On Celestial Mechanics
                                       
Martin Kruskal, Ralph Jergens, C.E.R. Bruce, Melvin A. Cook

   SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT

                                     I

   PROFESSOR MARTIN KRUSKAL--Program in Applied Mathematics, Princeton
   University

   Editor's note: The following is Professor Kruskal's evaluation of
   Ralph Juergens' paper, "Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and
   Velikovskian catastrophism" (Pensée, fall, 1972). Kruskal's remarks,
   submitted to Pensée prior to publication of Juergens' manuscript,
   stand unaltered except for appropriate changes in page references. The
   following issue of Pensée will carry part two of the exchange between
   Kruskal and Juergens.

   This is certainly an imaginative paper and gives evidence of
   wide-ranging research and extensive thought on important and
   challenging problems. Nevertheless, I have serious misgivings about
   the soundness of the arguments and of the author's competence to
   tackle such difficult investigations. Let me make a number of points,
   of very varying significance, from rather minor or even trivial to
   severely critical.

   1) The author says that the discovery of the existence of
   interplanetary plasma "invalidated the argument that the planets, if
   electrically charged, would perturb one another in most obvious ways"
   (Pensée, fall, 1972, p.6). Again: in a vacuous interplanetary medium
   ... planetary charges must give rise to electric fields detectable by
   their influences upon planetary motions" (p. 7).

   I submit that the argument referred to was not a tenable one in any
   case, and was probably never part of what might be called received
   astrophysical doctrine. (I am no historian. Anyway, I naturally cannot
   assert that it has never appeared in an article published in a
   standard journal, though the fact that the author gives no such
   reference suggests that he hasn't found one.) This is a serious issue,
   as witness the following paragraph on p. 6:

     "This impasse between celestial mechanics and the notion of cosmic
     electrical interaction was recognized long ago. A reconciliation
     seemed so unlikely that physical scientists of half a dozen
     successive generations felt compelled to devise all sorts of exotic
     theories to explain away the most obvious evidence for electric
     charge on the earth."

   My point is that, if the sun and all the planets (in vacuum) were to
   have charges (all of the same sign, whether positive or negative) in
   proportion to their masses, then except for some higher order (small)
   corrections there would be no apparent effect on their motions. The
   only effect would be to modify their apparent masses. The reason for
   this is that the law of electrostatic repulsion is like that of
   gravitational attraction in various ways, in particular in specifying
   variation proportional to the squared reciprocal of the distance of
   separation. (They are somewhat improperly called "inverse-square"
   laws, though "inverse square" should logically mean the square root!)
   Thus the electrostatic force would counteract the gravitational force,
   but in proportion, giving a seeming purely gravitational motion with
   smaller than the actual masses.

   2) On p. 7 occurs the statement: "This does not mean that the total
   electric charge of the isolated body must be compensated by equal and
   opposite charge in the sheath." That is just what it does mean, and
   the author betrays, for the (possibly) first of (surely) quite a few
   times, his lack of understanding of the elementary physics of electric
   fields. If the body's charge were not compensated by the sheath's
   charge, with total net neutrality prevailing, an electric field would
   continue to penetrate (so to speak) the outer medium and more sheath
   would form. The author sounds as if he is confusing potential with
   charge to some extent.

   3) The reference to zero potential on p. 7 again exhibits a defect of
   understanding. Only relative potentials have significance. Until some
   reference value of the potential has been assigned somewhere, to speak
   of zero potential is meaningless. It is true that one often assumes
   zero potential at infinity as reference, but that is hardly possible
   in the present context--the author would presumably be the last person
   in the world to deny the possibility of our whole galaxy (say) being
   charged and being at a different potential from "infinity." The same
   miscomprehension is illustrated by the distinction the author draws
   two paragraphs later:

     "We have ample evidence that the sun, the earth, and the moon are
     electrically charged bodies. Only one of the three--the moon seems
     to have an electric potential equal to that of its environment, but
     from this we can only conclude that the environment itself has a
     potential as high as that of the moon."

   4) Which theorists have tried "to minimize or even deny ... the fact
   ... that only electric currents give rise to magnetic fields" (p. 7)?
   It's hard to believe!

   However, there are considerable subtleties in the relation of the
   motion of charged particles to electric currents. It is not so obvious
   what it means to have "no differential motion between positive and
   negative charges" (p. 7). Thus, in a plasma one can have the
   positively and negatively charged particles all gyrating (around
   magnetic lines of force) with no systematic (cumulative) motion
   (called "drift") and yet have electric current (density). Conversely,
   one can have the oppositely charged particles drifting in opposite
   directions and yet have no electric current. (See Spitzer's book.)

   This point is also relevant to the remark that "if protons alone are
   still being accelerated away from the sun at [the distance of
   Jupiter], no other conclusion could be drawn but that an electric
   current flows through interplanetary space" (p. 10).

   5) The idea that the "solar gases are electrically charged ... almost
   surely negative" (p. 8) doesn't seem to make sense. If a conducting
   body has net negative charge, the excess electrons tend to move as far
   apart as possible and hence gather on the surface. Swirling gases
   inside may well be charged, but some should be positive and some
   negative.

   6) "No one ... has yet been able to show how electric currents might
   be produced by such motions [in the molten core]" (p. 8). This is at
   least ambiguous and gives a misimpression. The dynamo problem stands
   out as a difficulty not so much because of the weakness as the
   strength of the model. Compared to most of the other astrophysical
   situations discussed, involving the state of affairs in the sun and in
   interplanetary space where conditions are very speculative, the
   generally received model of the earth's core is strikingly
   definite--or at least the mathematical problem it leads to is cleanly
   posed in spite of any indefiniteness--in the physical parameters. One
   has a rotating spherical container of incompressible conducting fluid,
   etc., and it is a well set mathematical problem to work out what
   should take place. Unfortunately it is quite a difficult problem that
   has so far defied convincing solution even as to qualitative features.
   It is not, however, seriously doubted that magnetic fields "might be
   produced" by motions in the core, rather the problem is to prove that
   they must be. This is a much severer requirement than is imposed on
   most astrophysical explanations! (Incidentally, for instance, there
   appears to be no proof in the literature of so "obvious" and intuitive
   a proposition as that a stationary equilibrium configuration of a
   self-gravitating fluid must have spherical symmetry--i.e. that stars
   are round!)

   In the same vein, it is seriously misleading to call the Dyal and
   Parkins remark on p. 9 a "stronger objection to the dynamo theory," or
   even an objection at all. It merely points out that the theory has not
   been worked out, hence not established. The word "satisfactorily"
   refers to this, surely, and not at all to the putative charge of the
   earth.

   7) The passages quoted from Sanford on, p. 8 sound like utter
   nonsense. Almost every sentence is a non sequitur.

   To realize how ridiculous it sounds, try metaphrasing the second
   passage thus: "A paper cup and a metal cup of the same shape and size
   (and height above the ground), if joined by an appropriate connecting
   tube and filled 'with mercury from the same source, will take equal
   amounts. This shows conclusively that whatever the force may be which
   holds mercury atoms in a filled container it is not a force which acts
   between the mercury atoms and the atoms of the container. This being
   the case, the weight of the mercury in a container will have no
   tendency to make the container sag or break."

   8) The discussion of earth's electrical charge is vitiated by a
   misunderstanding related to my point (5) above. No amount of
   experimenting on earth and in the atmosphere can tell us whether the
   earth as a whole is charged. Any electrons added as a spherical shell
   to the outer atmosphere would only affect the electrostatic field
   outside that shell and so could not be detected by experiments inside
   (of the kind described).

