Northern Lights' Physics Could Aid in Nuclear Fusion

[Skywizard]

A view of the aurora australis as taken by the Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global
Exploration (IMAGE) spacecraft.



The aurora is more than just a breathtaking display of light. It may also hold the secret of a magnetic phenomenon related to the nuclear fusion powering the sun. This secret could even help create nuclear fusion in the lab, says a team of researchers.

Nuclear fusion is a reaction that combines the nuclei of two atoms into one. The process powers stars, but getting a self-sustained fusion reaction going on Earth is very difficult, and has so far eluded scientists. For example, in February, researchers at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California made headlines when they managed to spur a fusion reaction that ate up less fuel than it produced. But the overall process of triggering the reaction still took more energy than was generated.

Now a team of researchers from the University of Michigan and Princeton University hopes that the performance of fusion experiments can be improved by investigating of the dynamics of magnetic fields observed during the aurora.

Elusive fusion

To trigger a fusion reaction on Earth, one must compress the fuel (typically equal mixtures of deuterium and tritium, which are two isotopes of the hydrogen atom) to a temperature and density similar to that at the core of a star. If the hydrogen fuel is held long enough under these very specific conditions, the superheated gas turns into a "soup" of freely moving, charged particles called plasma. In this state, the hydrogen starts fusing into energetic helium. That’s how young stars burn, using hydrogen compressed by the stars' own gravity. As fusion devices become bigger and the plasma in them gets hotter and more compressed, there is hope to one day reach "ignition" — the point at which the plasma heats itself without external input.

Another galactic process might help usher along the quest for Earth-bound fusion. As the sun's plasma swirls around, the substance generates a strong magnetic field. Sometimes, this field is so highly stressed that its field lines are forced together, at which point the Sun releases a huge amount of energy into space, known as a solar flare. At times, the flare explodes straight in the direction of Earth, sending a stream of highly charged solar particles to the planet.

When the solar particles approach Earth, they distort its magnetic field, which allows some charged particles to enter the atmosphere at the North and South Poles. As the particles interact with gases in the Earth's atmosphere, those gases begin to glow. In the north, this is known as aurora borealis, or the Northern Lights. The Southern Lights, seen in the Southern Hemisphere, are called aurora australis.

If this solar wind is especially strong, it can cause the planet's magnetic field lines to disconnect from Earth. Then, after moving about a third of the way from the Earth to the moon, these lines reconnect and snap back into position. In the process, they sling charged solar particles toward the Earth's atmosphere, triggering the aurora. This breaking and reconnecting of oppositely directed magnetic field lines is called magnetic reconnection. Incidentally, scientists also believe that magnetic reconnection powers the solar flares themselves.

With the aurora borealis, for example, the northern lights usually occur near the North Pole, but the more the magnetic field lines disconnect and snap back, the further south the lights can appear.

However, magnetic reconnection also happens on a much smaller scale during nuclear fusion in the lab. And it is this process that could help make nuclear fusion energy-efficient, researchers reported on March 14 in the journal Physical Review Letters.



Read Full Story: http://www.livescience.com/45384-nuc...on-aurora.html



peace...

[Davidallany]

The aurora is more than just a breathtaking display of light

This made me laugh, thank you.

To trigger a fusion reaction on Earth, one must compress the fuel (typically equal mixtures of deuterium and tritium, which are two isotopes of the hydrogen atom) to a temperature and density similar to that at the core of a star. If the hydrogen fuel is held long enough under these very specific conditions, the superheated gas turns into a "soup" of freely moving, charged particles called plasma. In this state, the hydrogen starts fusing into energetic helium. That’s how young stars burn, using hydrogen compressed by the stars' own gravity. As fusion devices become bigger and the plasma in them gets hotter and more compressed, there is hope to one day reach "ignition" — the point at which the plasma heats itself without external input.

This is very informative. Is it not dangerous to attempt this on the Earth's surface? What if the experiment becomes unstable and creates havoc. Isn't it better to do this somewhere in space? or on a surface of a planetoid just to "hedge our bets".

[panpravda]

Sorry, but with respect, and because it's just too important, I can't let this pass without bringing to people's attention the Electric Sun model, which happens to be far superior to the pop-sci notion of an on-going, self-controlling, thermonuclear explosion. There are so many unanswered questions around that stellar fusion model, it beggars belief that serious lay people, researchers and scientists still proclaim its efficacy.

Our Sun, and all stars, with no exceptions, are fundamentally "electric". They are arc-mode, plasma focus points in a complex universal network of Birkeland currents, where each star receives an all-encompassing "electron in-flow" (current) from surrounding space (which in our case is the heliosphere that permeates and encompasses our solar system). All the different star types can be explained by this model, where from small and dim brown dwarfs to the most enormous and bluest of giants, the difference between them is solely to do with the concentration of plasma involved and the current density per square meter that impinges on their respective photosphere surfaces.

