Electrodynamics and magnetic momentum of Sun-like stars

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 10:42:58 PM UTC-4, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

On 9/16/2015 7:52 AM, Poutnik wrote:
What creates magnetic momentum of Sun-like stars ?
=20

Not only is the phenomenology of the Sun's EM physics "complicated",
there is also no well-tested theoretical understanding of the solar
cycle, the very high coronal temps, CMEs, details of the solar wind,
etc. Yes, there is much arm waving and community nodding, but not
much in the way of definitive predictions and empirical validations.

As pointed out by E.R. Harrison in Nature (~1976, but no doubt
referring to older work) the Sun has a net positive charge due (I
think) to the different escape velocities of protons and electrons.

Could there be regions of charge separation within the Sun where
the dogma of "zero net charge" badly fails? I think you can count
on it.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

[[Mod. note --
1. Are you referring to Bally and Harrison,
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...220..743B
If so, note that their abstract concludes with the sentence
The immediate physical consequences of an electrically polarized
universe are found to be extremely small.

2. We could debate "well-tested", but an ADS search on title keywords
"SOLAR" and "DYNAMO" returns 876 references just now. And picking
one of these from the first screen at random,
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809...84K
their abstract wording
We demonstrate that the observed dominance of vertical magnetic
fields at the photosphere and horizontal fields above the photosphere
can be explained by small-scale magnetic loops produced by the dynamo.
suggests a nontrivial level of empirical validation.

-- jt]]

On 9/18/2015 9:32 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
As pointed out by E.R. Harrison in Nature (~1976, but no doubt
referring to older work) the Sun has a net positive charge


I'm confused, I found this that states the Sun has a negative charge:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...2011202b0.html

"IN a recent communication to Nature 1 I have shown that the
interplanetary magnetic fields measured by means of the space probes
Pioneer 5, Explorer 10, Mariner 2 and Explorer 12 all verify the
predictions about these fields which were published in 19602,3 as tests
of the hypothesis that the Sun carries a large net negative electric charge.


I find very little else on the subject. I don't know what is considered
a large net charge but I don't see how it could possibly be more than a
few 10's of kv if even that.

There is surprising little on this subject on the net.

On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 10:32:38 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wro=
te:
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 10:42:58 PM UTC-4, Jos Bergervoet wrot=
e:
=20

Although the specific paper by ER Harrison is of no critical
importance to the ideas discussed in my post (after all the reasoning
for net positive charge of the Sun can be traced back at least to
a paper published in 1924. Any interested person can get to this
information in seconds via search engines.

But, so that discussion cannot be further impeded by a faux scientific
rigor that ignores important principles via focusing on trivia that
a 10 year-old could look up, here is some reference material to the
Harrison paper.

Nature 264, 525 - 528 (09 December 1976); doi:10.1038/264525a0


Electrified black holes


E. R. HARRISON

National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Green Bank, West Virginia, 22901

Black holes with accretion disks are self-excited dynamos that
generate large electric and magnetic fields. Along the spin axis
they emit oppositely-directed narrow beams of high energy positrons
and photons. The beams emanating from superholes are sufficiently
powerful to explain extragalactic radio sources.

RLO
"A liberal in word only, is no liberal"

Dne 19/09/2015 v 04:32 Robert L. Oldershaw napsal(a):
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 10:42:58 PM UTC-4, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

On 9/16/2015 7:52 AM, Poutnik wrote:
What creates magnetic momentum of Sun-like stars ?
=20

Not only is the phenomenology of the Sun's EM physics "complicated",
there is also no well-tested theoretical understanding of the solar
cycle, the very high coronal temps, CMEs, details of the solar wind,
etc. Yes, there is much arm waving and community nodding, but not
much in the way of definitive predictions and empirical validations.

As pointed out by E.R. Harrison in Nature (~1976, but no doubt
referring to older work) the Sun has a net positive charge due (I
think) to the different escape velocities of protons and electrons.

Could there be regions of charge separation within the Sun where
the dogma of "zero net charge" badly fails? I think you can count
on it.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw


I am the OP of this question,
originally posted to unmoderated sci.physics.electromag.

I did ask about primary Sun magnetic momentum
of the primary magnetic field, that interacts with Sun plasma,
creating self sustaining magnetic dynamo,
as I was not sure how it could work without that.

When asking I have not realized ( should, but did not, it is shame.)
that the Sun must have a net positive charge
( said in some resources about Q = 77 . Ms )
due escape velocity reasons.
( v_sq_mean = sqrt ( 3 . k . T / m ),
electron being thermodynamically
sqrt ( m_p / m_e ) faster then proton )

A charged object with angular momentum
creates oriented magnetic field with a magnetic momentum.
The Sun as a rotating charged ball
has part of its magnetic field and momentum due that.

The rest comes due complicated phenomena
of interaction of plasma and external magnetic field,
leading to the dynamic field amplification,
field self-sustaining and dynamic field structures.

I do not pretend this is within my league,
and I am not going to make controversial statements
about observation or theory without showing
that they have a rigorous scientific basis.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[[Mod. note -- Based on an E-mail exchange with the author, I think
(but am not completely certain) that the author is asking about the
linear momentum carried by the Sun's electromagnetic field. (It's
incorrect to say that this is carried by the *magnetic* field, since
the momentum flux depends on the electric as well as the magnetic
fields. More generally, the decomposition of the electromagnetic
field into "electric" and "magnetic" parts is not Lorentz-invariant,
although here there's a natural choice of reference frame.
-- jt]]

On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 10:39:00 PM UTC-4, David Staup wrote:
On 9/18/2015 9:32 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
As pointed out by E.R. Harrison in Nature (~1976, but no doubt
referring to older work) the Sun has a net positive charge
=20
=20
I'm confused, I found this that states the Sun has a negative charge:
=20
-----------------------------------------------------------------

If you look hard enough you can find people arguing for just about
anything, and claiming "robust" evidence for their hypotheses. This
is where the scientist must be a hard-nosed detective. The scientist
also has to employ critical thinking and good judgement that has
decades of real-world examples to draw upon.