   9) The convection currents are not postulated merely for the reason
   given (parenthetically on p. 9) but are seen in model experiments and
   explainable theoretically.

   10) A small grammatical point (p. 9): It isn't a temperature gradient
   which falls (though one might, with unintended meaning), steeply or
   otherwise, but the temperature itself.

   11) The reason no one is bothered (p. 9) is that thermal gradient flow
   is not the only energy transfer process present. If it were, the
   author's reasoning would apply just as strongly against the
   "wrong-way" gradient that he himself isn't bothered by. If the source
   of energy were external, the inside should collect energy until it
   becomes as hot as the outside.

   I could add a few more points but these should do.

                                     II

   RALPH JUERGENS

   I appreciate Professor Kruskal's willingness to read my paper and
   submit his criticisms for publication in Pensée. Though I disagree
   with much of what he has to say, I cannot but consider it a favor that
   he has taken time from a busy schedule to take part in this
   discussion.

   In some respects Kruskal's comments seem to reflect a failure to
   communicate on my part. For example, Point No. 2 can hardly be other
   than a case of misunderstanding.

   The situation I am trying to describe is this: Suppose the
   interplanetary plasma in the vicinity of the earth has electric
   potential V[1]. Suppose also that the earth's total electric charge Q
   is such that Q = Q[1] + Q[2], where Q, alone would invest the earth
   with potential V[1].

   Now I am sure Dr. Kruskal would agree that if Q[2] were absent, the
   earth would be at plasma potential, and no sheath would form, since no
   electric field would exist between the earth and the surrounding
   plasma. When Q[2] is added, then, giving the earth total charge Q, the
   only part of Q tending to build an electric field into the
   interplanetary plasma is Q[2], and the resulting field can be entirely
   contained by a sheath populated by charge -Q[2].

   In general, when V[1] (not =) 0, Q (not =) (-Q[2]). If one assumes,
   however, as Kruskal implicitly does, that V[1] and Q[1] = 0, then his
   argument is quite valid. I submit, nonetheless, that my statement--or
   at least what I intended to say--is more generally valid than
   Kruskal's, since it covers all possible situations.

   Actually, Kruskal's Point No. 3 supports what I have said above.
   Certainly only relative potentials are important insofar as
   phenomenological behavior is concerned. This is the essence of my
   explanation, about halfway down the first column on page 10 (Pensée,
   Fall 1972), of how the sun, already charged to an enormous negative
   potential, might continue to behave as an anode--that is, as a
   collector of even more negative charge.

   I would challenge the comment that my reference to "zero" potential
   "exhibits a defect of understanding." Even though I plead guilty to a
   failure to assign a reference value for electric potential, I insist
   that the only result of this omission is that I force the reader to
   assume that by "zero" potential I mean "zero" in an absolute sense.
   And this is precisely the intended meaning. A body absolutely devoid
   of net electric charge may be considered to have a surface electric
   potential of absolute zero.

   It is not at all impossible in the present context to assume, as a
   reference, "zero" potential at infinity. However, from Kruskal's
   remarks, it would appear that he considers "infinity" to be a distance
   somewhat less than the distance to the boundaries of the galaxy. My
   own preference would place "infinity" beyond the bounds of our galaxy,
   for Kruskal is quite correct in surmising that I "would presumably be
   the last person in the world to deny the possibility of our whole
   galaxy" being electrified.

   Professor Kruskal seems surprised at my suggestion that some theorists
   would be more comfortable in a universe where magnetic fields would
   not have to be ascribed to the flow of electric currents. Which
   theorist? he asks.

   I would list theorists of this kind in two categories: Those pushing
   the cause of magnetic monopoles--who might be called magnetic
   monopolists; and those who would ascribe magnetism to mere rotation of
   massive bodies.

   P.A.M. Dirac and Julian Schwinger have been promoting the concept of
   magnetic monopoles for years, although nothing known in Nature even
   remotely suggests that such monopoles might exist. The very idea of a
   magnetic monopole flies in the face of everything that is known about
   electromagnetism, and the search is justified by nothing more than a
   subjective sense of the fitness of things.

   P.M.S. Blackett suggested a quarter of a century ago that planetary
   and stellar magnetic fields might be due to an unknown (and
   undemonstrable) property of matter by which every rotating mass
   develops a magnetic dipole moment. A similar idea had been advanced by
   Arthur Schuster in 1891. And now the same notion has been resurrected
   by James Warwick (1) as a possible alternative to the troublesome
   self-excited-dynamo theory of the earth's magnetic field.

   It is tempting to list even a third category of theorists who seem
   prone to at least minimize the electrical origin of magnetism. In such
   a category I would place many modern-day magnetohydrodynamicists who
   study the interplanetary magnetic field. Most of these people seem to
   treat the sun's magnetic field lines as so many paper streamers that
   can be swept into space by the solar wind. On basic principles, one
   would expect that every magnetic line of force directly related to the
   sun would have to form a closed curve between two points on the
   surface of the sun; yet solar-wind theorists seem to treat these lines
   as if they were somehow detached at one end and sent flailing into
   space with magnetic monopoles at their outer ends. And all the while,
   supposedly, the electric currents responsible for these lines of
   magnetic force roam about on the face of the sun. How much nicer it
   would be if one could ignore those electric currents!

   My suggestion on this point would be to explore the possibility that
   the interplanetary magnetic field is the proper magnetic field of the
   electric current that supplies the sun with all its radiant energy. (A
   possible clue to this phenomenon is perhaps to be found in lightning
   discharges on earth. In high-quality photographs of lightning, I fancy
   I see, not a zigzag path, but a tightly twisted channel strongly
   resembling a raveled strand of rope--as if the lightning channel were
   being forced into an almost helical shape by the proper magnetic field
   of the discharge current.)

   Now let us take up Professor Kruskal's rather confusing eulogy for the
   dynamo theory (Point No. 6). If I read him correctly, he is telling us
   that a "strikingly definite" model of the earth's core has posed such
   an intractable mathematical problem for theorists that we should
   applaud their perseverance and faith rather than look askance at their
   failure to solve the problem. The virtue in such advice eludes me.

   Of course the word "satisfactorily," as used by Dyal and Parkin (2),
   suggests only that the dynamo theory "has not been worked out, hence
   not established." My bit of sarcasm on this point failed to amuse Dr.
   Kruskal.

   The "metaphrasing" of Sanford by Kruskal (Point No. 7) nevertheless
   contributes a bit of humor that I appreciate, in spite of its
   irrelevance.

   Kruskal's Point No. 8 is related to Point No. 5, he tells us, so let
   us go back and consider No. 5 first. Negatively charged solar gases
   make no sense to Kruskal; some gases should be negative, and some
   positive. But why? Clearly he has in mind a situation in which the sun
   is under no electrical pressure from the outside--essentially the
   situation I dealt with in connection with an observation by F. A.
   Lindemann (Pensée, Fall 1972, p. 9). But if the sun finds itself, as I
   suggest, in an environment whose electric potential is strongly
   negative (below absolute zero of potential), it will be induced to
   take on negative charge to reduce its intrinsic potential. And thus
   its surface gases will become negatively charged; there will be no
   need for excess or even compensating positive charges to be found
   anywhere on or in the solar body.

   I get the distinct impression that Dr. Kruskal jotted down his
   criticisms as he read through my paper for the first (and perhaps
   only) time. The result is a failure to note later clarifications on
   certain points in my paper, and also a failure to note certain
   contradictions in his own criticisms. For example, as already noted,
   Point 3 contradicts Point 2.