And as far as the thermonuclear fusion model is concerned, it's plain wrong, and to explain that assertion very briefly, here's a paragraph from Wal Thornhill's article "Our Misunderstood Sun" on his website at www.holoscience.com Study this and other articles on that site and you'll find oodles of common sense to back up glaringly logical theories.

"Countless billions of dollars have been wasted based on the thermonuclear model of stars. For example, trying to generate electricity from thermonuclear fusion, “just like the Sun.” The thought that solar scientists have it completely backwards has not troubled anyone’s imagination. The little fusion power that has been generated on Earth has required phenomenal electric power input, “just like the Sun!” The Sun and all stars consume electrical energy to produce their heat and light and cause some thermonuclear fusion in their atmospheres. The heavy elements formed there are seen in stellar spectra. It explains why the expected solar neutrino count is low and anti-correlated with sunspot numbers. It explains why many stars are considered “chemically peculiar.” Get the physics right first and the mathematics will follow."

"Get the physics right and the mathematics will follow" ... I absolutely agree, for in recent decades it has been other way around, the gymnastics of theoretical mathematics has led science; mathematical "ideas" have been allowed to drive the bus! How ridiculous can things become? ... we have accepted as correct, the type of mathematics that actually allows division by zero (black holes) to stand as something robust and to be believed - and what does that say about those who practice today's theoretical mathematics? [End of small rant].

And another statement from so many others of a similar nature ... Astrophysicist, Eugene N. Parker wrote ...

“..the pedestrian Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding. We need look no farther than the sunspot, or the intensely filamentary structure of the photospheric magnetic field, or the spicules, or the origin of the small magnetic bipoles that continually emerge in the supergranules, or the heat source that maintains the expanding gas in the coronal hole, or the effective magnetic diffusion that is so essential for understanding the solar dynamo, or the peculiar internal rotation inferred from helioseismology, or the variation of solar brightness with the level of solar activity, to name a few of the more obvious mysterious macrophysical phenomena exhibited by the Sun.” [my emphasis added]

I could go on and on with powerful examples, but I won't for now, so finally, here from another highly respected scientist, Dr Donald Scott, is his video presentation of the "Electric Sun" model ... HERE

[Davidallany]

"Get the physics right and the mathematics will follow"

Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? As in you get the math first then physics will follow?

[river]

Posted by Davidallany (here)

"Get the physics right and the mathematics will follow"

Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? As in you get the math first then physics will follow?

Well think about what your saying .......?

You are suggesting that the mathematics is more important than than the physical dynamics of the particles themselves , how is this possible ?

[Davidallany]

Well think about what your saying .......?

You are suggesting that the mathematics is more important than than the physical dynamics of the particles themselves , how is this possible ?

I really do not know which is more important because of my own ignorance in this subject, which is why I am trying to find out, probably they are both equally important. I had a question, so I asked. I was not saying anything by the way, I have typed my question.

[panpravda]

Davidallany: 'fraid not, at least, not in my book, and certainly not in the books of the scientists in whom I place my trust and whose work my years of study in these matters has given me cause to follow. This view is based upon something which to me is clear and logical, and this is; good scientific research should be based upon sound scientific principles; i.e. that which we already know works and so can prove; after that, we get into the less black and white areas of what we judge through observation is likely the case through the application of common sense and logic.

Practising the opposite of this is like saying to Fred who has never seen or experienced fire before that, even though your trustworthy self has also never had experience of fire, your calculations nevertheless prove that if Fred puts his hand in the fire he'll come to no harm. Why on earth should we allow what is essentially "pure opinion" to have more relevance in science than the results of practical experience? People just don't seem to realise that theoretical mathematics - and here I am unashamedly referring to the unrestrained imaginations of theoretical mathematicians - has been allowed to run wild for far too long. We need to stop believing everything we are told and start putting theoretical science in the dock by insisting on answers to the questions they've been allowed to ignore, again, for far too long.

So, the starting place should be the physics and engineering principles which we already know work, because we use this science and technology daily and predictable results can be obtained. If these principles are therefore good science, then results we obtain from the application of these principles should qualify as worthy, and therefore applicable for use in further experimentation. This is good science building on good science. It is through using this process that we must, where possible, test things, experiment with things, observe things (and yes, here I especially mean things in the cosmos that we can't physically interact with), then we should use what we find to assess the efficacy of the original theories we came up with. Then, and only then, with reference to the results we obtain through rigorous means, we should attempt to fit the mathematics that hopefully shows our process has been correct, and that any dependencies with other proven science are also reliable. The end result is almost certainly good science fact.

