Birkeland Currents

[OilIsMastery]

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/BirkeSegment.jpg

Via NASA: Electric Currents from Space (http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wcurrent.html)

When in 1973 the navy satellite Triad (see history) flew through this region in a low-altitude orbit, its magnetometer indeed detected the signatures of two large sheets of electric current, one coming down on the morning side of the auroral zone, one going up on the evening side, as expected. Because Kristian Birkeland had proposed long before currents which linked Earth and space in this fashion, they were named Birkeland currents (by Schield, Dessler and Freeman, in a 1969 article predicting some of the features observed by Triad). Typically, each sheet carries a million amperes or more.
1 million amperes or more? Nope, no mass there...LOL.

Potemra, T.A., Observation of Birkeland Currents with the TRIAD Satellite (http://www.springerlink.com/content/r868t0t4r66365l7/), Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 58, Number 1, Pages 207-226, Sep 1978

[draqon]

Birkeland currents = Ionization by geomagnetic storms of the Sun

right?

[James R]

Nope, no mass there...LOL.

Hahaha. I see your joke. very funny. LOL.

[draqon]

Hahaha. I see your joke. very funny. LOL.

the joke? but there is mass there, carried by ions...

I don't get, what you get? :confused:

[James R]

OIM is having a joke by lying to us. Look - he even wrote "LOL".

[CheskiChips]

Can someone explain to me what I am looking at?

It discusses them as 'sheets', which to me infers that what I am looking at is the surface of two polar potentials (held in space?) meeting...the location of which creates neutralization of potential.

Or is it saying that they are sheets moving perpendicularly away from a spherical surface?

[OilIsMastery]

Can someone explain to me what I am looking at?
The first picture shows the braided filament structure of the current.

It discusses them as 'sheets', which to me infers that what I am looking at is the surface of two polar potentials (held in space?) meeting...the location of which creates neutralization of potential.

Or is it saying that they are sheets moving perpendicularly away from a spherical surface?
More pictures here:

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/BirkeSun.jpg

Below: Birkeland Currents On Jupiter

http://physik.uni-graz.at/spacesciences/ulg_neu/images/Jupiter_Aurora.jpg

[CheskiChips]

These pictures help clarify what I am looking at.

[kaneda]

Planets generate magnetic fields and spin. We use a similar principle to generate electricity in power stations. Imagine what something as big as the Earth could do. Maybe a million amperes or more.

No currents in space. It's a better vacuum than we can make on Earth.

[OilIsMastery]

Planets generate magnetic fields and spin.
Only electricity can generate a magnetic field.

We use a similar principle to generate electricity in power stations.
Exactly.

Imagine what something as big as the Earth could do. Maybe a million amperes or more.
OK but that has nothing to do with Birkeland Currents, Cosmic Rays, or Electromagnetic Flux Transfer Events.

No currents in space.
LOL. Absolute nonense. Ever heard of cosmic rays or birkeland currrents?

It's a better vacuum than we can make on Earth.
Space is not a vacuum. It is filled with electromagnetic energy.

[Ophiolite]

I would recommend less informed readers consult some reliable sources to understand the nature of a vacuum so that may not be mislead by OIM's lack of understanding in the area.

[Read-Only]

I would recommend less informed readers consult some reliable sources to understand the nature of a vacuum so that may not be mislead by OIM's lack of understanding in the area.

Indeed (as usual).:rolleyes:

A minor case in point - the vacuum created in the LHC is a more-perfect vacuum than is found in deep space.

[OilIsMastery]

I would recommend less informed readers consult some reliable sources to understand the nature of a vacuum so that may not be mislead by OIM's lack of understanding in the area.
Because NASA isn't reliable?

:roflmao:

[Ophiolite]

Because you don't understand the significance of what they say, the background against which they say it, and the consequences of both.

Edit: Just so we are all clear. I'm saying that you are an idiot. A persistent, single minded idiot - I'll give you that - but an idiot nonetheless. Now go away, learn something and come back with both your neurons in use.

[AlphaNumeric]

Only electricity can generate a magnetic field.Incorrect. As Maxwell's equations describe, a moving electric charge (which is what electricity is) creates a magnetic field but it's possible to have magnetic fields without moving charges. From these crazy things called magnets.

Or do you have to plug your fridge magnets in?
OK but that has nothing to do with Birkeland Currents, Cosmic Rays, or Electromagnetic Flux Transfer Events.
.So a mass of a trillion trillion kilograms of iron and nickel spinning at a tangental velocity of thousands of miles an hour has nothing to do with generating magnetic fields?
Space is not a vacuum. It is filled with electromagnetic energy.A perfect vacuum can still have an electromagnetic field within it. Bosons are not generally counted when you say something is or isn't a vacuum (ie they aren't included as 'matter').
It's a better vacuum than we can make on Earth. Particle physicists would disagree.