   Point No. 8 contains its own contradiction. Consider the third
   sentence first: charges added to the outer atmosphere could not affect
   the electrostatic field inside that spherical shell. But an electric
   field actually is detected in the lower atmosphere. Kruskal seems to
   be saying that charge in the outer atmosphere could not produce this
   field, and this seems to leave only charge on the body of the earth to
   be held responsible for the atmospheric field. Yet he tells us that no
   amount of experimenting on earth can tell us whether or not the earth
   as a whole is charged.

   Point No. 9 involves the putative convection currents in the sun.
   Certainly theories and models built on the assumption that energy is
   liberated deep in the interior of the sun will indicate that
   convection currents are present. My point, however, is this: The
   observational evidence fails to support such an interpretation of the
   solar photosphere. Therefore I do not consider it impertinent to
   question the assumption underlying the theory that says the
   photosphere ought to be a zone of convection.

   I fully agree that temperature gradients ought not "fall" (Point No.
   10). Here I must plead guilty to letting engineering jargon slip into
   a discussion of astrophysical matters.

   Point No. 11 raises an interesting issue. No one is bothered by the
   wrong-way temperature gradient in the solar atmosphere because thermal
   gradient flow is not the only energy-transfer process present. I fully
   realize that many astrophysicists have blind faith that one day the
   high temperature of the solar corona will be explained--or explained
   away--in the context of the thermonuclear theory of stellar energy.
   But let me quote one of Dr. Kruskal's colleagues: A.G.W. Cameron once
   opened a colloquium on solar physics in what may well have been one of
   Kruskal's own lecture rooms by drawing a crude curve depicting the
   supposed temperature gradient inside the sun and the observed
   temperature gradient outside the sun. Then he turned to the assembled
   students and auditors and remarked, "the theoretical investigation of
   this problem is in really horrible shape." And later in the same
   session (3) he referred to the same thing as "a nightmarish problem in
   physics."

   I suggest that a relatively easy way out of this nightmare is to
   accept the observational evidence at face value and look outside the
   sun for a source of energy. Then, as Kruskal rightly indicates, we
   would expect to find that the inside of the sun is as hot as the
   outside--but not hotter, and the nightmarish problem in physics would
   be found to have vanished.

   Now let us get back to what Professor Kruskal characterizes as "a
   serious issue" (Point No. 1). He asserts that "received astrophysical
   doctrine," as published in any "standard journal," never included the
   argument that charged planets must perturb one another in ways that
   would disclose the existence of their electric fields. If Kruskal
   really insists that I show such a doctrine spelled out in a "standard
   journal," I am afraid that I cannot oblige him. But let me quote what
   his late colleague J. Q. Stewart had to say in a debate with Dr.
   Velikovsky in the pages of Harper's Magazine for June 1951:
   "Electrical attractions or repulsions of any consequence among the
   planets are certainly absent. Their possible existence was not
   overlooked by careful astronomers many years ago . . ."

   Kruskal further argues that if the sun and all the planets were
   charged alike (same polarity) and in proportion to their masses, the
   solar system would operate exactly as it does now (supposing that the
   interplanetary plasma were not present to shield those charges and
   sheath their electric fields). This, of course, is a rather arbitrary
   specification for charge distribution in the first place, but even if
   it could be achieved I am not so sure that Kruskal's conclusion is
   valid. Electrical forces of attraction and repulsion, even though
   their strength diminishes with distance according to the
   inverse-square law, do not behave exactly as do gravitational forces,
   particularly when more than two bodies are involved. Consider a solar
   system with all bodies charged in proportion to their masses, so that
   the real masses are partially concealed by a measure of electrical
   repulsion counteracting gravitational attraction. No matter how the
   planets in such a system orbit in and out of conjunction
   configurations, the sun's gravitational pull on each of them is
   unaffected. But what of the repulsive forces? It seems to me that any
   electric-field lines ordinarily stretching between the sun and the
   earth, for example, are going to be distorted, if not short-circuited,
   each time Mercury or Venus orbits between the sun and the earth. The
   mathematics of such a situation is far beyond me, but I cannot quite
   accept Kruskal's proposition at face value.

   In any case, of course, the presence of the interplanetary plasma puts
   this entire hypothesis in the category of an academic question. The
   electric fields of charged planets cannot penetrate the plasma, except
   perhaps during close approaches, when the plasma between two bodies
   might be quenched by an influx of dust and neutral gases from
   planetary atmospheres, or when one body orbits through the sheath of
   another, as the moon orbits once a month through the earth's sheath.

   Professor Kruskal claims he could add a few more points of criticism,
   "but these should do." I submit that these eleven points most
   certainly will not do, if by that he means they dispose of my thesis.
   I sincerely hope, however, that he can find time to set forth these
   additional points. It may well be that one of them would strike a
   fatal blow to my hypothesis.

   REFERENCES

   1. J. W. Warwick, Phys. Earth Planet, Interiors, 4 (North-Holland,
   1971), 229.
   2. P. Dyal and C.V. Parkin, Scientific American (August, 1071), p. 66.
   3. Colloquium on Solar Physics held in Palmer Hall, Princeton
   University, December 10, 1964. The fact that Cameron's remarks are now
   eight years old does nothing to diminish their validity; the
   nightmarish problem in physics posed by the wrong-way temperature
   gradient in the solar atmosphere is no nearer solution today than it
   was in 1964.

                                    III

   DR. C.E.R. BRUCE, Electrical Research Association, England

   I have read Ralph Juergens' article with considerable interest, and
   only wish he had kept up the discussion begun seven years ago. It
   would have benefited us both. Unfortunately, at the moment I can only
   deal with some of the points he raises, but I should like sometime to
   summarize the many successes of the electrical discharge theory of
   cosmic atmospheric phenomena and universal evolution, as there has
   been little published in USA since the short series of papers in the
   Journal of the Franklin Institute, December, 1959 to 1963 (which
   brought the Journal and me one of 24 Journal Fund Silver Pen Awards
   for Learned Publications, 1955-1959), which was brought to an end by a
   change in editorial policy.

   I think that my last Electrical Research Association Report, 5275,
   1968 ("Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of
   Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution"), which runs to
   70 subsections, each one describing at least one theoretical success,
   already justifies my vision that "it is the breakdown of electric
   fields ... which has shaped and lit the universe from the beginning."

   I share Mr. Juergens' surprise expressed in the first passage in heavy
   type on p. 10 of his article,^(*)
                    ___________________________________

   *The sentence referred to: It seems astonishing that in the course of
   half a century of studies of the sun in context with the thermonuclear
   theory, very few professional astrophysicists have ever expressed the
   slightest discomfort over discrepancies between observation and
   theory, or even over the fact that an ad hoc extra theory has had to
   be devised to explain practically every individual feature of the
   solar atmosphere."
                    ___________________________________

   which was indeed the tenor of the first sentence I ever published in
   1944 on astrophysical matters. I was quite surprised when a professor
   of astrophysics wrote to say that he thought astrophysicists had not
   done too badly. They had not and still have not an adequate
   fundamental explanation of anything in atmospheric astrophysics,
   despite their complete freedom of ad hoc postulation. And they cannot
   have, without the realization that the laws governing cosmic
   atmospheric phenomena are those governing electrical discharges in
   gases, which are quite different from those of any other atmospheric
   phenomena.

