On Cosmic Electricity
                                       
Martin Krustal, Ralph Juergens, C. E. R. Bruce, Eric W. Crew

   SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT

   With the following remarks by Professor Kruskal and Mr. Juergens we
   conclude the exchange which was begun in the winter, 1973, issue. The
   paper which initially sparked this discussion was Juergens'
   "Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism,"
   published in the fall, 1972, Pensee. Ed.

                                     I

   PROFESSOR MARTIN KRUSKAL -- Program in Applied Mathematics Princeton
   University

   I am somewhat reluctant to engage in polemical debate with Mr. Ralph
   Juergens in the pages of Pensee, as I feel that not many readers will
   want to follow the intricacies of the discussion or be willing to
   refer back to the earlier articles (Fall, 1972 and Winter, 1973).
   Still, I do not wish to give the impression by default that he has won
   the day, and even though he is to get the last word (by my prior
   agreement with the editor), I will make one more attempt to clear up
   some of the confusion he has engendered. After this, my silence should
   not be taken as assent!^(1)

   *Any further comments Professor Kruskal wishes to make will be
   welcome. Pensee will Publish them without response. Ed.

   Mr. Juergens' reply to my point (1), at the end of his reply to my
   comments, betrays once more (I am sorry I cannot put this more
   politely) his complete ignorance of even the elementary theory of
   electrostatics. He writes:

     "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."

   Now really! Electric field lines are a graphic and often useful
   visualization of an electrostatic field, but they are not ingredients
   of the basic theory. The inverse square law for the force between two
   elements of charge is basic, and it applies whether or not other
   charged bodies occupy the space between the elements. And, in fact,
   there is no difference between the electrostatic and gravitational
   forces in this respect. One can also visualize gravitational lines of
   force, and can get oneself very confused worrying about distortions of
   these lines during conjunctions, if one insists on trying to
   understand classical celestial mechanics on that basis.

   Juergens' answer to my point (2), at the beginning of his reply to my
   comments, again exhibits very clearly a gross misunderstanding. He
   writes:

     "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[1] alone
     would invest the earth with potential V[1]."

   He then goes on to accuse me of assuming implicitly and unjustifiably
   that Q[1] = 0. And I did assume, or rather deduce, that Q[1] = 0, and
   it is Juergens' failure to do so, his willingness to countenance Q[1]
   [not =] 0, which is precisely his egregious error, the one I was
   trying to call attention to.

   The situation is very simple, surely? If the vicinity of a body is at
   potential V[1] , and the body has no charge anywhere, then the body
   must be at that same potential, V[1]. It does not require charge to
   produce a potential, as Juergens seems to think, but rather to change
   a potential. (Actually, charge changes electric field, which in turn
   changes potential.)

   Juergens' confusion here is reminiscent of the confusion in
   pre-Newtonian dynamics, when it was believed that a steady force was
   needed in order for a mass particle to maintain a velocity, rather
   than as we now understand to maintain an acceleration (i.e. to change
   its velocity).

   In his answer to point (3), he says:

     "A body absolutely devoid of net electric charge may be considered
     to have a surface electric potential of absolute zero."

   Well, yes, as long as only one such body at a time is considered. But
   if so fundamental a concept were correct and significant, it should
   apply to two (or more) separate bodies each absolutely devoid of
   charge--and you just can't (in general) simultaneously assume that
   both of them have zero surface potential, since there may be a
   potential difference between them.

   In his rather far-ranging response to my point (4), Juergens suggests:

     "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."

   This is flatly wrong. For instance, the familiar dipole field commonly
   associated with a bar magnet has a magnetic line of force leaving each
   pole directly away from the other pole and going off to infinity. Such
   behavior is in fact not only typical but even general: it is a
   mathematical (topological) theorem that, under reasonable conditions,
   for every magnetic field configuration in space with lines leaving and
   entering a sphere (say) there is some point on the sphere the line
   through which never returns to the sphere.

   Juergens answers point (5) together with point (8), and he distorts
   the sense of point (6) without falling into demonstrable error, so
   I'll pass over these without comment.

   Up to this point I have felt that Mr. Juergens, no matter how
   misguided, was at least trying to take my comments seriously. However,
   his dismissal of point (7) as humorous but irrelevant, without any
   response whatsoever, leaves unanswered a seriously meant if humorously
   couched criticism. Any irrelevance was his for quoting Sanford in the
   first place if he did not put stock in the quote, if it had no place
   in his line of thought, why did he include it?

   Sanford's conclusion as quoted, that "the outward pressure of the
   charge upon a conductor will have no tendency to pull the conductor
   apart," is patent nonsense. My metaphrase of Sanford's "derivation" of
   this conclusion was no joke but designed to exhibit the illogic by
   transferring it faithfully and fairly to a physical situation much
   more familiar to our experience. (I thought the device came off quite
   well!)

   Answer to point (8); here we go again!

     "But if the sun finds itself, as I [Juergens] 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."

   I can't hash this out all over again, but the sentence just doesn't
   make sense for reasons I explained in connection with point (2) above
   as clearly as I'm able.

   Juergens goes on to accuse me of contradiction:

     "Kruskal seems to be saying that charge in the outer atmosphere
     could not produce this field [in the lower atmosphere], 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."

   I am afraid this is disingenuous of you, Mr. Juergens! The "earth as a
   whole" includes the atmosphere as well as the body. Of course charge
   on "the body of the earth" can produce atmospheric field, and can be
   detected by experiments on earth. Read point (8) again.

   The answers to points (9), (10), and (11) don't seem to require
   discussion.

   Well, what am I to say in conclusion? The right thing for Mr. Juergens
   to do, after absorbing all this discussion, is to admit that he has
   fallen into many elementary errors through inadequate background in
   physics and that his astrophysical opinions don't deserve the
   attention of a serious reader. What are the chances of his doing the
   right thing? Very, very small, I am afraid. But the serious reader
   need examine only two or three of the issues raised to convince
   himself quickly of what I say.

   Am I being too harsh with Mr. Juergens? Possibly. But since he has
   seen fit to question the care with which I read his paper, let me in
   turn question the extent of his consideration of my comments. After
   all, I didn't criticize the subtler aspects of his theory. It quickly
   became so clear that the basic physics was erroneous that there was
   neither need nor point in doing so. Did Juergens discuss any of our
   disagreements on the basic physics with a trained physicist? Will he
   now, in fact?

   Your turn, Mr. Juergens.

                                     II

   RALPH JUERGENS

   Professor Kruskal appears to believe that I am tilting at windmills in
   suggesting that the presence of a third charged body in the space
   between two other charged bodies will distort the local electrostatic
   field, and hence alter the play of electrostatic forces between the
   first two bodies. He insists that "the inverse square law for the
   force between two elements of charge is basic, and it applies whether
   or not other charged bodies occupy the space between the elements;"
   furthermore, "there is no difference between the electrostatic and
   gravitational forces in this respect." This is a remarkable stance to
   be taken by a scientist of Kruskal's stature.

   I concede that field lines are fictions invented to facilitate
   visualization of electrostatic fields and forces. But let me have
   recourse to them briefly to illustrate a basic point: Suppose the sun
   were a charged body in what used to be thought of as vacuous space; it
   would then be surrounded by an electric field reaching radially
   outward in all directions (or radially inward from all directions).
   Any material body, conductor or non-conductor-say, the earth-orbiting
   through that radial field will warp it, causing at least some
   (theoretically, all) lines of electric flux to be shifted from the
   positions they would have occupied were that body not present (1).