Well, that said, here is what Bally and Harrison said at the end of:
Nature 220, 743-744,1978, March 15.

"The picture presented consists of positively charged astronomical
systems embedded in an intergalactic sea of negative charge. It
provides a theoretical basis for Blackett's hypothesis, although
the magnetic fields are much weaker than Blackett anticipated. We
find the picture of an electrically polarized universe intriguing,
and yet, rather surprisingly, we have so far failed to discover any
physically significant effects of immediate consequence."

Note the "so far". It will be interesting to see if the solution
to the dark matter puzzle will require us to reasses the authors
conclusion.

RLO
Fractal Cosmology

Dne 24/09/2015 v 04:34 Poutnik napsal(a):
[[Mod. note -- Based on an E-mail exchange with the author, I think
(but am not completely certain) that the author is asking about the
linear momentum carried by the Sun's electromagnetic field. (It's
incorrect to say that this is carried by the *magnetic* field, since
the momentum flux depends on the electric as well as the magnetic
fields. More generally, the decomposition of the electromagnetic
field into "electric" and "magnetic" parts is not Lorentz-invariant,
although here there's a natural choice of reference frame.
-- jt]]

No, I did not have linear momentum ( LM ) in mind at all.

Transfer of LM in classical and quantum electrodynamic
by a wave or by photon is well known, but not subject of the question.

The subject was about relation of
angular momentum, charge and magnetic momentum,
( see e.g. relation of an electron magnetic momentum in an atom
to its orbital and spin angular momenta )

and about the Sun net charge.

I am also aware Lorentz transformation partially transforms
between current density and charge density,
so magnetic and electrostatic phenomena alone
are not Lorentz invariant.
( See Feynman comments about an electron moving along
a wire with a current )

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:

"The picture presented consists of positively charged astronomical
systems embedded in an intergalactic sea of negative charge. It
provides a theoretical basis for Blackett's hypothesis, although
the magnetic fields are much weaker than Blackett anticipated. We
find the picture of an electrically polarized universe intriguing,
and yet, rather surprisingly, we have so far failed to discover any
physically significant effects of immediate consequence."

Note the "so far". It will be interesting to see if the solution
to the dark matter puzzle will require us to reasses the authors
conclusion.

The history of science if full of ideas which went nowhere. If you are
worried about "so far", search the literature. If nothing has come of
this, there is probably a reason.

If you think this is relevant to anything else, say so and why.

On 9/23/2015 9:35 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 10:39:00 PM UTC-4, David Staup wrote:
On 9/18/2015 9:32 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
As pointed out by E.R. Harrison in Nature (~1976, but no doubt
referring to older work) the Sun has a net positive charge
=20
=20
I'm confused, I found this that states the Sun has a negative charge:
=20
-----------------------------------------------------------------

If you look hard enough you can find people arguing for just about
anything, and claiming "robust" evidence for their hypotheses. This
is where the scientist must be a hard-nosed detective. The scientist
also has to employ critical thinking and good judgement that has
decades of real-world examples to draw upon.

Well, that said, here is what Bally and Harrison said at the end of:
Nature 220, 743-744,1978, March 15.

"The picture presented consists of positively charged astronomical
systems embedded in an intergalactic sea of negative charge. It
provides a theoretical basis for Blackett's hypothesis, although
the magnetic fields are much weaker than Blackett anticipated. We
find the picture of an electrically polarized universe intriguing,
and yet, rather surprisingly, we have so far failed to discover any
physically significant effects of immediate consequence."

Note the "so far". It will be interesting to see if the solution
to the dark matter puzzle will require us to reasses the authors
conclusion.

RLO
Fractal Cosmology


I suspect everyone is overlooking the strength of the electromotive
force, which is considerable.

To build up any considerable charge requires overcoming this, gravity is
far weaker.

In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:
Could there be regions of charge separation within the Sun

Given the convective activity, it would be astounding if not. Think
about lightning on earth.

where the dogma of "zero net charge" badly fails?

What "dogma" is that? Nobody thinks the amount of charge is exactly
zero, but if the Sun had an astrophysically important amount of
charge, the effects would be measurable. And anyway, local charge
separation is consistent with zero charge overall.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

Le 24/09/2015 21:41, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a écrit :
In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:

"The picture presented consists of positively charged astronomical
systems embedded in an intergalactic sea of negative charge. It
provides a theoretical basis for Blackett's hypothesis, although
the magnetic fields are much weaker than Blackett anticipated. We
find the picture of an electrically polarized universe intriguing,
and yet, rather surprisingly, we have so far failed to discover any
physically significant effects of immediate consequence."

Note the "so far". It will be interesting to see if the solution
to the dark matter puzzle will require us to reasses the authors
conclusion.

The history of science if full of ideas which went nowhere. If you are
worried about "so far", search the literature. If nothing has come of
this, there is probably a reason.

If you think this is relevant to anything else, say so and why.


See http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1119.pdf

Salt particles in zero gravity tend to spontaneusly make clumps that are
somehow electrostatically defined.

Static electricity could have an important role in planet formation and
maybe star formation.