   Perhaps the nearest they have got to a satisfactory "explanation" of
   such a phenomenon was attained by Shkiovsky, when he postulated for
   quasars three of the major characteristics of thermonuclear electrical
   discharges, and christened the result a "magnetoid." Some day surely
   he will kick himself when he realizes that relativistic electrons,
   magnetic fields, and gas jets can only suddenly originate in
   atmospheres at around 3°Kelvin, with only a few atoms per cm^3, as the
   result of a thermonuclear electrical discharge. If we are to depend on
   mere postulation, then surely let us have one and not three!

   I think I have given a good account of the observed temperature
   inversion in the solar atmosphere. The temperature falls from that of
   the thermonuclear furnace at the Sun's center until that temperature
   is reached at which solid particles are formed. These become
   electrified and the breakdown of the resulting electric fields results
   in the granular discharges of the photosphere. It may be noted that an
   extension of the argument in my 1955 Philosophical Magazine paper on
   this process of electrification indicates that these solar
   photospheric electric fields can be built up to breakdown in times of
   the order of minutes, which is the observed time scale of the
   phenomena. As these discharges are propagated outwards in the Sun's
   atmosphere down a density gradient then their temperature increases,
   and it may be recalled that the theory led to the "uncomfortable"
   conclusion in 1959 that in a solar flare the temperature must reach
   hundreds of millions of degrees, when every one else's solar "high"
   was the one million degrees of the solar corona. This prediction had
   not long to wait for its confirmation by the U.S.N. satellite
   observations of X-rays from solar flares in 1960, and Professor Bruno
   Rossi wrote to apologize for writing in 1965 that prior to these
   observations no one had the slightest idea that the sun emits X-rays.
   He had missed both the writer's letters to Nature in 1959 and 1960 on
   the prediction and its confirmation.

   I think that when Mr. Juergens reconsiders the theory's many successes
   in this field he will understand that I would find it hard to depart
   from my well-documented theory.

   Reverting to the electrification of dust as the prime cause of these
   atmospheric electrical discharges, it may be recalled that while
   quasars were soon seen to be associated with dust in 1963, as is now
   generally agreed by the Burbidges, Hoyle, Wickramasingh, Okuda and
   others, all still disclaim any knowledge of the reason for this rather
   bizarre association. The director of the Electrical Research
   Association, where this work was carried out, wrote a letter to Nature
   in June, 1970, headed "Dust," enquiring why they continued to express
   their complete ignorance, since the answer had been given eight years
   before the discovery of the first quasar. The editor changed the
   letter's title to "Dr. Bruce and Astrophysics" to render it more
   "provocative." However, like the 100 or more other contributions on
   the theory it provoked nothing. It makes me quite envious of the
   active opposition which Dr. Velikovsky's ideas have met.

                                     IV

   RALPH JUERGENS

   I am confident that Dr. Bruce's contributions to astrophysics, which
   by now span nearly three decades, will soon receive the recognition
   that is so long overdue. An overview that has generated successful
   predictions numbering in the neighborhood of one hundred cannot much
   longer be kept under wraps (1). Such a record indeed already justifies
   his vision concerning the fundamental importance of electrical
   phenomena in cosmic affairs, and it was with no intention whatsoever
   of slighting his work that I suggested that it might be carried one
   step further by holding electric currents responsible for the sun's
   entire output of radiant energy.

   Clearly enough, Bruce now accepts the idea that solar energy derives
   from thermonuclear reactions taking place deep inside the sun. Some of
   that energy he sees diverted to the building of electric fields in the
   photosphere, the breakdown of which ignites arc-like discharges that
   we observe as short-lived photospheric granules. I would urge him,
   still, to consider the possibility that all the energy radiated by the
   sun has its source outside the sun.

   At first glance, the notion that the sun's fires are fueled from deep
   inside the solar body seems so obvious that it hardly merits
   discussion. It was not always so, but most of us living today have
   been conditioned by the teachings of a single theory that has ruled
   for almost half a century. Perhaps it is not too early to re-examine
   the foundations of that theory.

   Received theory has it that any body with sufficient mass inevitably
   becomes a star. Regardless of cosmic, accident or environmental
   peculiarity that might be implicated in the creation of such a body,
   once formed, it sets itself to the task of radiating itself into
   oblivion (2).

   The concept of stellar self-sufficiency has been around for a long
   time, of course, but in its current version it seems to have acquired
   explicit formulation only in the 1920's, particularly in the works of
   A. S. Eddington. On the very first page of Eddington's pioneer work on
   stellar structure (3) we encounter a statement embodying, if not
   acknowledging, first assumptions: "The gravitational field emanating
   from the interior [of a star] and the radiant energy streaming out
   from the interior together control the conditions in the shallow layer
   of the atmosphere examined with the telescope and spectroscope." Thus,
   in an offhand manner, the idea of energy streaming out from the
   interior is arbitrarily given equal status with the well-established
   concept of gravitation.

   Even as Eddington wrote these words he surely was aware of their
   controversial aspects. Many pages later in the same book (4) he
   attempted to rationalize his position: "In seeking a source of energy
   [for the continuous radiation of heat and light from a star] ... the
   first question is whether the energy to be radiated in future is now
   hidden in the star or whether it is being picked up continuously from
   outside. Suggestions have been made that the impact of meteoric matter
   provides the heat, or that there is some subtle radiation traversing
   space which the star picks up. Strong objection may be urged against
   these hypotheses individually; but it is unnecessary to consider them
   in detail because they have arisen through a misunderstanding of the
   nature of the problem. No source of energy is of any avail unless it
   liberates energy in the deep interior of the star.

   "It is not enough to provide for the external radiation of the star.
   We must provide for the maintenance of the high internal temperature,
   without which the star would collapse . . ." [Eddington's italics)

   By "high internal temperature", he meant one of millions of
   degrees--high enough to trigger thermonuclear reactions at the center
   of the star.

   This argument, which seems to have quenched all subsequent interest in
   external energy sources, is untenable. The high central temperature
   that Eddington inferred from the observation that the sun doesn't
   collapse is but one of at least two possibilities: A stable sun might
   be hotter at the center than at the surface, as Eddington insisted; or
   it might have a uniform temperature throughout its body--a temperature
   very close to its surface temperature all the way to its core.

   Only when one concludes in advance that energy flows outward from the
   interior do an ultra-hot core and an internal temperature gradient
   become indispensable; collapse or non-collapse has nothing to do with
   it, as can be shown from Eddington's work itself.

   The accepted approach to stellar structure presupposes that ordinary
   stars are composed entirely, or nearly so, of matter that obeys the
   gas laws. For argument's sake, suppose we accept this for the moment.

   This is an inappropriate place for a protracted discussion of kinetic
   theory and the thermal behavior of gases. Let me simply point out that
   any process of gas compression, such as might be involved in forming a
   stellar body, must fall between two limits: In an adiabatic
   compression, all the work expended in compressing the gas is converted
   into thermal energy, and the gas temperature rises as a result; in an
   isothermal compression, the heat generated is dissipated or withdrawn
   at the same rate, and the gas temperature remains constant.

   If we go along with the majority opinion that says the sun originally
   formed from a cloud of gas under the action of its own gravitational
   field, we are confronted with a problem of guessing whether the
   associated compression was more nearly adiabatic or more nearly
   isothermal. In either case, gases closer to the center of the
   contracting solar body must suffer greater compression than gases
   farther out, simply by virtue of the greater overburden placed on the
   central matter. An adiabatic compression, or something approaching it,
   would automatically result in a temperature gradient and a hot core.
   An isothermal compression, on the other hand, would result in a solar
   body in which every increase in pressure with depth was exactly
   compensated by an increase in gas density, and the temperature would
   be uniform from the outer surface to the center.