   It happens that an electrically neutral body in such a radial solar
   field will cause the field lines to crowd more closely together in its
   vicinity. Indeed, the body will have a greater density of electric
   flux on its sunlit side than on its dark side, which produces a net
   radial force tending to move it toward the sun, even though it carries
   no charge of its own.

   Were the body itself to be electrically charged, either positively or
   negatively, the distortion of the field would be different from that
   due to a neutral body, but distortion there would be, and net forces
   there would be except under the most arbitrary or fortuitous
   circumstances of charge distribution. And with field distortion of
   even the slightest amount, the inverse-square law becomes invalid.

   When this situation is compounded by the presence of additional
   orbiting bodies--planets, satellites, comets, meteoroids, dust clouds
   the problem quickly grows beyond the limits of mathematical analysis.

   So I contend, still, that the system of like-charged bodies proposed
   by Kruskal in his initial review of my paper would not operate exactly
   in the manner he believes--and Coulomb's Law might suggest--it would.
   I am not totally ignorant of an exercise in mathematical logic that
   demonstrates quite convincingly that Coulomb's Law is necessarily an
   inverse-square law (2). I do argue, however, that Coulomb's law is
   applicable, in the strictest sense, only to forces between two
   immaterial point charges-- not to charged material bodies, and
   particularly when the field between them is distorted by the presence
   of additional charged bodies.

   This difference of opinion is entirely an academic question, as I
   noted in the earlier exchange with Kruskal (3), since the solar system
   does not operate in a dielectric void, but in space pervaded by
   electrically conducting plasma. Professor Kruskal chooses not to
   address himself to this point--the first premise of my Pensee
   article--or to my argument that the plasma in space must prevent
   electrostatic forces from reaching across interplanetary distances.

   Kruskal calls it an "egregious error" on my part that I show a
   "willingness to countenance" the idea that the earth, to have a
   non-zero electric potential, must actually carry electric charge. As
   he sees it, "if the vicinity of a body is at potential V[1] , and the
   body has no charge anywhere, then the body must be at that same
   potential." Since he and I continue to find ourselves at loggerheads
   over this point, let me attempt to resolve it by appeal to authority.

   To put the case in its proper perspective, perhaps we should recall
   that in my Pensee article the remark challenged by Kruskal was to the
   effect that all the electric charge carried by an isolated body need
   not be compensated by equal and opposite space charge in the
   surrounding sheath; rather, I said, only enough charge must be present
   in the sheath to "change" the potential (to use Kruskal's phrase), or
   produce a potential drop across the sheath, so that potentials at the
   sheath boundaries match those of the isolated body and of the
   surrounding plasma, respectively. And I qualified this statement in a
   succeeding paragraph:

   "A plasma does not necessarily possess an intrinsic electric
   potential. Where plasmas form in electrical discharges, however--and
   this is the connection in which Langmuir studied them--they do acquire
   non-zero potentials." A plasma at non-zero potential must be
   electrified by the presence of excess electric charges of one sign or
   the other, and this at first seems contradictory; physicists today
   tend to think of a plasma as made up of absolutely equal numbers of
   positive and negative particles. Langmuir, however, who coined the
   term "plasma," fully understood that only quasi-neutrality prevails in
   the plasma regions of electrical discharges (4). Plasmas are
   electrically "neutral" only by comparison with sheaths, which are
   characterized by strong space charge.

   In this context, then, it is instructive to quote from a paper by W.
   P. Allis (5):

     ". . . From 1923 to 1929, Langmuir and co-workers Mott-Smith,
     Blodgett, and Tonks, developed the theory of electrical discharges
     with space charge. The first thing they did was to develop the
     Langmuir probe ... Just as a hot wire [emitting electrons in a
     vacuum tube] is separated from any collecting surface by a
     space-charge region, so Langmuir pictured the discharge to be
     separated from ... probes by a space-charge sheath. Everyone before
     Langmuir who introduced wires into discharges thought that he
     measured the voltage at that point in space. It generally turned
     out to be strongly negative [with respect to the potential of the
     non-conducting vessel walls]. By adopting a picture in which the
     discharge is separated from all material objects by a sheath,
     Langmuir was able to distinguish 'floating potential' [-- that of
     the probe or other material body in contact with the plasma --]
     from 'space potential' [-- plasma potential --] to show that the
     space potential, far from being negative, was usually positive,
     relative to the walls . . ."

   So, if I may be permitted to interpret Dr. Kruskal's word, "vicinity,"
   to mean the surrounding plasma in the case of a cosmic body, I think
   it fair to insist that the electric potential of a planet immersed in
   the interplanetary plasma will be, at the very least, a "floating
   potential," distinguishable from--that is, unequal to--the "space
   potential" of that plasma.

   Dr. Kruskal agrees that one body "absolutely devoid of net electric
   charge may be considered to have a surface electric potential of
   absolute zero," but he resists the argument that another body in the
   very same condition must be at the same (non) potential as the first.
   Surely he cannot mean what he says.

   Next we come to his reference to a topological theorem that allows
   certain precisely located, hypothetical, magnetic lines of force to
   proceed radially out of the poles of a magnetized sphere, never to
   bend around and return. With such a theorem, I have no quarrel. But
   mathematics, as Kruskal, I think, would agree, frequently leads one to
   conclusions which have no physical reality. My point is that no one
   has yet been able to demonstrate that magnetism can be unrelated to
   electric currents. The only current that could conceivably produce the
   open-ended types of magnetic-flux lines insisted upon by Kruskal would
   be a ring current circling the sun at an infinite distance. Probably
   no one--least of all, perhaps, Dr. Kruskal wants to countenance such a
   heliocentric view of the universe.

   I am afraid I still see Kruskal's paraphrasing of Sanford as a
   non-sequitur. He, however, remains pleased with the "device," and that
   is certainly his privilege.

   Although I cannot accept them, I believe Professor Kruskal is quite
   sincere in his criticisms. I suggest, however, that some of the
   elementary theory he seeks to marshall against me is irrelevant in the
   context of electrical-discharge phenomena. I urge him to heed the
   ten-year-old advice of a fellow scientist, E. U. Condon: "It would
   probably save vast sums of money [and much debate over elementary
   theory?] if most of the men now working on plasmas in government
   contract laboratories would stop and devote a few months to the
   careful study of Langmuir's papers [on Thermionic Phenomena,
   Electrical Discharge, and Plasma and Oscillations, Vols. 3, 4, and 5,
   respectively, of The Collected Works of Irving Langmuir (Pergamon)
   1961-621 " (6).

   REFERENCES
   1. See, for example, an article on "Electrostatics" by A. D. Moore,
   Scientific American (March 1972), pp. 47-58.
   2. See L. B. Loeb, Fundamentals of Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed.,
   (1947), Dover (1961), p. 178.
   3. Pensee (Winter, 1973), 53.
   4. As just one example, see Vol. 4 of Langmuir's Collected Works, p.
   193: ". . . two distinct types of regions appear within the discharge.
   The region ... within which electrons are trapped until [electron and
   positive-ion concentrations) are nearly equal, will be referred to as
   the plasma . . ." Similar definitions of "plasma" are found throughout
   Langmuir's papers on electrical discharges.
   5. Physics Today (December, 1962), 23-26.
   6. "Langmuir's Work: Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering, Intimately
   Intertwined," a book review in Science, 138 (October 12, 1962),
   126-27.