To put mathematics in its place; in theoretical cosmology it should be a tool used to back up that which we can show, through the practice of what I have described above, is the case. The belief that theoretical mathematics should come before experimentation to establish any notion of good scientific theory, is like putting the cart before the horse. You might like to read the book by Prof. Jeremy Dunning-Davies (ret.) - "Exploding a Myth". This will give you an understanding of what a seasoned and highly respected professor of mathematics and physics thinks about what I have mentioned; along with few other of his thoughts on current "myths" in physics and cosmology. He of course uses more words and gives many excellent examples, but one of the major messages of his book, is just what I'm saying here. And his opinions are among many, many of a similar nature from academia and "good research science".

Again, I won't go on and on, but I will mention this ... One of the major problems is that we, as the science-interested lay public, and others, have placed our trust in people who don't deserve it, purely because they have been brainwashed within a self-interested science mainstream to practice the reification of that which are purely inspired ideas, wishful thinking if you like, where coming up with convoluted mathematical proofs that have provable errors included in order to provide the results required, are allowed to be put forward as cast-iron proof of nothing other than "pure ideas". That's not science, by any stretch of the imagination.

Actually, there's a free PDF book for beginners to the Electric Universe model listed here on Avalon; "One Beginner's View of Our Electric Universe". Here's the same link www.newtoeu.com

[Davidallany]

Why on earth should we allow what is essentially "pure opinion" to have more relevance in science than the results of practical experience?

Thank you for the informative and very educated reply.
Please forgive my ignorance, but is not it so that we can use mathematics to predict events without actually going through the physical experience? Like for example a car colliding with another car, traveling to another spatial body, regulating satellites in orbit, stuff like that.

[panpravda]

No problem, Davidallany, nothing to forgive, buddy! Every one of us - and I have come to understand this through experience - is on a constant quest of learning throughout our lives, whether we know, accept and use that to our advantage, or not. It just so happens that the subject of what is essentially the Electric Universe paradigm, has been for me the door through which I have found, not just far better science that explains how our universe actually does work, but also, the real problem we are dealing with in theoretical science today. And this is that, current theoretical physics is not credible, at least, that is, as it applies to cosmology (theoretical astro-physics as it applies to the universe), archaeology, anthropology, and most of the other 'ologies, including meteorology (see Ben Davidson at www.suspicious0bserv­ers.org)

Many years ago, when unlike today there were no separate disciplines in science such as chemistry, physics, and biology, the time when all of science was collectively known as "natural philosophy", every "discovery made and/or claimed" was judged as amazing, and the interested public were over-awed by the slightest of advertised achievements in science, and also with those who of it claimed intimate knowledge. (Look up the famous and respected Lord Kelvin, the scientist who claimed in the early 1900's that there was nothing new to be discovered in physics.) The public, therefore - and here I include the whole shebang of the non-professional, scientific population - rapidly, but unconsciously, surrendered their ability and willingness to judge to those whom they saw as "learned figures of scientific authority", ergo, there came about the end, before it even started, of any serious source of questioning of what would eventually become the self-interested, status-quo, career, tenure, and ego protective, mainstream science establishment we have to suffer under and allow our kids to learn from today. There existed and still exist, many unsung heroes of science whom we hear nothing of today, purely because they have gone their own way.

I know I come across as being rather critical about this; I make no apologies for that, because I personally view scientific research as being a singular vocation that should abide by morals and strict codes; it is not just a job within which any person who toes the mainstream line should be allowed to obtain a PhD career, do and teach what they like, and get away with doing that without penalty. If this subject is of particular interest to you, or to anyone else reading this, then you should investigate the crisis in theoretical science that exists today; just Google those words as a starting point.

And as for the example you quote, it precisely follows what I have already suggested; one can apply mathematics appropriately to theoretical experiments that are based on proven science; in this case, we are dealing with the rules of simple and orbital mechanics. We know about these things already, the basic rules in question have been proven, so that makes them rules, or at least, they are reliable enough to use at a certain scale, such as with Newtonian Mechanics, so your question is in line with what I have suggested should be the practice of good science.

[mojo]

living in Fairbanks Alaska for 20 years...never got tired of seeing the "Lights" The Northern Lights are visible on a pretty consistent basis there but each one was different and the color spectrums changed as well based on the amount of energy coming into our atmosphere. Some people say they can here the frequency range of the lights but I couldn't. Once at Chena Hot Springs in the dead of a Fairbanks winter a whole bus load of Japanese tourists pulled up to the Hot Springs and curiosity got the best of me. I asked one of the English speaking men and was surprised at what he said. He said, "We believe the Northern Lights helps the egg and sperm." ...Guess I dont have to tell you the rest of what they were going to spend their time doing...

[Davidallany]

Every one of us - and I have come to understand this through experience - is on a constant quest of learning throughout our lives, whether we know, accept and use that to our advantage, or not

Thank you panpravda for the links and your suggested investigation. Indeed, I do like to investigate and question. Cheers