   I insist that this problem is one involving mostly guesswork, since no
   one really knows what the sun is made of or how it was formed.

   But consider this: An isothermal compression, though practically
   impossible to achieve in the laboratory, since it requires
   pressure-vessel walls that are perfectly heat-conducting, and it must
   proceed very slowly to allow all heat generated to be dissipated,
   might easily take place in cosmic space. There would be no
   pressure-vessel walls to impede heat dissipation. And of time there
   would presumably be aplenty.

   It seems to me, therefore, that conditions attending star formation,
   as generally conceived, might well be ideal for an isothermal
   compression.

   The conventional approach, nevertheless, assumes that star formation
   takes place by way of a compression process verging on the adiabatic,
   for the resulting heat buildup at the center of the body is thought
   necessary to ignite thermonuclear fires. Yet it remains to be shown by
   theorists that the sun, despite what could well have been an
   agonizingly long formative period during which any accumulated
   internal heat might many times over have been lost to space, could
   still have retained a core temperature in the million of degrees.

   But what of Eddington's claim that a star with no internal energy
   source must collapse? Actually he briefly considered the isothermal
   gas sphere as a possible model star. He rejected it, but without good
   reason. The problem posed by a isothermal gas sphere, as he himself
   pointed out (5), is one of limiting its size--not supporting it
   against collapse.

   The German astrophysicist Emden made thorough analysis of gravitating
   gas spheres early in this century (6). He showed, on the assumption
   that nothing but gravity is available to contain it, the isothermal
   gas sphere can have no real boundary; it will thin continuously with
   distance from its center, but it will never quite thin to nothingness
   short of infinity.

   From this, Eddington concluded that such a body "has no direct
   application to actual stars" (7), a judgment in keeping with his
   preconceptions. Yet if his apparent singlemindedness had not blinded
   him to the possibility that stellar energy might be supplied from the
   outside, he might have realized that a surface layer accepting energy
   from the outside and re-radiating it back into space might also serve
   to limit the distension of an isothermal gas sphere.

   Today astrophysicists building model stars insert isothermal regions
   whenever their analyses seem to call for them, and of course they
   limit them by overlaying them with regions of different properties
   (8). Clearly there is nothing wrong in this insofar as presently
   understood laws of physics are concerned. But no one goes back to
   consider the possibility that an externally fueled star might be
   isothermal to its core and still have the dimensions of a real star.

   We must now ask: Could an isothermal stellar body be gaseous
   throughout? This hardly seems likely. An isothermal sun might have a
   temperature of only 4,000 or 4,500 degrees at its center. Matter would
   be so densely compacted at the core--more so than in a sun with a
   high-temperature core--that a solar structural model might have to
   include what would be essentially a White Dwarf star at its center.
   That is to say, the core would be of degenerate matter, and the gas
   laws would not apply there. This, however, poses no great problem for
   the concept of an isothermal body. (The outer regions would not
   collapse on that account.)

   I have written at some length to Point out what I conceive to be at
   least ambiguities, if not serious defects, in the foundations of the
   accepted theory of stellar energy. I am not an astrophysicist, and it
   could well be that I have overlooked some later contribution that has
   tidied up after Eddington, so to speak. But I have searched for such a
   correction without finding it. In any case, nothing said up to this
   point disproves the idea of internal energy generation; it is only
   that the door seems to have been opened to consideration of external
   sources as well.

   If this is so, then I say that the observational evidence should be
   given the greatest weight in deciding the issue. And what is the
   observational evidence? The sun fails to end itself as expected, to
   use Hoyle's words (9); its atmospheric temperature gradient slopes in
   the wrong direction for an internal energy source; when we look
   through the photosphere, as in the centers of sunspots, we observe a
   temperature somewhat lower than that of the surface, instead of the
   higher temperature that we might expect (10); and the sun fails to
   emit the neutrinos predicted on the basis of the thermonuclear theory
   (11). And these few items do not by any means exhaust the list of
   anomalies that show up in the light of the theory that the sun is a
   self-sufficient star.

   What prompted my inquiry along these lines in the first place was a
   conviction that many otherwise puzzling phenomena of the solar
   atmosphere would fit quite nicely into a hypothesis placing the source
   of the sun's energy in interstellar space and delivering that energy
   by way of an electrical discharge. At this stage, however, I think the
   case against the thermonuclear theory is perhaps more compelling than
   any detailed theory I could offer to replace it.

   So I would urge Dr. Bruce to reconsider his own satisfaction with a
   sun fueled from within. And I would repeat my suggestion that a system
   embracing discharges (solar flares?) within discharges (the solar
   atmosphere) within discharges (the galactic atmosphere) would even
   more perfectly fulfill his vision of a universe "shaped and lit ...
   from the beginning" by the breakdown of electric fields.

   REFERENCES
   1. It is to some degree encouraging to note a reference to Bruce's
   work in a report by Fred Whipple (Science, 153 [July 1, 1966], 56.
   Something in the nature of a left-handed compliment, this reference at
   least demonstrates that astronomers are aware of what Bruce has been
   saying all these years.
   2. J. H. Jeans once mused (Astronomy & Cosmogony [1929], Dover [1961],
   p. 422): "What is the meaning, if any there be which is intelligible
   to us, of the vast accumulations of matter which appear, on our
   present interpretations of space and time, to have been created only
   in order that they may destroy themselves?"
   3. A. S. Eddington, Internal Constitution of the Stars (1926), Dover
   (1959).
   4. Ibid., p. 291.
   5. Ibid., p. 92
   6. Gaskugein, Teubner (1907).
   7. A. S. Eddington, op. cit., p. 89.
   8. cf. M. Schwarzschild, Structure and Evolution of the Stars,
   Princeton (1958), Dover (1965), p. 290: "The construction of a
   non-degenerate isothermal core is particularly simple . .."
   9. F. Hoyle, Frontiers of Astronomy (Mentor Books, 1957), p. 103.
   10. C.E.R. Bruce, "The Evershed Effect," Journal of the Franklin
   Institute, November 1963, p. 407.
   11. See, for example; "Neutrino Astronomy: Probing the Sun's
   Interior," Science, 173, p. 1011; "The Mystery of the Missing
   Neutrinos," Science News, 100, p. 210; "Solar Neutrinos: Where Are
   They?" Science, 175, p. 505; Solar Neutrinos: Curioser and Curioser,"
   Science News, 101, p. 297; and "The Case of the Missing Neutrinos,"
   Scientific American. (June 1972). p. 53.

                                     V

   PROFESSOR MELVIN A. COOK, founder and chairman of the board, IRECO
   Chemicals

   In his very interesting paper given at the Velikovsky Symposium at
   Lewis and Clark College (1), Ralph Juergens presented certain
   unconventional concepts pertaining to electrical charging of plasmas
   in interplanetary space as well as on celestial bodies. I reviewed
   Juergens' concepts in view of the ideas I presented a decade and a
   half ago (2-4). I fully accept that "the sun and the planets must be
   electrically charged." In fact, as the title to one of my bulletins
   indicates ("Quasi-Lattice Model of Plasmas and Universal
   Gravitation"), I have not only promoted such concepts but also that
   such electrostatic charges give rise to the phenomenon of gravity
   itself. How this is accomplished remains somewhat obscure; however,
   there is sufficient evidence to show that the mechanism involves not
   only interplanetary plasmas, as discussed by Juergens, but also the
   previously little understood high-density plasmas or pressure-induced
   metallic states (5,6) comprising, at the very least, the deep interior
   of all celestial bodies. These high-density plasmas are found commonly
   in detonations. They are promoted especially by high pressures (4-6).
   Even water becomes a plasma, i.e., develops metallic-like
   characteristics, at very high shock pressures. Furthermore, it has
   been predicted that liquid hydrogen will become metallic at about 800
   kilobars, a much lower pressure than exists at the center of the
   earth. High cohesion (or a deep "energy well") is a characteristic of
   a high-density plasma and is important in explaining how this
   interesting state of matter is able to acquire and retain high charge
   density and shield it from other matter in space. An understanding of
   the familiar image force and how it operates in a plasma is also
   important in explaining how gravity can be non-polar yet electrostatic
   in nature. In addition, the magnetic fields surrounding all celestial
   bodies are important in providing the means for charging celestial
   bodies. They act to separate charges on a massive scale (during
   outward flow) as the material is "boiled off" hot central celestial
   bodies and to further increase the charge separation as cosmic rays,
   solar flare plasmas, "solar winds," etc., flow into cold bodies, e.g.,
   the earth, through their respective magnetic fields.