                                    III

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

   Introduction

   In a letter to Dr. Lining of Charles Town, South Carolina, addressed
   and dated Philadelphia, March 18, 1755, Benjamin Franklin reproduced
   the section of the Minutes he kept which described the steps in his
   arriving at the conclusion that lightning is but a glorified electric
   spark. It was an even more striking similarity between a
   characteristic of the lightning discharge and of a solar phenomenon
   which suggested to me a step of even greater ratio in the extension of
   the field of electrical discharges in gases.

   I should like to refer to it and to the identity between some other
   laws governing the two sets of phenomena which in the ensuing 32 years
   I have succeeded in recognizing.

   Law 1: Both are propagated at about 3 x 10^7 cm sec^-1

   The first identity--between the velocities of propagation of a solar
   prominence and an electrical discharge--was brought to my notice
   during Sydney Chapman's Kelvin Lecture on "The Sun" to the Institution
   of Electrical Engineers on 9 May 1941. He reported that John Evershed
   had photographed a solar prominence that had reached a height of a
   million miles in an hour. I thought, "If that isn't about 3 x 10^7 cm
   sec^-1, I'll eat my hat." It was, as a little mental arithmetic,
   confirmed on an envelope when the lights went up, established--and I
   was in business as an astrophysicist. It seemed extremely unlikely
   that these two velocities could be so nearly identical and yet derive
   from entirely different physical processes.

   Admittedly the density of the solar atmosphere is very much less than
   that of the terrestrial atmosphere, but I knew that the velocity of
   propagation of an electrical discharge is independent of the gas
   density.

   Law 2: Their relative physical dimensions

   The most direct and obvious comparison is between their relative
   physical dimensions. It is difficult to understand how anyone could
   look at Evershed's photograph of that solar prominence and not
   immediately conclude that it is an electrical discharge. The extreme
   thinness of these solar phenomena had been commented on over the
   years.

   Baade and Minkowski photographed one of these long, thin astrophysical
   discharges actually being propagated. on a galactic scale in Galaxy
   NGC 4486, the well-known, so-called "jet" in the radio source Virgo A.
   But many of such old discharge channels are seen in the photographs of
   every spiral-or irregular-galaxy.

   Law 3: The rapid heating of gas in isolation

   This characteristic of both astrophysical phenomena and electrical
   discharges is so well known as to call for little comment. However,
   one may recall the existence of Pettit's so-called "coronals," which
   first appear high above the Sun's "surface." In 1946 I pointed out
   that they show the leader-return stroke mechanism observed in downward
   lightning flashes from thunderclouds to earth (Observatory, 66, 1946,
   263).

   Law 4: Law of Mutual Attraction

   In 1946 Pettit pointed out that one solar prominence exerted an
   attractive force on another 260,000 km away, as would parallel
   electrical discharges. As was noted earlier (J. Franklin Institute,
   272, 1961, 449), the same effect will be seen to account on a much
   greater scale for the interaction between Galaxies NGC 3187 and NGC
   3190, which is entirely different from any effect to be expected from
   gravitational interactions.

   Law 5: Radiation of atmospherics

   A lightning flash radiates an atmospheric [1], the form and magnitude
   of which I had first calculated in 1941, immediately prior to
   attending that Kelvin Lecture. Similarly, a solar flare radiates the
   "crochets" [2] recorded in the Earth's magnetic field, the forms of
   which I recognized as similar to those of terrestrial atmospherics,
   but with a time scale of minutes instead of microseconds. Applying the
   same theory developed for the latter, and reversing the process, I
   calculated the current in a solar flare to be 10^14 amp (Observatory,
   69, 1949, 110). This gave magnetic fields in the flare itself of 10^4
   to 10^5 gauss and expected H line widths of 0.8 to 8 [3]. Those
   observed by Ellison about the same time were 1 to 16 , in good
   agreement with these theoretical values.

   Similar but much greater broadening [of spectral lines] was then found
   in the initial stages of a nova, or new-star, outburst. The
   line-broadening was definitely governed by the ^2 law of the Zeeman
   Effect, and not, as was generally supposed, by the -law of the Doppler
   Effect (Observatory, 69, 1949, 193). It was pointed out to me by Dr.
   Hunter of Greenwich Observatory, then Editor of the Observatory, that
   the ^2-law of line-broadening had already been discovered in spectra
   of an earlier nova by Wright of Lick Observatory [4].

   Law 6: Current-wave shape

   These two phenomena--solar flares and novae--likewise show current
   waves [5] similar to that of the lightning flash, which I had also
   calculated for the first time in the earlier studies of the lightning
   discharge, because of its interest to electrical engineers.

   When radio galaxies were discovered, I realized they are those
   galaxies in which the radial electric fields in their atmospheres are
   breaking down in discharges which ultimately form the spiral-or
   irregular-arms. They should therefore show a similar current-wave
   form. Until quasars were discovered, the absence of galaxies which are
   radiating an inordinate amount of energy--corresponding to the
   "naked-eye" phase of novae--presented one of the theory's major
   difficulties. However, in a paper to the Second U.S.A.F. Conference on
   Atmospheric Electricity in 1958, I not only pointed out the existence
   of this peak-current--or quasar, as it was later to be called--phase
   of a radio galaxy's life, but also gave a rough estimate of its
   duration as "possibly millions of years." Quasars were finally
   discovered in 1962, and by 1966 Maarten Schmidt was able to estimate
   their lifetimes as 10^6 to 10^7 years, or "possibly millions of
   years."

   Law 7: Aggregation of atmospheric matter

   That law of electrical discharges which has been of the greatest
   importance in cosmic atmospheric electrical discharges, and, as I had
   written to Ralph Juergens in 1965, has shaped the universe, is their
   property of aggregating atmospheric matter along the discharge
   channel, whether the discharge is the ignition spark of a car, the
   welding arc, or a spiral arm of a galaxy. When it operates, as it does
   whenever electrical breakdown occurs, one can forget about the force
   of gravitation, as every arc welder knows. This law was probably first
   brought to the notice of electrical engineers in a paper by Bellaschi
   of the American Westinghouse Company in 1937. His colleague R. C.
   Mason had shown that in an electrical discharge the conducting
   particles, ions and electrons, are caused by their movement in the
   discharge's own magnetic field to move inwards towards its axis,
   taking the gas atoms with them. This gives rise to an axial increase
   in pressure, p, which is proportional to the product of the current,
   I, and the current density, i: p=kIi.

   Bellaschi showed that this effect can cause pressures of over 50
   atmospheres in a lightning flash. The most direct confirmation of this
   law in astrophysics was the observation by Jefferies and Orrall of
   this axial pressure rise in a solar prominence when, in 1966, they set
   the slit of their spectrograph across the discharge and were able to
   deduce that the pressure at the axis was ten times the pressure 20,000
   km out.

   We see the results of the operation of this law in the twin arms of
   planetary nebulae--the existence of which was a successful prediction
   of the theory, and the confirmation of which proved quite difficult,
   since no one seemed to know of their existence--and of spiral
   galaxies. On a still grander scale, the universal discharge had
   aggregated the matter of the universal atmosphere to allow for the
   formation of the long "clouds" of galaxies discovered some years ago
   at Harvard Observatory.

   Law 8: The generation of gas jets

   Maecker pointed out in 1955 that variation in either I or i will give
   rise to a variation in the axial pressure rise, and hence to a flow of
   gas, and thus explained for the first time the cause of the anode and
   cathode jets of the electric arc, which had been the subject of so
   much fruitless discussion over the years.