[OilIsMastery]

Incorrect. As Maxwell's equations describe, a moving electric charge (which is what electricity is) creates a magnetic field but it's possible to have magnetic fields without moving charges. From these crazy things called magnets.

Or do you have to plug your fridge magnets in?
In other words, only electromagnetism can produce a magnetic field.

So a mass of a trillion trillion kilograms of iron and nickel spinning at a tangental velocity of thousands of miles an hour has nothing to do with generating magnetic fields?
I am saying that electromagnetism causes gravity and not the other way around. Gravity is a weak force. Electromagnetism is 10^39 times more powerful.

"I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses..." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1676

A perfect vacuum can still have an electromagnetic field within it. Bosons are not generally counted when you say something is or isn't a vacuum (ie they aren't included as 'matter').
In other words, a perfect vacuum does not exist since all vacuums contain energy and matter.

Particle physicists would disagree.
Particle physicists are wasting their time since the universe is made of ether and electromagnetic plasma waves.

[Trippy]

I am saying that electromagnetism causes gravity and not the other way around. Gravity is a weak force. Electromagnetism is 10^39 times more powerful.

Needless to say, your response actually has nothing to do with what AN said.

[James R]

I am saying that electromagnetism causes gravity and not the other way around.

Electromagnetism and gravity are quite distinct. Electromagnetism works on charge; gravity works on mass.

They are easily distinguished by physicists.

"I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses..." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1676

Physics has moved on just a little since 1676.

Particle physicists are wasting their time since the universe is made of ether and electromagnetic plasma waves.

Well, I'm glad you've solved all the problems of physics.

We can all rest easy now that we've had the benefit of your expertise in yet another field in which you have no qualifications.

[OilIsMastery]

Electromagnetism and gravity are quite distinct. Electromagnetism works on charge; gravity works on mass.
Mass should be redifined as electromagnetic energy per volume because there is no gravitational constant.

Physics has moved on just a little since 1676.
Exactly. Electromagnetism and plasma were discovered.

Well, I'm glad you've solved all the problems of physics.
:shrug:

We can all rest easy now that we've had the benefit of your expertise in yet another field in which you have no qualifications.
I'm going to ignore your immaturity.

[James R]

Mass should be redifined as electromagnetic energy per volume because there is no gravitational constant.

Wrong on both counts. The first doesn't work, and the second is just a lie.

[draqon]

if you think about it...perhaps a constant is a number for the mathematical equation inability to express other parameters which should have been in the equation...

[AlphaNumeric]

In other words, only electromagnetism can produce a magnetic field.Since 'electromagnetism' is defined to be all electric and magnetic phenomena then yes, it is the only thing which can produce a magnetic field but that's like saying heat is the only thing which can be warm.
I am saying that electromagnetism causes gravity and not the other way around. Gravity is a weak force. Electromagnetism is 10^39 times more powerful.

"I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses..." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1676Firstly, electromagnetism doesn't produce gravity. Simply being stronger than gravity doesn't mean it's a cause.

And secondly, quoting a physicist from 200 before we knew electricity and magnetism were linked phenomena (Faraday and Maxwell), 250 years before we realised Newton was wrong about gravity, 270 years before we understood electromagnetism on a quantum scale and 300 years before we realised the existence of 2 other forces and that on a quantum scale they unite with electromagnetism is a little silly. His views are hardly going to be representative of our current knowledge.

And thirdly, I'm aware of Newton's work and views. I did study the same courses as him at the same university college as he went to. I used to have lunch underneath the painting of him and a life size status of him is in the chapel I used to walk past every day.
In other words, a perfect vacuum does not exist since all vacuums contain energy and matter.There is a difference between what laymen would consider a perfect vacuum and what quantum mechanics considers a vacuum. I suggest you look up the work of another Cambridge mathematician, Dirac. Though he went to the college next door to Newton (St. Johns rather than Trinity).
Particle physicists are wasting their time since the universe is made of ether and electromagnetic plasma waves. Given it has been repeatedly demonstrated you fail to grasp even high school level physics, you'll forgive me if I don't listen to your views on particle physics, something you know nothing about and I do.
Mass should be redifined as electromagnetic energy per volume because there is no gravitational constant.There's more to the forces of the universe than gravity and electromagnetism. Or aren't you aware of the entirity of the last century of particle physics? Rather than spending your time quote mining people like Newton and Einstein, whose actual work you either ignore or don't understand, why don't you learn a little physics?