   Electrostatic Charge on Celestial Bodies

   Consideration of conclusions of Sanford and Rowland concerning the
   behavior of charged spheres which were quoted by Juergens may help
   elucidate the model of gravity I have proposed. According to Sanford:

     A soap bubble and a platinum sphere of the same diameter, if joined
     by a connecting wire and charged by the same source, will take
     equal charge. This shows conclusively that whatever the force may
     be which holds electrons to a charged conductor it is not a force
     which acts between the electrons and atoms of the conductor. This
     being the case, the outward pressure of the charge upon the
     conductor will have no tendency to pull the conductor apart.

   While the first sentence ignores only trivial differences in the
   dielectric constant, it is well known that one can explode a sphere of
   any material by charging it with electrical energy (Cv^2/2) enough
   above its normal cohesion energy [[SIGMA]/[i] n[i] e[i], where n[i] is
   the number of (chemical) bonds of type I and e[i] the strength or
   energy of the i th bond] to overcome the chemical binding forces. The
   vast differences in the real interactions (said by Sanford to be
   nonexistent) show up clearly in such an experiment.

   In the opposite extreme, Rowland concluded that if the earth's
   magnetic field were actually due to electrostatic charges embedded
   within the (rotating) earth, the potential of the earth would be more
   than 4x10^16 volts which he said "would undoubtedly tear the earth to
   pieces and distribute its fragments to the uttermost parts of the
   universe." He was, of course, guessing on this matter, supposedly
   because in 1878 he had insufficient information to do otherwise. That
   this too is incorrect is shown by equating electrical energy (CV^2/2)
   to chemical binding energy ([SIGMA]/[i] n[i] e[i]) and solving for the
   maximum potential V or the charge Q [by replacing V by Q/C and C by
   K[e]r[e] where K[e] is the effective dielectric constant and r[e] the
   effective radius of the sphere.] One finds that [i]n[i] e[i] is
   sufficient to permit all celestial bodies to acquire and retain the
   charge needed to make Q = G^1/2M (G = gravitational constant, M =
   mass) and thus account not only for the magnetic moment but for
   gravity itself.

   How Do Celestial Bodies Become Charged?

   In the most massive (and hottest) stars plasmas are literally "boiled
   off" due to the intense thermal environment. These plasmas become
   charged positively because more electrons than positive ions are
   turned back into and retained by the central body as a result of its
   extremely powerful magnetic field. This is because positive ions have
   hundreds of times more momentum than electrons under the same
   temperature environment. [This was the mechanism for (primary)
   charging of bodies mentioned by Juergens.] It is visualized therefore
   that the central extremely high temperature of massive bodies
   comprising the supposed supergalactic nucleus acquire a negative
   charge equal and opposite to the sum total of positive charges in all
   space exterior to the effective nuclear sphere, including the plasmas
   captured by the celestial bodies comprising the primary satellites of
   this huge multi-star nucleus.

   Contributing to the overall charging process is a phenomenon not
   mentioned by Juergens but observed here on the earth. It is involved
   in the capture of the high-energy plasmas from interstellar space. As
   these high-energy plasmas drive [under the high momentum imparted by
   their primary source] into the primary satellites, additional charge
   separation takes place by essentially the same process but in reverse.
   That is, again due to their greater momentum, positive ions are able
   to penetrate magnetic fields and flow into the primary satellites more
   efficiently than the electrons of the same effective temperature. The
   latter process occurs also on the secondary satellite scale and is
   responsible for the attractions between them. It is this part of the
   charge separation process that we are best able to observe and study
   because our earth is one of those cold secondary satellites in which
   only this inverted charging process takes place. For example, we
   observe cosmic rays driving with such intensity into our atmosphere
   that they are able to penetrate our magnetic field almost unimpeded.
   The cosmic ray flux is a positive ion flux,- cosmic rays are particles
   stripped usually completely of electrons by ionization. These
   electrons have long since been trapped elsewhere in space. This same
   mechanism applies on a lesser scale to solar wind and solar flares.
   More positive charges than electrons of these already positively
   charged interstellar plasmas are able to penetrate the earth's
   magnetic field, thus contributing to positive excess charge on the
   earth and less positive charge outside the sphere of radius r[e],
   i.e., the effective radius of the earth as far as this charging
   process is concerned.

   Juergens argued that the sign of charge on the earth would be
   negative. He cited Bailey of England to the effect that the sun is
   negative and that induction would thus make the earth negative. (It
   was agreed that the sign of charge would not be material as far as
   Velikovsky's "celestial discharges" in interplanetary encounters was
   concerned.) Our difference on this point is based on the fact that
   Juergens considered that charge separation occurs only in the
   evaporation process and elsewhere only by induction, not recognizing
   the (observed) separation of charge occurring as the plasmas flow
   under high momentum into the cold satellites through their magnetic
   fields. There appears to be no evidence for anything but a positive
   excess charge flux into the earth although it has been considered by
   most theoreticians that the observed positive flux must be compensated
   in one way or another. In fact, at least two models for compensation
   have been suggested. One is that the electrons flow in at the poles.
   My answer to this is that the most of the electron excess never gets
   in close enough to "see" the poles of the earth. The other is that the
   positive flux is compensated in lightning (see below).

   The sun too must have a positive excess charge because it is also a
   (secondary) satellite as far as the supergalactic center is concerned.
   Yet it is losing some plasma by its own self-radiation (solar wind,
   solar flares, and solar explosions) processes which tend toward
   negative excess. But even the major component, solar wind, would
   appear to be much less important than primary cosmic radiation in any
   celestial-scale charging process. This seems to mean that the negative
   charges required to balance the excess positives on the sun as well as
   those to balance the excess positives flowing into the earth, are to
   be found outside their respective (effective) spheres. In this model
   gravity is atom-like (i.e., like electron-proton interactions) between
   the primary negative center and its positive (primary) satellites, but
   molecule-like (i.e., similar to the mechanism in which the two protons
   of a hydrogen molecule are held together by an electron cloud between
   them) in the forces of attraction between the satellites. In either
   case it is inverse square just as it is in the forces that hold
   together atoms and molecules.