   As both I and i will decrease outwards in atmospheric electrical
   discharges, all will thus give rise to gas jets. We see the result in
   the solar wind and in quasars. I earlier pointed out that Shklovsky
   greatly improved his earlier hypothetical explanation of radio
   galaxies by adding to his two earlier postulates of relativistic
   electrons and magnetic fields a third characteristic of thermonuclear
   electrical discharges, a gas jet, and calling the result a
   "magnetoid."

   This characteristic of electrical discharges led to some of the new
   theory's most "uncomfortable:' but most surprisingly successful
   predictions: (1) that the temperature in solar flares must reach
   hundreds of millions of degrees; (2) that the gas velocities in the
   Evershed Effect (6] should reach 8 km sec^-1, despite over 50 years of
   measurements of these velocities reaching only 1 to 2 km sec^-1.

   Neither of these predictions had long to wait for observational
   confirmation (See Nature, 187, 1960, 865 and J. Franklin Institute,
   276, 1963, 407).

   Law 9: Ejection of luminous balls of gas

   A new theory of ball lightning (J. I. E. E., 9, 1964, 357; Nature,
   202, 1964, 996)--that it results from the escape of hot gas from
   "holes" in the magnetic "hose pipe" at every sudden bend in every
   electrical discharge--was shown to lead to reasonable values for the
   size of the balls and for their energy content. It also led to a
   successful prediction as to where such luminous balls should be looked
   for in Boys-Camera or "streak" photographs [7] of lightning and long
   spark discharges. Such a ball of luminous gas of long duration was
   also found to be generated at every one of the "crinkles" in
   flashovers of insulator strings, as my then Electrical Research
   Association colleague, Ouyang, pointed out to me when the theory was
   first published.

   When I pointed out to Roger Hayward of Pasadena that this effect is
   entirely independent of scale, and that therefore such balls of gas
   are to be expected at every markedly sudden bend in the spiral arms of
   galaxies, he wrote to draw my attention to photographs of
   barred-spiral galaxies in Sandage's Hubble Atlas of Galaxies. Many of
   these reduce to three balls: the nucleus, plus a ball of gas which has
   escaped at each sudden bend at the ends of the two bars.

   It was shown (J. I. E. E., 9, 474, 1963) that the same effect will
   explain what had, since Abney's original suggestion in 1879, been
   regarded as due to stellar rotation [ 8 ] . It is not the star as a
   whole which is rotating, but vortex balls of hot gas, each rotating at
   a velocity governed by its temperature. The variation of the
   rotational velocity with the temperature of the gas, and hence the
   energy level of the lines observed to be broadened, was found to be
   that predicted by the theory, but had completely baffled Huang and
   Struve (Stellar Atmospheres, J. L. Greenstein, ed., Chicago University
   Press, 1960, p. 360).

   Law 10: Self-extinction of outbursts at high currents

   Several novae have been observed in which the outburst has been
   virtually extinguished around maximum brightness. On the electrical
   discharge theory this could only result from the extinction of the
   discharge as a result of the high pressure generated by it. The
   appearance in Nature of a photograph of a lightning flash which was
   pinched in several places near the ground, where the current in it is
   a maximum, suggested that the same phenomenon can occur in lightning,
   and that therefore lightning current waves will occur bearing a
   similarity to the light curves in these novae. These were looked for
   and found in the highest current wave so far recorded, that of Berger
   and Wogelsanger (Electronics & Power, 12, 1966, 200; Nature, 211,
   1966, 62).

   Law 11: Generation of magnetic fields

   I have left to the end the most direct proof of the identity of
   astrophysical phenomena and electrical discharges, involving what must
   be one of the most important astronomical observations ever made. In a
   letter to me in January 1968, Dr. A. B. Severny, Head of the
   Astrophysical Observatory of the Crimea, whose techniques for the
   measurement of solar "surface" magnetic fields are unsurpassed,
   informed me that he had examined the magnetic fields surrounding two
   solar flares in 1966 and had found them to be such as would surround
   the flares if they are electrical discharges.

   These and other identical characteristics of astrophysical phenomena
   and electrical discharges have been described in well over 100
   contributions to the scientific and technical press since the first
   outline of the theory was published in 1944 (A New Approach in
   Astrophysics and Cosmogony, private publication). As these include
   Nature, Observatory, Philosophical Magazine, Journal of the Franklin
   Institute, comptes Rendus (Paris), Journal of the Institution of
   Electrical Engineers (later Electronics & Power), as well as
   contributions to the proceedings of international conferences, the
   almost complete "ignoration" of the theory by astrophysicists over all
   these years must seem surprising, to say the least. It all becomes
   even more difficult to comprehend when one considers their many
   confessions of complete bafflement. For example, Hoyle recently
   concluded in his George Darwin Lecture to the Royal Astronomical
   Society that "changes in the laws of physics" will be required to get
   them out of their difficulties. Kahn, who has written a book and much
   besides on quasars, recently summed up the results of six years of the
   most intensive observational and theoretical investigation ever
   devoted to one set of heavenly bodies: "We shall not be able to claim
   that we understand the Universe until we know where they are, what
   they are, and how they function."

                            Editorial Footnotes

   1. Atmospherics, also referred to as "spherics," "sferics," and
   "radio-static," consist of invisible electromagnetic radiation from
   lightning discharges. Most of the energy in the very low frequency
   (VLF) band of the radio spectrum is due to lightning (Kenneth Davies,
   Ionospheric Radio Propagation, Dover Publications, 1966, p. 413). In
   referring here to "an atmospheric," Bruce seems to be speaking of the
   profile of a graph in which the intensity of radiation is plotted
   against time.

   2. A crochet is a small trace movement on the chart of a
   geomagnetic-field recording instrument. It is always simultaneous with
   the appearance of an intense solar flare and must therefore be due to
   an influence propagated at the speed of light.

   3. "The brightness or intensity of a flare is, in effect, the
   difference in brightness level between the peak of emission of the
   [spectral line under observation] and the continuous spectrum. The H
   line, as with other lines, in the spectrum of an undisturbed part of
   the chromosphere, has a dark central core of absorption ... and a
   gradation of less absorption on either side of it, known as the
   'wings' of the line . . . When a flare occurs, this dark core becomes
   partly or completely reversed, so that what was previously absorption
   now becomes emission that may rise above the level of the continuous
   spectrum. . . [and] it is possible to measure [this increase] . . .
   Another index of flare magnitude, not requiring measures of light
   intensities, is given by measuring in angstrom units the range. . over
   which the flare emission extends to the wings of Ha. . . In a flare of
   great intensity on 25 July 1946, the effective line-width observed by
   Ellison was 20 angstrom units" (H. W. Newton, The Face of the Sun,
   Penguin Books, 1958, pp. 108-109).

   Bruce is suggesting here that the line-broadening associated with
   solar flares is a Zeeman Effect (see Footnote 4, below). This follows
   from his reference to a calculation of the flare magnetic-field values
   and from the next paragraph, which he starts with the words: "Similar
   but much greater broadening. . ."

   4. Spectral line-broadening due to random motions in the gas emitting
   the line (Doppler Effect) is proportional to the wavelength (X) of the
   radiation in question. Line-broadening due to the presence of a
   magnetic field (Zeeman Effect) is proportional to the square of the
   wavelength.