[OilIsMastery]

quoting a physicist from 200 before we knew electricity and magnetism were linked phenomena (Faraday and Maxwell)
I agree. The gravitational account of the universe is so primitive it does not even take electromagnetism into account.

250 years before we realised Newton was wrong about gravity
I agree 100%.

270 years before we understood electromagnetism on a quantum scale
I agree 100%.

and 300 years before we realised the existence of 2 other forces and that on a quantum scale they unite with electromagnetism is a little silly. His views are hardly going to be representative of our current knowledge.
I agree 100%.

There's more to the forces of the universe than gravity and electromagnetism.
Pseudoscience?

[Steve100]

Pseudoscience?

Ever heard of that force that keeps the nuclei of atoms together?

[OilIsMastery]

Ever heard of that force that keeps the nuclei of atoms together?
Strong nuclear force can be thought of as electromagnetic since it acts on and counteracts electromagnetic charge.

[Steve100]

Strong nuclear force can be thought of as electromagnetic since it acts on and counteracts electromagnetic charge.

How did you work that one out?

How can it be electromagnetism when it can counteract electromagnetism?

[OilIsMastery]

How did you work that one out?

How can it be electromagnetism when it can counteract electromagnetism?
The same way that electromagnetism can counteract gravity so can strong nuclear force counteract electromagnetism. The goal of science is and should be to unify these forces.

[Steve100]

The same way that electromagnetism can counteract gravity so can strong nuclear force counteract electromagnetism. The goal of science is and should be to unify these forces.

You can't use the gravity example to back up your point, as you have yet to prove the validity of your gravity example.

[OilIsMastery]

You can't use the gravity example to back up your point, as you have yet to prove the validity of your gravity example.
No I haven't.

Consider the example of a paperclip on a desk. All it takes is one tiny magnet to counteract the entire gravitational force of the Earth.

Magnets can be used to counteract gravity pure and simple: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=88397

[Trippy]

I agree. The gravitational account of the universe is so primitive it does not even take electromagnetism into account.

Go look up 'Virial Theorem'.

It's what they use for calculating galactic motion, and it's decidedly more complex than you're deliberately misrepresenting it to be.

[Trippy]

Strong nuclear force can be thought of as electromagnetic since it acts on and counteracts electromagnetic charge.

The strong force may affect charged particles, but it does not affect electric charge, it affects colour charge. It is a colour interaction. 'Colour' and 'charge' not actually reflecting what we normally understand them to mean, colour simply being a convenient way of describing the interaction(s) and charge simply referring to a quantum property.

Gluons, the particles that mediate the strong force have zero electric charge, are thought to be massless, and have a very low experimental upper limit on their mass.

The electromagnetic force is neither electric nor magnetic.
The electro-weak force is neither electromagnetic nor weak.
The strong-electro-weak force is neither Electromagnetic, nor strong, nor weak.
The garvitic-strong-electro-weak force will be neither electromagnetic, nor strong, nor weak, nor gravitic.

[AlphaNumeric]

I agree. The gravitational account of the universe is so primitive it does not even take electromagnetism into account.Actually, it does. Don't you know how to put in non-zero energy-momentum contributions to the Einstein Field Equations?

No, you don't.
Pseudoscience? The weak and strong nuclear forces are not pseudoscience.
Strong nuclear force can be thought of as electromagnetic since it acts on and counteracts electromagnetic charge. No, it cannot. It doesn't counteract electromagnetic charge, its a different kind of charge to electromagnetism. Specifically, it's a non-abelian gauge field while electromagnetism is abelian. Strong and EM charges are independent. Gluons are coloured but not EM charged. Strong force mediated processes cannot be modelled perturbatively, electromagnetically mediated ones can.
Magnets can be used to counteract gravity pure and simple: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=88397That doesn't mean you can view the strong force as an electromagnetic interaction or gravity as electromagnetic. It just means that forces can be added to one another, which we know. If you generate two equal and opposite forces then they cancel, irrespective of how those forces are generated.
The goal of science is and should be to unify these forces. We have united the weak nuclear force to electromagnetism but this doesn't mean that the weak force is an electromagnetic phenomenon. It means that above certain energies there's no separation between the two forces, they are all the same kind of phenomenon. And its called 'electroweak', not 'electromagnetic'. Below the unification energy they are separate forces.