   Tucker's Objection

   Thomas Tucker^(**) [at the Lewis and Clark Symposium] objected to my
   evidence for the positive flux into the earth, citing the well-known
   argument that the observed 0.6 to 3.2 volts per centimeter (downward)
   potential of, the atmosphere is "exactly" compensated by opposite flow
   of charge in lightning discharge. I disagree with this on the basis
   that lightning is electrokinetic whereas the positive current flow in
   the quiescent atmosphere most likely has its origin outside the
   earth's atmosphere. The normal potential gradient of a quiet
   atmosphere occurs unchanged for months and even years in some of the
   great deserts of the earth. For example, at Chuquicamata, Chile, one
   seldom if ever observes electrical storms. Furthermore, lightning is
   random not only as to the point of discharge but even as to direction
   of current flow, and most of it occurs from cloud to cloud rather than
   between cloud and ground. In general, lightning occurs only in a
   relatively thin layer of the lower atmosphere. Measurements of the
   potential gradient at high altitudes where lightning does not occur
   are thus needed not only to answer this question but also to get a
   better idea of the total charge on the earth's atmosphere.
                    ___________________________________

   **Professor Cook is referring to the discussion that followed the
   reading of Juergens' paper. Ed.
                    ___________________________________

   Hamilton's Objection

   Dwayne Hamilton (Selkirk College, British Columbia) argued that the
   observed potential gradient of the atmosphere (67 to 317 volts per
   meter over land and 128 volts per meter over sea according to Handbook
   of Physics and Chemistry) corresponds to a charge/mass ratio only
   about a thousandth enough to justify the suggestion that G^1/2 is not
   merely dimensionally but actually a real charge-to-mass ratio in the
   earth. Juergens replied to Hamilton (correctly, I believe) by pointing
   out that the potential gradient could extend gradually into the
   interstellar plasma. In other words, the potential gradient and mass
   gradient in the atmosphere need not maintain a constant ratio
   everywhere in the atmosphere. The potential gradient probably
   decreases more slowly with altitude than the mass gradient because it
   is defined not by the mass distribution but by the magnetic field.

   In reply to this criticism let me point out some very interesting
   experimental observations of electrical discharge observed in firing
   high explosives in the atmosphere. Whenever a charge is fired in such
   a way that the "fireball" makes contact (from above) with ground or a
   grounded plate or screen, one observed a (long-range electrical field)
   signal. But this signal is not observed if the fireball does not make
   contact (at bottom of the fireball) with ground or a grounded
   conductor, or if one uses a grounded screen or plate to which the
   fireball makes contact on its top leading edge (pp. 159 to 163, ref.
   4). It was therefore concluded that these signals are due to
   electrical discharges produced when the (highly conducting) fireball
   shorts out the normal potential gradient of the atmosphere. The
   magnitude of such signals, moreover, is consistent with the discharge
   of a condenser of plates of area A parallel to ground charged to a
   voltage of 2h[o].OVERBAR(dV/dh) where OVERBAR(dV/dh) is the average
   potential gradient, about a volt per centimeter, and h[o] is the
   height of the center of the high explosive above ground (so that 2h[o]
   is the diameter of the fireball at the instant it makes contact with
   ground). In other words, the charge and voltage involved in such
   discharges are those given by

   V = 2h[o].OVERBAR(dV/dh) OVERDOT= 2h[o] volts (for h[o] in cm)

   Q OVERDOT= 0.003A esu (for V in volts and A in cm^2).

   Since the mass of air in a vertical column of area A and height 2h[o]
   near ground (at 4400 feet elevation in our studies) is about 0.002h[o]
   A grams, the observed Q/M ratio is about 0.15/h[o]. Values of h[o]
   were nominally 150 cm so that the measured Q/M was about 0.001 or
   about four times G^1/2.

   One can, of course, vary the effective Q/M ratio in this experiment
   simply by varying the height h[o], by varying the size of charge,
   because Q/M varies as h[o]^-1. Hence one may adjust conditions so as
   to involve in this experiment approximately a Q/M of G^1/2 simply by
   firing a charge large enough to short out the atmosphere over a
   vertical distance of about 12 m.

   The Q/M ratio in esu's for the whole atmosphere is given by the
   equation

   Q/M = C ^. [DELTA]V ^. M^-1 = (1.112 ^. r[o]^2 (1+h/r[o]))/(300 ^.
   2[PI][o] [rho][o] r[o]^2 h[S]) . ([DELTA]V)/ h)

   OVERDOT= 6 ^. 10^-6 ([DELTA]V/h)

   where [rho][o] is the density at the base of the atmosphere (about
   10^-3 g/cc), to r[o] OVERDOT= 6.4 . 10^8 cm, and h[S] is the scale
   height of the atmosphere (~8^.10^5 cm).

   If one assumes that the potential gradient is directly proportional to
   the mass gradient, the result is, to be sure, about that found by
   Hamilton, namely, Q/M ~ 0.001 G^1/2. But if one assumes that
   [DELTA]V/h is constant then Q/M is about G^1/2/40. On the other hand,
   the potential gradient may extend beyond the atmosphere. Suppose, as
   suggested by Juergens, the atmospheric gradient were to merge
   gradually into the interstellar plasma such that it disappears at
   about the height h where the sun's gravitational force equals that of
   the earth, i.e., at about 2 ^. 10^11 cm. Then the potential gradient
   may fall off enough more gradually than the mass gradient to account
   for Q/M = G^1/2.

   The issue raised by Hamilton is, of course, a crucial one regarding
   which we have not been unmindful (3,4). It can only be answered by
   more experimental data upon which to base knowledge of the function

   f(h) = [integral][o]^hmax (dV/dh)dh.

   REFERENCES
   1. R. E. Juergens, Pensée, 2 (Fall, 1972).
   2. M. A. Cook, Bulletin of the University of Utah, Vol. 74, No. 16,
   November 30, 1955.
   3. M. A. Cook. Quasi-Lattice Model of Plasmas and Universal
   Gravitation. Technical Report No. 2, June 2, 1958, Contract No. N123
   (60530) 8011A. [Also published as Utah Engineering Experiment Station
   Bulletin.]
   4. M.A. Cook, The Science of High Explosives, ACS Monograph No. 139,
   Reinhold Publishing Company, New York, 1958 [revised and republished
   by Krieger Publishing Company, Huntington, New York, 1971].
   5. A. Bauer, M. B. Cook. R. T. Keyes. Proc. Roy. Soc. A259 (1961).
   508-517.
   6. G. von Ecker and W. Weitzel. Ann. Physik 17 (1956), 126; Z.
   Naturfor, 12a (1957), 859.

                                     VI

   RALPH JUERGENS

   Dr. Cook does not mention it, but it would seem that he has many
   years' priority over me in suggesting that the sun may be electrically
   powered. In his 1958 monograph, The Science of High Explosives, is an
   appendix in which he points out that "the kinetic energy of accretion"
   of electric charge on the sun per unit time should be of the same
   order of magnitude as the sun's rate of radiating energy. He adds:
   "Apparently one thus has a likely explanation for the solar constant
   [rate of energy emission] that need not include, or is at least
   approximately of the same relative importance as, the
   [thermonuclear-energy generation] that is supposed to be taking place
   in the core of the sun." (My thanks to Professor Albert W. Burgstahler
   of the University of Kansas for calling my attention to Cook's
   remarks.)

   Apparently Cook and I have been plowing roughly parallel furrows, but
   in opposite directions. He concludes that the sun's energy is
   electrical in origin--and, indeed, that its gravity is electrostatic
   in nature--and that its net electrical charge is of positive sign. I,
   on the other hand, see solar energy as electrical in origin, but due
   to currents that continually increase the sun's negative charge. It
   will be interesting to see whether time will tell which, if either of
   us, is correct.

   Dr. Cook seems to misinterpret, to some extent, my ideas as to how and
   why celestial bodies acquire charge. He says that I cite V.A. Bailey
   to the effect that the sun is negatively charged and that I suppose
   the earth to become negatively charged by induction. But nowhere in my
   article do I make reference to Bailey's work, for the very reason that
   the presence of the interplanetary plasma precludes a long reach for
   electric fields in space.