   5. "Current wave" refers to the typical current/time characteristic of
   the discharge, in which the current rapidly reaches a peak value and
   then diminishes more slowly, the graph forming a long tail.

   6. In 1909 Evershed, attempting to measure vortical motion from
   Doppler displacements of spectral lines of iron in sunspots close to
   the solar limb, failed. But his findings were consistent with a radial
   outflow of gases from sunspots, which was therefore named the Evershed
   Effect. Details were added to the picture over the years-including
   Abetti's discovery that vortical motion is indeed present, as visual
   observation had suggested to Hale long before--but most observers
   reported velocities of flow of only about 2 km sec^-1 or less.

   Bruce's theory, however, required gas velocities in the Evershed
   Effect to be that of sound in atomic hydrogen at the temperature of
   the photosphere, i.e., about 7 km sec^-1. In 1961, Severny reported
   that careful studies of the fine structure in the Evershed Effect had
   yielded velocities up to 8 km sec^-1.

   7. The Boys Camera is a specialized photographic device with two
   lenses. A central lens takes an ordinary "time-exposure" photograph of
   a lightning stroke, while an off-center satellite lens rotates around
   the central axis and "smears" a similar picture around the central
   image to show the development of the discharge with passing time. The
   complete record is thus captured on a single sheet of film.

   8. Bruce here refers to very broad absorption lines in the spectra of
   certain stars. An example given by Bruce in the cited reference is the
   star Gamma Cassiopeia, in which "the higher the temperature or the
   lower the pressure [as inferred from the excitation levels of
   different spectral lines], the greater is the line broadening . . .
   Since it is difficult to suppose that there is a correlation between
   stellar rotation and surface temperature and pressure, we again
   conclude that the observed line widths. . . are not due to
   rotation."--Thus Bruce quotes Huang and Struve.

   Ralph E. Juergens

                                     IV

   ERIC W. CREW --Fellow, Institution of Electrical Engineers, and Royal
   Astronomical Society

   The discussion concerning electrical discharges on celestial bodies is
   of particular interest to me for two reasons. One is that I support
   the views of Dr. C. E. R. Bruce (1) on cosmic electrical discharges,
   and the other is that my explanation of atmospheric charging (2) is
   applicable to all massive radiant bodies.

   Although Dr. Bruce has had over 100 articles and letters published in
   many scientific and other journals (3) during the last 30 years, few
   astronomers have commented on these and it is doubtful if many
   understand his electrical discharge theory. However, one writer has
   accurately summed up his theory as follows (4):

   "The theory falls into four major parts: 1) The building-up of cosmic
   atmospheric electric fields; 2) The breakdown of these fields in
   electric discharges; 3) The gathering of atmospheric matter along the
   discharge channels; 4) The production of jets of hot gas as a result
   of the preceding processes." He then went on to say ". . . Bruce is
   probably right in advocating that if the first step can be
   accomplished the others will follow more or less automatically."

   I would like to amplify briefly some important aspects of Bruce's
   theory before returning to the question of charging.

   Electrical atmospheric discharges similar to lightning produce a
   magnetic field which compresses the channel of the current. When this
   occurs in a prolonged discharge in astronomy it causes aggregation of
   large volumes of thinly distributed gas and matter into relatively
   narrow channels, so that when the current dies away the compressed gas
   expands and cools, condensing into stars in galactic atmospheres and
   either planets or companion stars in stellar atmospheres.

   The comments of Professor G. Burbidge on cosmic evolution (5) may be
   of interest at this point. He writes ". . . attempts are made to
   explain the condensation of dense objects from an initial cloud of
   matter and radiation which is expanding. It has been known for many
   years that this is very difficult to understand, and the
   investigations have now reached the point where it is generally
   accepted that the existence of dense objects cannot be understood
   unless very large density fluctuations in a highly turbulent medium,
   or otherwise, are invoked in the first place. There is again no
   physical understanding of the situation . . ." It seems quite clear
   that Bruce's theory offers a reasonable explanation for these
   difficulties and it is surprising that Burbidge has apparently failed
   to realize the significance of the electrical discharging process.

   When prolonged discharges occur, a jet is formed by the acceleration
   of the relatively heavy positive ions in the electric field and by the
   pressure gradient in the channel caused by the widening of its cross
   section and the change in the value of the main flow of current due to
   lateral discharges. This jet attains the speed of sound in the medium
   and continues to extend into the atmosphere as long as the discharge
   persists, that is until the voltage gradient falls below the level
   which will maintain the current; a much smaller value than that
   required to start the discharge. Magnetic pinch effects and rapid
   fluctuations of energy output are also observed.

   The jet follows the highly conducting ionized path, taking the high
   voltage of the nucleus far out into the oppositely charged atmosphere,
   where much of the stored energy is collected and consumed by the
   lateral discharges. Such jets are clearly visible in quasars, where
   they are starting the formation of galactic arms in Hubble type SO
   galaxies, following a period of steady charging for some hundreds of
   millions of years as elliptical type EO - E7 galaxies.

   A diametrically opposite jet forms, either by the effect of galactic
   rotation, as Bruce claims, or because of the gravitational, electrical
   or magnetic influence of adjacent galaxies and their discharges. It is
   perhaps significant that some jets are seen to point towards nearby
   galaxies (6). These jets extend rapidly for a few million years of
   peak energy output, as thermonuclear discharges, into the charged
   atmosphere, many thousands of light years in extent, the high positive
   voltage of the jets attracting the surrounding negative particles and
   free electrons. The latter reach relativistic velocities, producing
   radio emission from extensive lobes at zones opposite the central
   nucleus. The nuclear reactions in the channels synthesize heavy
   elements and are later observed in Population I stars, while the older
   Population II stars which are formed by gravitational aggregation of
   matter outside the galactic arms have a lower content of these
   elements.

   Other jets are seen in planetary nebulae, where many examples of
   spiral arms and other shapes similar to those in galaxies (except for
   those with four jets at right angles) have been photographed, as well
   as the more publicized "ring" type, indicating that this is most
   likely a jet viewed end-on. Bruce has described in some detail with
   considerable supporting evidence how stars evolve through novae and
   planetary nebulae stages, in which condensations in the discharge arms
   form planets and companion stars of binary systems. (7) He has also
   shown how variable stars are explained by charge-discharge processes
   in their extensive atmospheres.

   Jets in the atmosphere of the Sun at various levels are evidently
   caused by the same electrical discharge process and produce the
   observed high gas temperatures and velocities. Many of the
   characteristics of solar disturbances are very similar to those of
   lightning, but this cannot be properly appreciated if the phenomena of
   lightning is not understood.

   Charging Processes

   The evidence in support of electrical discharging seems to me to be so
   overwhelming that there must be a rational explanation for charging.
   Bruce explains this (8) in terms of meteorological processes similar
   to those in the earth's atmosphere which produce lightning, with the
   addition of the effects of the powerful jets which occur once the
   discharges are established. This process seems too random for the
   extensive charging which must occur and the lack of satisfactory
   explanation may be one of the main reasons why Bruce's theory has
   failed to be accepted in its 30 years of struggle for recognition.

   I consider that the important factor in charging is that radiation
   from a star or the nucleus of a galaxy exerts a force of repulsion
   opposing the gravitational force on particles in its atmosphere. This
   is a very small force indeed, but it can operate for an indefinite
   time in the same outward direction. Consequently if a particle is just
   light enough to be repelled by the radiation pressure, which has a
   greater effect on small particles, it will continue to accelerate
   outwards and may attain a very high velocity unless acted on by other
   forces (9). Both radiation pressure and gravitational force are
   inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the centre
   of the radiant body, so the resultant force will act in a constant
   direction and either precipitate or eject the particle, once it is
   formed, unless its mass changes by aggregation or splitting, or it is
   acted on by electrical and magnetic forces.