[James R]

Strong nuclear force can be thought of as electromagnetic since it acts on and counteracts electromagnetic charge.

Another basic error.

Electromagnetism works on charge.
Gravity works on mass.
The strong nuclear force works on hadrons.

Please stop expostulating on things you don't understand.

[OilIsMastery]

Another basic error.

Electromagnetism works on charge.
Where did I say otherwise?

Gravity works on mass.
Why?

The strong nuclear force works on hadrons.
Why?

Please stop expostulating on things you don't understand.
Why?

[James R]

OIM:

Sorry, I don't have the time or inclination to bring you up to speed on how or why these things are known, and all the evidence that supports them. And Grand Unified Theories really do require a graduate level understanding of physics at the minimum to understand the explanations at more than a superficial pop-science level.

Suffice it to say that there are good reasons why electromagnetism, when it was discovered, was quickly distinguished from gravity, and that the nuclear forces, when discovered, were quickly distinguished from electromagnetism and gravity.

[Ophiolite]

Specifically, it's a non-abelian gauge field while electromagnetism is abelian..I love it when you talk dirty.;)

[OilIsMastery]

OIM:

Sorry, I don't have the time or inclination to bring you up to speed on how or why these things are known, and all the evidence that supports them.
Good answer for someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

And Grand Unified Theories really do require a graduate level understanding of physics at the minimum to understand the explanations at more than a superficial pop-science level.

Suffice it to say that there are good reasons why electromagnetism, when it was discovered, was quickly distinguished from gravity, and that the nuclear forces, when discovered, were quickly distinguished from electromagnetism and gravity.
"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1914

"The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.'' -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1865

[Trippy]

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/BirkeSegment.jpg

Via NASA: Electric Currents from Space (http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wcurrent.html)


1 million amperes or more? Nope, no mass there...LOL.

Potemra, T.A., Observation of Birkeland Currents with the TRIAD Satellite (http://www.springerlink.com/content/r868t0t4r66365l7/), Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 58, Number 1, Pages 207-226, Sep 1978

1 Amp = 1 Coulomb/second.

1 Coulomb = 6.241x10^18 elementary charges (in this case, electrons).

According to Steele Hill, the SOHO media specialist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center:
A very faint aurora might only be visible for a few seconds perhaps, whereas aurora caused by a major solar storm might last off and on for several days, though it would not be visible during the day. The typical aurora display seems to last perhaps an hour or two.

So, 2 hours (the upper limit posited for a 'typical' auroral display) is equivalent to 7200 seconds.

10 Million Amps, the upper limit posited in the paper you cited, for 7200 seconds equates to a total of 4.49x10^22 electrons.

Each Electron has a rest mass of 9.109x10^-31kg.

This equates to a total mass of 4.09x10^-8kg
(IE 4.09 micrograms).

Were a current of ten million amps to be sustained every second, of every day, for the 4.5 billion years of the earths history, this still only equates to 806,139 kg.

this represents 0.00000000000000001% of the earths total mass.

So no, no significant mass there.

To equate to the equivalent of 1% of the earths mass would require a current of 10^23 amps to be sustained for the entire 4.5 billion years of the earths history.

However, modelling the electrons as being radiated equally in all directions*, sustaining this current at the distance of the earth, would result in the sun loosing 16 solar masses worth of electrons in the earths history.


*A useful approximation

[AlphaNumeric]

Good answer for someone who has no idea what they are talking about.That's hypocritical given how clueless you are about physics.
"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1914

"The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.'' -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1865You pick two quotes which predate the discovery of the two nuclear forces. And one of them predates the theoretical unification of electricity and magnetism, Faraday found experimental evidence of electricity and magnetism being the same thing underneath but he didn't work out the explicit relationship.

And Poincare's quote predates GR and so the description of electromagnetism and gravity in even vaguely the same theory (ie the Einstein Field Equations) were not known yet.

And even when they were even great people like Einstein laboured under the false notation that gravity and electromagnetism would be easy to unite on a quantum level. Einstein pretty much spent 30 years going around in circles. Trying to find a GUT when you don't even know of all the forces in the universe is going to be a very difficult thing to do.

You provided a bad "answer for someone who has no idea what they are talking about."

[OilIsMastery]

That's hypocritical given how clueless you are about physics.
You pick two quotes which predate the discovery of the two nuclear forces. And one of them predates the theoretical unification of electricity and magnetism, Faraday found experimental evidence of electricity and magnetism being the same thing underneath but he didn't work out the explicit relationship.

And Poincare's quote predates GR and so the description of electromagnetism and gravity in even vaguely the same theory (ie the Einstein Field Equations) were not known yet.