   As Cook correctly indicates, I look to charge separation between the
   nucleus and the atmosphere of the galaxy as the primary cause of
   electrification in the solar system. It can easily be shown that such
   a separation of charges negative space charge in the nucleus, and
   positive space charge everywhere outside the nucleus to the outer
   boundaries of the galaxy--will produce a distribution of electric
   potential that is negative everywhere within the bounds of the
   galactic sphere. Assuming that intergalactic space is electrically
   neutral, we find that the potential-distribution curve will start at
   the maximum negative-potential level, at the Center of the galaxy, and
   grow increasingly steep as it traverses the negative-space-charge
   nucleus; beyond the nucleus, in the positive-space-charge galactic
   atmosphere, the curve grows less and less steep as it approaches the
   electrically neutral outer boundary, at which point the electric
   potential reaches a value of zero.

   The sun, orbiting at what we might describe as a middle altitude in
   the electrified galactic atmosphere, finds itself subjected to
   electrical pressure from its surroundings. (This predicament is
   compounded by the fact that the sun is also located within a spiral
   arm of the galaxy, which means, on Bruce's explanation for spiral
   arms, that it is caught up in an electrical discharge between the
   nucleus and the atmosphere of the galaxy.) The sun, which but for its
   fortuitous presence within the galaxy might be just another cold, dark
   cosmic body, becomes the focus of a secondary electrical discharge-- a
   relatively small, local discharge within the larger discharge of the
   spiral arm. This local disturbance arises from the sun's need to
   adjust its own electric potential to that of its surroundings, and
   this would seem to mean it must take on negative charge by collecting
   electrons or by emitting positive ions. And as I see it, the electric
   currents accomplishing this adjustment in solar potential deliver the
   energy that the sun must radiate away.

   The planets, in this scheme of things, orbit in regions where space
   potentials are intermediate between those of galactic space and of the
   sun itself. As the sun collects charge, so too, presumably, must the
   planets, so that their potentials relative to their surroundings
   remain practically constant. Thus the earth, like every other cold
   body in the solar system, must take on more and more negative charge
   with the passage of time just to hold its own in a steadily changing
   solar-discharge environment.

   To avoid the discomfiting assumption that the sun and the planets all
   started out with enormous positive charges that are now being whittled
   away, I have to conclude that the sun and the planets are not only
   negatively charged, but they are collecting more and more negative
   charge all the time. To explain why the sun does not quickly achieve
   balance with its galactic surroundings, I have to postulate
   continually increasing electrification in the galactic atmosphere, so
   that we have a steady-state situation in which the sun draws enough
   current to hold its own, but not enough to close the gap between its
   potential and that of galactic space.

   As I believe I make clear in my article, I challenge the notion that
   the so-called solar wind represents in any sense a boiling off of
   gases. The accepted theory of stellar energy cannot explain the
   million-degree corona of the sun in the first place, as Cook himself
   pointed out many years ago. Of course, given the sun's hot corona as
   an observational fact, Parker and others have attempted to formulate
   solar-wind theories on the premise that such a hot gas must expand and
   tend to "boil away." But, as I point out in my article, these
   theorists have been greatly frustrated by the failure of the "solar
   wind" to conform to their predictions. And I suggest, therefore, that
   the interplanetary plasma be investigated in the light of my proposal
   that it is actually one aspect of an electrical discharge between the
   sun and interstellar space.

   In my opinion, this approach offers the immediate prospect of logical
   explanations for the solar wind and the high-temperature solar corona,
   as well as for many other perplexing phenomena in the sun's
   atmosphere. I would here mention only a few examples:

   Photospheric granules, which have defied all attempts to explain them
   as convection phenomena, seem comfortably analogous to anode
   tufts--electrical-discharge-plasma features described in great detail
   by Allis (1) and others (2) in the literature of electrical conduction
   in gases.

   The curious spicules that punctuate the lower chromosphere of the sun
   bear strong resemblance to anode streamers observed in brush
   discharges. Their distribution and lifetimes suggest that they are
   associated with the snuffing-out of photospheric granules (anode
   tufts). The streamer mechanism, or Kanalaufbau, has been extensively
   discussed by Raether (3).

   Solar prominences often display beautiful, looping structures that
   seem to have striking counterparts in anode phenomena reported in 1919
   by E. Goldstein and explained in 1924 by Langmuir and Mott-Smith (4)
   as brilliant filaments excited by electrons traveling toward an anode,
   but moving in free space at right angles to a distorted electric
   field.

   These and many other features of the solar atmosphere find peculiarly
   appropriate small-scale analogues in effects observed on or near
   positive electrodes in laboratory discharges. The element common to
   all of these analogues, therefore, is the adjective anode. And this
   suggests to me that negative charges are being driven into the sun
   while currents of positive ions are being driven outward into space.

   A few more points offered by Cook require some discussion.

   I am not quite convinced by Cook's statement that "one can explode a
   sphere of any material" by charging it sufficiently. Electrical theory
   has it that when a spherical conductor is charged, the charge resides
   entirely on its surface, and no electric field penetrates into the
   interior. If this is so, I find it hard to conceive of a mechanism by
   which chemical bonds in the interior might be disrupted electrically
   by the mere presence of surface charge. If Cook is saying that forces
   holding charge to a surface can be stronger than internal chemical
   bonds, he has not made the point sufficiently clear.

   Or is he considering a charging process so precipitous that electric
   currents course through the body? It is easy to see how such currents
   might cause electrical breakdown and consequent disruption of the
   sphere, but the entire experiment would be quite different from that
   described by Sanford.

   I hope Dr. Cook will be able to throw additional light on this matter,
   although it is not of immediate importance to the larger issues we are
   dealing with.

   One more point. Cook feels that I neglect the sorting of positive ions
   and electrons by magnetic fields as an important mechanism for
   charging cosmic bodies. And he may be right that this process is
   important in effecting a separation of charges on a galactic scale.
   But with reference to stars and planets, I think such a process must
   always be of secondary-to-negligible importance because it can go on
   only so long. When enough negative charge is trapped magnetically to
   build a considerable density of local space charge, the resulting
   electric field will repel advances by additional electrons and will
   attract positive ions. The mechanism might develop local potential
   gradients spanning drops of a few hundred or a few thousand volts,
   depending upon thermal conditions, but they would be relatively
   insignificant in cosmic affairs.

   It would be an interesting development indeed if it turned out that
   plasmas in space not only limit the reach of electric fields, but.
   actually participate in the propagation of gravitational fields that
   are themselves electrical in origin, as Cook proposes. I find
   particularly delightful his suggestion that gravitational forces may
   be both atom-like and molecule-like; it seems a premise worth further
   exploration.

   REFERENCES

   1. W.P. Allis, in "Gaseous Electronics Phenomena," Chap. 3 in
   Symposium of Plasma Dynamics, F. H. Clauser, ed. (Addison-Wesley,
   1960), pp. 59-60.
   2. cf. I. Langmuir and H. Mott-Smith. The Collected Works of Irving
   Langmuir, (Pergamon. 1961). Vol. 4, p. 75; also, Ibid., p. 179.
   3. H. Raether, Electron Avalanches and Breakdown in Gases,
   (Butterworths, 1964), pp. 124ff.
   4. Langmuir and Mott-Smith. op. cit., p. 98.

   PENSEE Journal III
     _________________________________________________________________

   \cdrom\pubs\journals\pensee\ivr03\51celest.htm