   In the case of the Sun, I estimate the radiation pressure near the
   "surface" as 4.2 dynes cm^-2 and the gravitational force is 27 times
   that at the earth's surface. A spherical particle of radius 0.4 gm and
   density 3 gm cm^-3 will just be in equilibrium, smaller ones being
   ejected and larger precipitated. In fact particles of this density and
   average radius of 0.3 m considered to be of solar origin have been
   collected by rockets and satellites (10). These particles must act
   rather like ice grains in the earth's atmosphere and become charged by
   glancing collisions and other processes. In effect there are continual
   storms on the Sun and other stars, in which metallic hail forms when
   the temperature drops to about 3500K-4000K, some of which is
   precipitated and is then evaporated by the heat from below, thus
   continuing the meteorological cycle.

   The smaller particles are most likely to be predominantly negative,
   and when these are ejected they will produce an increasing negative
   atmospheric charge, while the larger predominantly positive particles
   charge the solar surface. An atmospheric voltage gradient is set up in
   this way, and a small leakage current will flow at first, because
   hydrogen gas at about 4000K is a good insulator. The increasing
   voltage gradient will tend to pull the negatively charged particles
   inwards, and only the particles of very small size and charge will
   continue to escape. Eventually the energy of the electrons in the
   discharge current will be high enough to cause cascade ionization and
   many catastrophic discharges will occur, increasing the average
   temperature of the photospheric zone to 6000K. These discharges form
   continually in times of minutes all over the solar surface, the arcs
   being visible as white granulation patches and streaks in the
   perimeter of sunspots (11). Magnetic fields and other evidence fully
   support this view.

   Charged particles ejected to greater distances beyond the photosphere
   take longer to accumulate to breakdown voltage, and the resultant
   discharges are more violent and sporadic. These prominences and solar
   flares exert powerful magnetic forces and neutralize areas of
   photospheric discharges, producing sunspots and revealing the true
   "surface" of the Sun at 4000K. It is therefore unnecessary to
   postulate internal magnetic forces of unknown origin which appear
   unpredictably from the solar interior. The charging process is
   accelerated by the action of discharge generated jets, but where these
   have been obliterated in the inner part of sunspots, it can take many
   days or weeks to re-establish the photospheric charges by the slower
   radiation pressure process.

   In the previous issue of Pensee, Ralph Juergens suggested that solar
   heat may not arise from internal nuclear reactions, but I do not think
   he has a very strong case and it is unnecessary if Bruce's theory is
   correct. There is a very convincing explanation of the nuclear
   processes in "Evolution of the Galaxies" by Vincent C. Reddish (12),
   who was the visiting professor of the American Astronomical Society,
   Warner and Swasey Observatory, Cleveland, Ohio, in 1966. However, the
   external temperature due to the nuclear reactions is about 4000K, not
   6000K as he assumes, which probably explains the low neutrino count
   (13).

   Astronomers have commented on two other objections to Bruce's theory,
   which I will mention briefly. One is that in extremely rarified
   galactic atmospheres, the electrical conductivity is very high even at
   low temperatures. An electrical gradient will produce a discharge
   current, but when all the free ions are in motion, the voltage
   gradient can continue to increase by the movement of charged solid
   particles without a corresponding increase of the discharging current.
   However, the energy of the free electrons moving towards the positive
   nucleus will increase until they cause cascade ionization at the
   breakdown level. This is the Townsend gas discharge characteristic,
   and it enables a vast amount of energy to accumulate as widely
   dispersed atmospheric charge before the conditions are ripe for its
   release into concentrated discharge channels. A complete vacuum is a
   perfect insulator, so the objection on the grounds of high
   conductivity is not very convincing.

   The other objection is that the theory has not been explained in
   detailed mathematical terms. Bruce has, in fact, listed many
   calculated values, such as voltage gradients (14), temperatures,
   velocities, and so on, many being accurate predictions. Established
   theories have evolved from the work of generations of astronomers, and
   it is a little unreasonable to expect Bruce and a few supporters of
   the electrical discharge theory to have achieved comparable results.
   Much more work needs to be done, and I hope some person or
   organization of influence will note this and decide to encourage
   further investigations, especially as Dr. Bruce is now aged 71 and
   hopefully will receive recognition for his work in astrophysics.

   This may seem some way from the subject of Velikovsky, but it is
   impossible to guess where a new scientific development will lead. It
   seems an obvious step at present to follow up the ideas on electrical
   charging and discharging processes, which may illuminate the views of
   Velikovsky in quite unexpected ways.

   REFERENCES
   1. C. E. R. Bruce, Pensee (Winter, 1973), 53; (and this issue).
   2. E. W. Crew, "Electronics and Power," Journal I. E. E. (Nov., 1972),
   426.
   3. List issued by Electrical Research Association, Leatherhead,
   Surrey, England.
   4. E. Tandberg-Hanssen, "Solar Activity" (Blaisdell, 1967), p. 302.
   5. G. Burbidge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" Nature, 223 (Sept. 3,
   1971), 36. (Reprinted in "The Emerging Universe" ed. William C.
   Saslaw, University Press of Virginia).
   6. G. R. and E. M. Burbidge "Quasi-stellar Objects--A Progress
   Report," Nature, 224 (Oct. 4, 1969), 21, fig. 2.
   7. Electrical Research Association Report 5275, 1968.
   8. C. E. R. Bruce, Philosophical Magazine (Sept., 1955), 1123.
   9. P. D. Noerdlinger, "Radiation Pressure on Test Particle," Nature,
   237 (1972), 30.
   10. C. L. Hemenway, D. S. Hallgren and D. C. Schmalberger, "Stardust,"
   Nature, 238 (Aug. 4, 1972), 256.
   11. E. W. Crew, "Solar Electrical Discharges,"Nature, 241 (Jan. 5,
   1973), 39.
   12. Published in U.K. by Oliver and Boyd.
   13. R. Stothers and D. Ezer, Astrophysical Letters, 13 (1973), 45.
   14. "Problems of Atmospheric and Space Electricity," ed. S. C.
   Coroniti, (Elsevier Publishing Co., 1965), p. 579.

                                     V

   RALPH JUERGENS

   This rather extended exchange in the pages of Pensee appears to have
   drifted considerably from the primary subject of my paper on
   "Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism." And
   this, of course, is my "fault," for I found it necessary not only to
   ascribe electrical shielding to the interplanetary plasma but to seek
   a reason why that plasma is there in the first place.

   Of fundamental significance is the fact that the solar corona is
   ionized not only in the immediate vicinity of the sun, but far out
   among the planets as well. A continuous supply of energy is required
   to maintain such a plasma. The obvious place to look for a source of
   energy is the sun, but when we do this, it is not so easy to find a
   suitable means of energy transport.

   Most workers today assume, in an offhand way, that solar ultraviolet
   and X-radiations are responsible for ionizing the gases in space, and
   much time and money are still being expended in attempts to detect and
   measure this radiation with instruments carried into outer space. But
   Alfvén once suggested, in connection with a theory of solar-system
   origins, that the interplanetary gas may have become ionized at an
   early period. His critics reminded him, however, that each of the
   then-conceivable causes of such ionization--solar radiation and atomic
   collisions--would be incapable of producing such an effect. Even
   magnesium, one of the easiest elements to ionize, could not be
   importantly excited at distances beyond the orbit of Mercury by solar
   radiations, and atomic collisions would be even less effective.