And even when they were even great people like Einstein laboured under the false notation that gravity and electromagnetism would be easy to unite on a quantum level. Einstein pretty much spent 30 years going around in circles. Trying to find a GUT when you don't even know of all the forces in the universe is going to be a very difficult thing to do.

You provided a bad "answer for someone who has no idea what they are talking about."
Since you're an Einstein worshipper who ignores Maxwell:

"You can imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track." -- Albert Einstein , physicist, March 1949

"I am inclined to think that physicists will not be satisfied in the long run with this kind of indirect description of reality, even if an adaptation of the theory to the demand of general relativity can be achieved in a satisfactory way. Then they must surely be brought back to the attempt to realise the programme which may suitably be designated as Maxwellian: a description of physical reality in terms of fields which satisfy partial differential equations in a way that is free from singularities." -- Albert Einstein, physicst, 1931

"Before Maxwell people thought of physical reality - in so far as it represented events in nature-as material points, whose changes consist only in motions which are subject to total differential equations. After Maxwell they thought of physical reality as represented by continuous fields, not mechanically explicable, which are subject to partial differential equations. This change in the conception of reality is the most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since Newton; but it must also be granted that the complete realisation of the programme implied in this idea has not by any means been carried out yet." -- Albert Einstein, physicst, 1931

"The greatest change in the axiomatic basis of physics, and correspondingly in our conception of the structure of reality, since the foundation of theoretical physics through Newton, came about through the researches of Faraday and Maxwell on electromagnetic phenomena." -- Albert Einstein, physicist, 1931

"With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot be imagined without ether." -- Albert Einstein, physicist, May 1920

"The special theory of relativity owes its origins to Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field." -- Albert Einstein, physicist

[Read-Only]

Since you're an Einstein worshipper who ignores Maxwell:

"You can imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track." -- Albert Einstein , physicist, March 1949

"I am inclined to think that physicists will not be satisfied in the long run with this kind of indirect description of reality, even if an adaptation of the theory to the demand of general relativity can be achieved in a satisfactory way. Then they must surely be brought back to the attempt to realise the programme which may suitably be designated as Maxwellian: a description of physical reality in terms of fields which satisfy partial differential equations in a way that is free from singularities." -- Albert Einstein, physicst, 1931

"Before Maxwell people thought of physical reality - in so far as it represented events in nature-as material points, whose changes consist only in motions which are subject to total differential equations. After Maxwell they thought of physical reality as represented by continuous fields, not mechanically explicable, which are subject to partial differential equations. This change in the conception of reality is the most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since Newton; but it must also be granted that the complete realisation of the programme implied in this idea has not by any means been carried out yet." -- Albert Einstein, physicst, 1931

"The greatest change in the axiomatic basis of physics, and correspondingly in our conception of the structure of reality, since the foundation of theoretical physics through Newton, came about through the researches of Faraday and Maxwell on electromagnetic phenomena." -- Albert Einstein, physicist, 1931

"With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot be imagined without ether." -- Albert Einstein, physicist, May 1920

"The special theory of relativity owes its origins to Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field." -- Albert Einstein, physicist

Yes, and all of that would have some meaning to you - IF you had what it takes to appreciate what's being said, but you do NOT!!!

All he is saying is that he feels certain that much of his work will be improved upon (that's the very basic nature of ALL scientific discoveries) AND that he, himself, has built upon the work of others.

But since you were incapable of figuring that out for yourself, I doubt if my cutting to the chase for you will improve your shoddy, impoverished education.:bugeye:

[James R]

OIM:

Good answer for someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

Ha! Good one. You do make me laugh, OIM. You're a funny guy.

Since you're an Einstein worshipper who ignores Maxwell

And you're somebody who can only parrot off quotes that are out of date, without understanding their historical context, let alone their actual content.

And that's not restricted to physics.

[Trippy]

And as usual OIM sidesteps hard science in favour of unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Oh well [sarcasm]didn't see that one coming.[/sacrasm]

[kaneda]

Vacuum away from a solar system can be below 3x10^-17 torr. Did the LHC get below the previous record of about 10^-13 torr before it went kaput? That's about 1,000 molecules per cm3 as opposed to space at our distance from the Sun being just a hydrogen atoms per cm3.

Evidence anyone who doubts me?

[Ophiolite]

https://edms.cern.ch/file/445860/3/Vol_1_Chapter_12.pdf

I think this pretty well proves that iguanas crossed the Pacific on moving subduction plates that were lubricated by biogenic oil.