thread. Iron is likely to be at the *center* of coronal loops, whereas hydrogen is likely to be further from the core.

That's exactly why there is limited zoning with the solar system, because a natural phenomenon of EM fields, is preferential separation of molecules by size and/or binding affinity. It's even used to separate DNA, RNA and proteins, by charge and/or size.

Just about in every process where separation of different molecules is needed.

Even in the upper atmosphere.

"Professor Emeritus of the Alfvén Laboratory in Sweden, Carl-Gunne Fälthammar wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current#cite_note-6 "A reason why Birkeland currents are particularly interesting is that, in the plasma forced to carry them, they cause a number of plasma physical processes to occur (waves, instabilities, fine structure formation). These in turn lead to consequences such as acceleration of charged particles, both positive and negative, and element separation (such as preferential ejection of oxygen ions). Both of these classes of phenomena should have a general astrophysical interest far beyond that of understanding the space environment of our own Earth.""

Exactly why we find chemical zoning in the solar system.

 

[SelfSim]

Eh? I think you missed the *whole* point of the paper. Let me quote Celeste from Thuinderbolts for you:
...{etc}...
I believe that you missed the whole point of his paper. His model specifically describes the magnetic field effects from *other* particles within the current stream. They describe the various magnetic field configurations that occur at various distances r from the core of the filament.

It's not a model about a *single* particle, it's model about the *whole current thread*, and how it is arranged. Like Markland convection models, Scott's model shows that 'concentric plasmas" form inside the thread. Iron is likely to be at the *center* of coronal loops, whereas hydrogen is likely to be further from the core.

What's seems clear is that Scott, like so many other EU proponents, apparently also thinks that a math model should be developed to prove a preconceived ideological agenda. In this case, from this paper, his apparent agenda is that Birkeland Currents can appear magically in space without any pre-existing alignment fields whatsoever!

I wouldn't expect you to notice the glaring contradictions in this paper however, which is why I articulated them in the initial posts of this thread.

In this paper, Scott is not describing a Birkeland Current from its essential constituents. I do concede, (obviously), that he calls it one. It is however, more a 'thing' he's ended up with.

At best, he is describing a unidirectional charged particle flow (the collective aggregate of a bunch of straight wooden rods in his Roman 'fasces' analogy). His misinterpretation of Alfven's diagram (Figure #4) apparently also results in the total absence of helical particle trajectories, which are established due to the magnetic pressure induced by an alignment field. The idea that more than one mysteriously co-aligned current stream, then somehow magically creates the effect of an enveloping alignment field, is totally unconvincing because he simply hasn't demonstrated this to be so, anywhere.

Scott's 'thing' is not able to produce synchrotron radiation as a result of the normal particle acceleration, (helical), which is the defining characteristic of a Birkeland Current, and is the primary method used for remotely detecting them.

If we follow his rationale, there would be no difference between what his model produces, and the magnetic field produced by a DC current flowing in a long, straight wire. Bizarrely though, this is not the result he ends up with!

EU theory lays claim to supposedly being based on empirical lab evidence, and yet Scott produces a result which is totally at odds with that lab evidence!

 

[SelfSim]

Abstract: The fundamental vector calculus definition of a force-free, field-aligned, Birkeland current is expanded in cylindrical coordinates to obtain the partial differential equations (DEs) that yield the magnetic field created by such a current.

Michael's claim that Scott's model "specifically describes the magnetic field from 'other' particles within the stream" is clearly in error, as Scott specifically states in equation (5) of his paper, that the electric field does not change with time. In other words, the magnetic field is a function of the current density alone which can be composed of one particle, ten particles, a trillion particles etc!

 

[SelfSim]

It needs to be restated that:

i) Scott's claim that a force free field, (where the magnetic field and the direction of current density are parallel), is at its minimum, and therefore at its most stable energy state, is grossly nonsensical;

and;

ii) the inability of his model as stated, to produce synchrotron radiation, contradicts the empirical evidenced basis underpinning the fundamental definition of a Birkeland Current.

 

[SelfSim]

Who said anything about 'lonesome' particles when he's talking about "current"? You're still harping on this even though you *agreed* that Birkeland currents produce spiraled magnetic lines?

Typical Michael dishonesty here .. and what everyone else rightly complains about.

I have never made any such statements or 'agreements' about this at all!

Shame on you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Typical Michael dishonesty here .. and what everyone else rightly complains about.

I have never made any such statements or 'agreements' about this at all!

Shame on you.

So you are saying then that plasma filaments in space hundreds of millions of light years long are made of solitary lonesome particles, or lots of those solitary lonesome particles?

So just what ARE you saying then?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It needs to be restated that:

i) Scott's claim that a force free field, (where the magnetic field and the direction of current density are parallel), is at its minimum, and therefore at its most stable energy state, is grossly nonsensical;

and;

ii) the inability of his model as stated, to produce synchrotron radiation, contradicts the empirical evidenced basis underpinning the fundamental definition of a Birkeland Current.

Why would it not be able to produce synchroton radiation, when every single type ever observed in space has been produced with plasma in the laboratory???????????

Pinch (plasma physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Pinches may also become unstable,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)#cite_note-11 and generate radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves, x-rayshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)#cite_note-12 and gamma rays,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)#cite_note-13 and also neutronshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)#cite_note-14 and synchrotron radiation."

I don't even understand why you would even imply such a thing is impossible, contrary to every laboratory experiment ever performed????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What's seems clear is that Scott, like so many other EU proponents, apparently also thinks that a math model should be developed to prove a preconceived ideological agenda. In this case, from this paper, his apparent agenda is that Birkeland Currents can appear magically in space without any pre-existing alignment fields whatsoever!

Because once again, your entire concept of magnetic fields is flawed. Current creates magnetic fields, which then constrict that current further, confining it. This has been known for over 200+ years.

Ampère's Experiments

Ampère's Law

The Lorentz Force

Because you refuse to comprehend what Gauss' Law told you.

Gauss' Law for Magnetic Fields

They form just like lightning does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLWIBrweSU8

 

[SelfSim]

So you are saying then that plasma filaments in space hundreds of millions of light years long are made of solitary lonesome particles, or lots of those solitary lonesome particles?

So just what ARE you saying then?????

SelfSim's Law (SL) states that: "Responses to Justatruthseeker are always waste of electrons." However, I presently do have some surplus electrons ...

Contrary to what you obviously want me to say, (which would be entirely irrelevant in this thread), what I actually do have to say was summarised in my post#15:

i) Scott's claim that a force free field, (where the magnetic field and the direction of current density are parallel), is at its minimum, and therefore at its most stable energy state, is grossly nonsensical;

and;

ii) the inability of his model as stated, to produce synchrotron radiation, contradicts the empirical evidenced basis underpinning the fundamental definition of a Birkeland Current.

Which does answer your question, eh?