   The fact is, nevertheless, that the interplanetary medium is ionized,
   and it consists not of magnesium but largely of ionized hydrogen--an
   element considerably less susceptible to ionization. Moreover, the
   plasma may extend as far as the orbit of Jupiter (and possibly to the
   limits of the solar system). Proponents of ultraviolet ionization
   argue, quite reasonably, that the low density of the plasma is a
   factor in its preservation. But is this the entire story?

   Alfvén's rejoinder to his critics of an earlier day, who then were
   unprepared to accept the notion of ionized gas in space, was that
   electromagnetic effects like those associated with electrical
   discharges present ionizing possibilities far more effective than
   either radiation or atomic collisions. However, he offered no specific
   suggestion as to how electrical-discharge effects might be brought
   into play.

   Bruce's proposed electrical discharges in the lower atmosphere of the
   sun were conceived in a day when the presence of the interplanetary
   plasma and the solar wind were unknown. They offer an explanation for
   the heating of the corona, but I am not so sure they can do the same
   for the ionization of the interplanetary gases far out through the
   system. To my knowledge, Bruce never saw fit to predict such phenomena
   on the basis of his theory.

   The discharge I have postulated--between the sun and its galactic
   surroundings--would ensure the ionization of these gases by means of a
   continuous avalanche of electrons moving toward the sun with
   relativistic energies. And it would preserve ionization by
   accelerating positive ions. in the opposite direction, increasing
   their energies to a point where they would be true cosmic-ray
   particles when they left the system.

   Crew suggests an alternative explanation for charge separation in the
   solar atmosphere, one which may very well operate in the immediate
   vicinity of the sun and may even be of importance in producing
   galactic electrification. But, as with Bruce's suggestions, I feel it
   falls short on accounting for the preservation of ionization in the
   distant interplanetary plasma, particularly if, as seems inevitable,
   important space charges and the accompanying electric fields are built
   up, thus calling a halt to the process.

   I would like to list, without elaboration, a number of phenomena that
   would appear to be mutually compatible in the framework of the
   solar-discharge hypothesis, in which the sun is the anode focus of
   currents resulting from ever-increasing electrification of the
   galactic atmosphere:
     * In spite of its rotation, the sun (the photosphere) is almost
       perfectly spherical (as pointed out long ago by Dr. Velikovsky).
     * The photosphere exhibits differential rotation, with the
       equatorial regions rotating faster than regions at higher
       latitudes, as if driven by the momentum of currents arriving along
       interplanetary magnetic-field lines.
     * The photosphere appears to be densely packed with plasma granules
       which behave like anode "tufts."
     * Negative hydrogen ions, characteristic of anode plasma in
       hydrogen-gas electrical discharges, are generally credited with
       producing the observed opacity of the photosphere.
     * Temperature increases with height in the chromosphere.
     * Associated magnetic effects indicate that plages and flares are
       electrical eruptions.
     * Spicules seem to have a transport function in some way related to
       photospheric granules.
     * The chromosphere-corona boundary is surprisingly sharp.
     * Ion temperatures in the corona run to several millions of degrees.
     * The coronal plasma pervades interplanetary space, to at least
       beyond the orbit of Mars.
     * Interplanetary magnetic fields show no relationship to a solar
       dipole field.
     * The coma of a comet contracts as the body approaches the sun.
     * Luminous envelopes (discharge striations?) often appear to expand
       outward from comet nuclei.
     * Comet tails elongate as the bodies approach the sun.
     * Venus, near inferior conjunction, shields the earth from solar
       protons, an effect totally incompatible with the "solar-wind"
       hypothesis.
     * Earth, near oppositions, influences the atmosphere of Mars (blue
       clearings), again contrary to "solar-wind" expectations.
     * Planetary configurations influence solar activity, as if the
       planets were exerting "grid" effects.
     * Solar flares are associated with disturbances in the earth's
       rotation, as if the earth, too, were being driven electrically.

   (The continuous arrival of positively charged cosmic rays on earth
   suggests that our planet carries and continually renews a strong
   negative charge. Indeed, experiments performed some years ago by Quinn
   and Chang (Journal of Geophysical Research, 71, 1966, 253 and 72,
   1967, 1611) indicate, in spite of the experimenters' pointed
   disclaimer, that the earth behaves as a secondary cathode in the solar
   discharge. By making a magnetized steel sphere the cathode in a
   laboratory discharge, Quinn and Chang produced miniature Van Allen
   belts, auroral discharges, and other recognizable "geophysical"
   effects. I would speculate, therefore, that the earth's negative
   charge represents that of electrons intercepted on their way to the
   sun by the earth's tail-like sheath, and that this charge is built up
   to a point where the earth re-emits electrons into the solar
   discharge. If so, variations in earth-sun electric currents may be
   held accountable for such phenomena as geomagnetic disturbances,
   ionospheric disturbances, high-altitude expansions and contractions of
   the terrestrial atmosphere, and variations in the cosmic-ray flux
   reaching the earth.)

   The theories of Bruce and Crew appear to make no accommodation for
   many phenomena indicating that the solar system at large is a complex
   electrodynamic entity. This is the primary reason for my own rejection
   of their treatment of electrical events on the sun.

   Kruskal has chosen not to involve himself with my comments about the
   ability of the interplanetary plasma to exclude electric fields and
   the associated forces. Dr. Velikovsky, however, asks, what about
   Pluto? "it behaves, or affects Uranus and Neptune, as if it has a
   substantial charge that is not shielded by the mechanism you
   describe."

   One prediction of the solar-discharge hypothesis would be that the
   interplanetary plasma region must give way, at some distance from the
   sun, to a region in which the "cathode drop" in potential between the
   sun and interstellar space is accomplished. At this stage in the
   inquiry, one can put numbers to these matters only by making entirely
   arbitrary assumptions, and I will refrain from doing so. But it does
   not seem implausible to suppose that the plasma region ends even this
   side of Jupiter, and I would expect the Pioneer probes reaching that
   vicinity to find that the thermal electrons are much less in evidence
   there and that the positive ions are being accelerated, as if into a
   cathode drop region.

   What I am trying to say is that Pluto may well be orbiting in a
   "sheath" region instead of a "plasma" region. If so, it may be subject
   not only to electrical forces from the electrically charged planets,
   Neptune and Uranus, but also from its "solar-sheath" surroundings.
   Observations of its motions over only a very few decades should
   disclose whether or not it is influenced by gravitational forces
   alone. (The sub-head to an article on "The System of Planetary Masses"
   by Ash, Shapiro, and Smith in Science for November 5, 1971, is
   suggestive: "New results show that Pluto's mass cannot be determined
   reliably from existing data.")

   One question that immediately demands an answer when one thinks of the
   furor caused by Velikovsky's suggestion that electrical fields and
   forces must have a place in cosmic physics is this: Why are
   astronomers and astrophysicists so loath to receive such an idea?

   As Bruce has shown time and again, known phenomena associated with
   electrical discharges offer striking parallels for almost every
   observable feature of the sun and for inferred features of other
   stars, as well as of the galaxy itself. Why, then, has the
   professional community refused to pursue his suggestions?

