Hi saul:
saul wrote:Thanks for your reply Anaconda. Yes, I should apologize for "trolling" with my remark about the Debye length in this forum
You're welcome. No need to apologize. I was happy to rise to the discussion and state my reply.
saul wrote:However such a reply is what I am interested in and I believe important in many discussions here.
Yes, it's a good discussion to have. You are right in your belief that it is important in many discussions here because the Double Layer process, relationship or dynamic (Hannes Alfven called it a 'phenomena'), as discussed and subscribed to by Hannes Alfven, and Anthony L. Peratt, in my opinion, is a central proposition of the Electric Universe paradigm.
saul wrote:First of all, I should point out that the classical Debye length does depend on the density and temperature of the plasma.
Good, as that reflects what I wrote:
Anaconda wrote:What is determinant is the energy level, density of charged particles. and total number of charged particles present, larger-scale, energy intensive plasma interactions will have larger Debye length possibility.
The "energy level" is the "temperature of the plasma", but maybe more useful for understanding plasma, in my opinion, is to think of it as kinetic velocity of the charged particles, as the higher the kinetic velocity, the higher the energy level, as detected from Earth or satellite space probe. But remember, Browning "temperature" is a measure of random particle vibration, rather, than vector kinetic energy, so the term, 'temperature', in my opinion is slightly misleading, because vector kinetic energy is a better description, as charged particles are subject to control by magnetic & electric fields in space, as moving plasma generates its own magnetic field and bodies of plasma tend to follow magnetic fields.
saul wrote:I believe the difference between the quasi-Neutral and your approach is that mentioned in Alfvens papers on double layers in astrophysics: that the Debye length calculation is a "local" system, which doesn't consider other externals currents and magnetic fields which could affect the system. The paper references Peratt's work.
My position is based on Hannes Alfven's work, as best I understand it and Anthony L. Peratt's work, as best I understand it. In fact, I don't claim originality regarding my above reply, except the immediate composition of the reply, itself. Although, I will take credit for conjoining the two Peratt statments, to the best of my knowledge, into a single physical definition of what will cause a Double Layer:
Anaconda wrote:Anthony L. Peratt provides a two-step statement of how Double Layers form in astrophysical plasma:
“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, retired
“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, retired
Yes, Hannes Alfven thought it necessary, in order to fully understand plasma dynamics, to map the electric fields.
Hannes Alfven wrote:In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and electric currents.
I will add, this is what I have written before, regarding Coronal Mass Ejections (CME):
Anaconda wrote:At any rate, in order to gain a better understanding of the physical dynamics of CME’s, observations & measurements must take into account all the physical perameters: Magetic fields, electric fields, charged particle density, location, direction and points of acceleration.
It is my contention and the Electric Universe hypothesis that CME's are a type of Double Layer explosion. In current or more recent peer-reviewed published papers, this concept is referred to as Current Disruption theory. In Alfven's Double Layer explosion, the trigger for the release of energy is a disruption of current through the Double Layer.
I'll add, it's necessary to fully understand the phenomena to observe & measure the energy level, i. e., the temperature of the plasma, the kinetic velocity and vector of the plasma.
saul wrote:However, AFAIK there is no well developed theory of how the plasma resistivity changes due to magnetic fields in a double layer..
I can't supply an answer. Frankly, that is an excellent question, but, perhaps, the reason this question hasn't been answered or investigated is a lack of research, and that is because it requires an acknowledgment of the wide-spread presence of Double Layers in space plasma, and, so far, that has not been admitted by conventional astrophysics.
(Or I'm simply unaware of the scientific research in that area of research, which is entirely possible.)
saul wrote:The term seems to largely have disappeared in the literature, being replaced by shock or magnetic shock (sometimes "boundary layer") which seems to perform the same basic function. In scientific language there are often terms replacing others and the trend like most of language is almost never logical. However I am interested if you think there are some fundamental differences in the meaning or physics.
Yes, that is true, Hannes Alfven, with his prestige in the astronomical community, was hard to ignore, he got a hearing, and had a conference at NASA, but, with his passing, those opposed to his views, who never adopted his theories or the supporting physical concepts, went right back to what was accepted in the astrophysical community.
Mostly, this is because those opposed to Hannes Alfven's views, didn't want to acknowledge the electric field and electric currents in space, so the term, 'shock', or even 'magnetic shock' (the magnetic fields simply can't be denied), which is a mechanical or fluid dynamic term, is used. The end result avoids having to consider the electric field or electric currents -- as electric currents -- rather, than simply particle flows, devoid of the electrical component.
Saul, there is a reason why certain terms are used and how the concepts came into being. Let's take what I've previously written regarding CME's as an example since I've already touched on the subject:
Anaconda wrote:So-called “magnetic reconnection” was developed in response to ground observations of CME’s, and, in the pre-space age of 1946, only magnetic fields could be observed from ground observatories.
The early “magnetic reconnection” papers all focussed on magnetic fields, but the magnetic field is only one force among many which also includes electric fields, charged particle density, location, velocity, direction, and points of acceleration.
As a result, these early papers never quantified the process and many disagreements existed among the scientists studying the process.
Other scientists applied an electromagnetic framework from the beginning of their analysis & interpretation (which had already been developed in the laboratory), these scientists applied the Electric Double Layer model, which has been qualitatively & quantitatively resolved.
And, this electromagnetic analysis & interpretation has been validated by in situ satellite probes.
Of course, Yamada, et al., doesn’t discuss Electric Double Layers or compare & contrast the two processes because if they did, it would be readily apparent the processes are one and the same process, with, albeit, different names.
It’s simple: The “magnetic reconnection” camp can’t admit the Electric Double Layer analysis & interpretation was right all along because then the game would be over.
Clearly, an electromagnetic framework of analysis & interpretation is required to develop a model for the process in question: Formation & propagation of coronal mass ejections (CME’s).
I still maintain this is the reason why so-called "magnetic reconnection" is so fiercely held onto in the astrophysical community.
But with recent satellite probes which can measure electric fields, charged particle direction, velocity, acceleration, and density, in addition to magnetic fields, these scientists are in the embarrassing position of observing & measuring the exact same signature of a Double Layer, which already has been qualitatively & quantitatively formalized, in the plasma laboratory, and having to insist on calling it "magnetic reconnection".
Of course, the only difference is the term, at one level, because the physical phenomena is the same, no matter what it is called, but at another level, those that use the term, 'shock' or 'magnetic shock', do so without either understanding or acknowledging the full electromagnetic component, specifically the electric component. (The astrophysical community uses the magnetic component, forgetting Maxwell's equations require the electric component, as the two forces are reciprical of each other and inseparable, so the electric component must be considered.)
Why this insistence on avoiding the electric component?
You want my opinion?
Well, to come to grips with the full electromagnetic force, being that it is so much more powerful and dynamic than the force of gravity would upset a lot of established apple carts.