   The answer, it seems to me, is this: Electricity and electrical
   discharges, for all their seeming promise in astrophysics, and
   notwithstanding the spectacular effects they are known to produce on
   earth - e.g., lightning and auroral displays--fail to qualify for
   consideration in cosmic affairs because the received view that stars
   are self-sufficient entities evolving in a passive environment seems
   to make the physics of electricity a superfluous luxury for theory
   building.

   A fundamental link in the chain of deduction is the known excellence
   of electrical conductivity in ionized gases--the stuff of the
   universe. In the Fall, 1972, issue of Pensee I quoted F. A.
   Lindemann's observation of half a century ago as to why the sun ought
   not retain any considerable electric charge-- because its atmospheric
   gases are ionized. Menzel used Lindemann's argument against Velikovsky
   in 1952. And a few years later, even such a far-out thinker as Hannes
   Alfvén folded his tent and stole away in the face of the ionized
   gases.

   Alfvén at first expressed perplexity: "Nearly everything we know about
   the celestial universe has come from applying principles we have
   learned in terrestrial physics . . . Yet there is one great branch of
   physics which up to now has told us little or nothing about astronomy.
   That branch is electricity. It is rather astonishing that this
   phenomenon, which has been so exhaustively studied on the earth, has
   been of so little help in the celestial sphere . . ." (The New
   Astronomy, Simon & Schuster, 1955, p. 74). Yet this profession of
   astonishment had a hollow ring, for in an earlier work he took one
   look at the high electrical conductivity of the solar atmosphere and
   abandoned what might have been a fruitful inquiry; at the very outset
   he concluded that "it may be said that if the sun and stars had no
   magnetic fields, electromagnetic phenomena would be of little
   importance to cosmic physics" (Cosmical Electrodynamics, Oxford, 1950,
   p. 2).

   Such denials and avoidances of electrical physics by astrophysicists
   may not actually give evidence, as Velikovsky once charged, of a
   "reluctance . . . in danger of becoming a dogma, called upon to
   protect existing teachings in celestial mechanics" (Harper's Magazine,
   June, 1951), but at the very least they do reveal, to my way of
   thinking, almost total conditioning by the preconception of stellar
   self-sufficiency.

   These eminent scientists tacitly assume that the physical isolation of
   the sun is practically total-- that the solar environment is a vast
   emptiness where traffic in energy is limited to subtle exchanges of
   gravitational forces and radiation between stars.

   As I pointed out in my Pensee article, the conclusion they take for
   granted is untenable if space, instead of being the passive emptiness
   they assume it to be, is itself under electrical strain and unable to
   receive the excess charges that the sun and the other stars might
   otherwise cast off.

   Half a century ago another factor may have forestalled consideration
   of electricity in cosmic affairs. At that time, a growing body of
   evidence seemed to indicate that electricity could not flow through a
   vacuum. The limitation was later shown to be due to space-charge
   effects--the repulsive forces of free charges already occupying the
   space in which experimenters sought to make currents flow. But by that
   time astrophysics was irrevocably committed to the theory of stellar
   self-sufficiency and hence blinded to the beckonings of electrical
   science.

   Professor Melvin Cook (Pensee, Winter, 1973, 56) has brought the name
   of V. A. Bailey into this debate, and this seems an appropriate place
   for another look at his ideas. Bailey's suggestion that the sun
   carries an enormous electric charge ran afoul of the self-sufficiency
   dogma.

   Seeking to explain a number of phenomena loosely categorized as
   sun-earth relationships, in addition to stellar magnetic fields, solar
   cosmic rays, and solar plasma clouds, Bailey suggested that the sun
   must carry strong negative charge. To evade arguments of the type
   propounded by Lindemann and Menzel, he postulated a continuous
   generation of charge within the solar body, so that despite charge
   dissipation to the surrounding plasma a net charge of great magnitude
   is maintained, and he offered two alternative hypotheses for such
   charge generation:

   The first was based on a suggestion that the known conservation laws
   of energy, momentum, and charge may be imperfectly true in the
   four-dimensional space-time universe, but perfectly true in a
   hypothetical five-dimensional universe. Then, according to Bailey,
   "there can exist streams or fluxes of electrically charged particles"
   from one universe to the other, and "the fluxes inside a hot star will
   be very different from those outside it," leading in some way to the
   release of unbalanced charge within the star (Nature, 186, 1960, 508
   ff.).

   Such an hypothesis clearly transcends physics and is the sort of
   explanation that only a mathematician might appreciate.

   Alternatively, Bailey suggested that net negative charge may be left
   behind on the sun by a continuous emission of hypothetical positive
   particles, which he designated as "astrons." To explain what he
   supposed was a relatively constant net charge on the sun, he
   postulated a steady expulsion of electrons carrying off negative
   charge at the same rate as the astron emission but lagging to the
   extent that a gap of some 10^28 electrostatic units of charge was
   never closed.

   Oster and Philip, of Yale University Observatory, challenged Bailey on
   several counts, but in the first instance with regard to the high
   electrical conductivity of solar material. They calculated that any
   delay between a hypothetical emission of positive charge and a
   compensating departure of negative charge by way of electron emission
   must always be so small as to prevent any buildup of net charge of the
   magnitude Bailey required (Nature, 189, 1961, 43).

   In reply, Bailey insisted that the case presented by Oster and Philip
   "at most ... can only lead to the conclusion that the hypotheses of
   origin [of solar charge) are untenable and that the origin of the
   solar charge remains to be discovered" (Nature, 189, 1961, 43).

   Elsewhere, Bailey defended his ideas against attack by Menzel, who
   charged that he (Bailey) "forgot to make one very significant check.
   Could the sun actually maintain so enormous an electric field? . . ."
   (Harper's, Dec. 1963, 85)

   Bailey replied: "Menzel's attempt to prove that the Sun cannot carry a
   significant electric charge is unconvincing since it involves certain
   out-of-date views about the material contents of interplanetary space
   as well as the unproved assumption that the earthly laws of the
   electro-magnetic field can be safely extrapolated to bodies such as
   the Sun of unearthly dimensions and temperatures" (Harper's, Jan.
   1964, 12).

   Bailey's point about the presumptuousness of projecting terrestrial
   laws of physics into the distant reaches of the universe may be valid
   enough. Still, even though only simple faith backs up such
   projections, without them there could be no science of astrophysics.
   Nor is the foundation made more substantial by removing all
   inhibitions and setting known (terrestrial) laws of physics aside in
   favor of mathematical tinkering and metaphysical speculation.

   Bailey's dilemma--finding evidence of electric charge on the sun, a
   body whose electrical conductivity and presumed electrical isolation
   in space seem incompatible with a buildup of charge-- is most easily
   resolved by discarding the notion of stellar self-sufficiency. And
   this, as noted earlier, is where Bruce, Crew, and I part company. They
   are concerned with explaining the phenomena of the solar atmosphere
   and of stellar atmospheres in general and are content to identify the
   electrical-discharge effects they see there simply as due to the
   breakdown of local electric fields, rather akin to those giving rise
   to lightning on earth. I, on the other hand, seize upon Bruce's
   electrified galactic atmosphere as the immediate cause of
   electrification in the solar system. And I assume that breakdown of a
   field thus built between the material body of the sun and its galactic
   environment is responsible not only for currents that fuel the sun,
   but also for the complicated electrification of the planetary system,
   including the comets.

   PENSEE Journal V
     _________________________________________________________________

   \cdrom\pubs\journals\pensee\ivr05\42cosmic.htm