• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Something new under the sun

Do you agree with this statement;

That statement obviously refers to some figure. Not knowing what that figure is, I cannot say definitively, but I can imagine configurations for which it would be true. But I don't know why you think that statement is relevant here. This appears to be primarily concerned with currents in the plane of interest, with magnetic fields perpendicular to that plane. In contrast, the 2D magnetic reconnection configuration I posted, and that the paper in question discusses, have currents perpendicular to the plane of interest and magnetic fields within the plane.
 
That statement obviously refers to some figure. Not knowing what that figure is, I cannot say definitively, but I can imagine configurations for which it would be true. But I don't know why you think that statement is relevant here. This appears to be primarily concerned with currents in the plane of interest, with magnetic fields perpendicular to that plane. In contrast, the 2D magnetic reconnection configuration I posted, and that the paper in question discusses, have currents perpendicular to the plane of interest and magnetic fields within the plane.


In Scotts paper the condition that he is describing is that same senario, and there is no current at this point. So in the context that he used it it is fine.

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf
The magnetic field strength vector at any point in the plane of the figure is the vector sum of all component fields that are produced by all differential current segments in the vicinity. At the neutral point (or line), the current on the right produces a magnetic field strength vector that is vertically upward. Similarly, the current on the left produces a magnetic field vector that is vertically downward at that point. Therefore, these two field strength vectors sum to zero at the center of the figure, and the strength of the B field at such a neutral point is identically zero. Additional currents AND/OR current sheets can be added to this diagram. Doing so will alter the topology of the magnetic field, possibly introducing additional neutral points or lines and separatrices.

Note that no electric currents exist near or at the neutral point. If they did, the point would no longer be magnetically neutral. The energy that is stored at any point in a magnetic field is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the magnetic flux density at that point, i.e.,

[latex]W_{B}=\frac{1}{2\mu_{0}}\int{B}^2_{I}dv[/latex]

where BI is the magnitude of the magnetic field, and dv is a small volume element. Thus, if BI = 0 at any given point, then the stored energy there would be WB = 0. No energy is stored at a neutral point; this is why it is called a neutral or null point.


So in the situation he is describing, there certainly is no current at the neutral point.
 
Last edited:
You're not getting it. Yes, that's what their claim means. But that's also exactly what my counterexample disproves. The center of a wire is magnetically neutral if there is no current. Turn the current on, and it remains magnetically neutral. Change the current, and it still remains magnetically neutral. Or take the magnetic reconnection field I posted before: when a=b, there's no current flow. When a!=b, there is a current flow through the entire area of interest, including at the origin. The neutral point remains. The existence of a neutral point does NOT indicate that there is no current flowing at or near that point. The author is simply wrong. Your reading of the meaning of the author's statement is correct, but you still haven't understood why that statement is wrong.
.
I agree that a configuration may be set-up to show what you're saying.

But I still read it as, if you bring an electric current near to a neutral point, then the magnetic field at the neutral point is affected and no longer becomes neutral. Sure you can set it up so that's its not.
 
Ok. Actually got round to reading the paper...
So Scott writes a paper essentially attacking astrophysicist's knowledge of plasmas. And yet not once does he show an instance where an astronomer has got something mathematically wrong. It's just an article of quote mining; taking lots of quotes and saying "oh this clearly does not agree with this equation". But no evidence of a wrong equation or a clearly erroneous result. Just arguments about semantics.

(Aside, is it just the pdf formatting that has removed all the vector notation except for equation 2?)
 
In Scotts paper the condition that he is describing is that same senario, and there is no current at this point. So in the context that he used it it is fine.

No, it isn't fine. The statement that "no electric currents exist near or at the neutral point" is fine if you're only describing a particular setup. But the next sentence, "If they did, the point would no longer be magnetically neutral" is simply wrong. I have already GIVEN examples of currents that could be introduced which would leave the neutral point as a neutral point.

So in the situation he is describing, there certainly is no current at the neutral point.

He set it up that way, and that part is fine. But his statement that you can't introduce any other currents near the neutral point while keeping it a neutral point is simply and completely wrong. It is easy to do so.
 
Ok. Actually got round to reading the paper...
So Scott writes a paper essentially attacking astrophysicist's knowledge of plasmas. And yet not once does he show an instance where an astronomer has got something mathematically wrong. It's just an article of quote mining; taking lots of quotes and saying "oh this clearly does not agree with this equation". But no evidence of a wrong equation or a clearly erroneous result. Just arguments about semantics.


I would rather say that he is pointing out areas where astrophysicists seem to have strayed from the well established properties of Electromagnetism.

If you can find any errors post them.
 
But I still read it as, if you bring an electric current near to a neutral point, then the magnetic field at the neutral point is affected and no longer becomes neutral. Sure you can set it up so that's its not.

That is still wrong. You can't arbitrarily move currents around and expect the neutral point to remain a neutral point, but it can be done. In fact, it's trivially easy to see how: just move the two wires already shown so that they touch each other at the neutral point, and you've done it. At that point, it's rather absurd to argue that there's no current near the neutral point. That's not the only way to do it either.
 
I would rather say that he is pointing out areas where astrophysicists seem to have strayed from the well established properties of Electromagnetism.

Physics is a mathematical subject. If he wants to show astronomers/astrophysicists are getting it wrong then he needs to show the maths they are getting wrong; equations and/or results. Just using a load of quotes isn't attacking their physics calculations. It's just attacking their English. If he wants to do that it should be in an English journal. Not a physics one.
 
That is still wrong. You can't arbitrarily move currents around and expect the neutral point to remain a neutral point, but it can be done. In fact, it's trivially easy to see how: just move the two wires already shown so that they touch each other at the neutral point, and you've done it. At that point, it's rather absurd to argue that there's no current near the neutral point. That's not the only way to do it either.


But there is no current at the neutral point between two soleniod fields. Thats why its neutral, there is no resultant magnetic component vector, and there is no electric component either.
 
Last edited:
Physics is a mathematical subject. If he wants to show astronomers/astrophysicists are getting it wrong then he needs to show the maths they are getting wrong; equations and/or results. Just using a load of quotes isn't attacking their physics calculations. It's just attacking their English. If he wants to do that it should be in an English journal. Not a physics one.


He shows directly the mathematics of the alternative model of reconnection, which i note no-one has faulted.

However, a large amount of energy can be stored in and released from the surrounding field structure but only if either or both currents, I, take on lower values. This is easily demonstrated in the example in Fig. 2, which is given in the following. The total energy that has been delivered to an electrical element, by time T0 is given by:


[latex]W(t_{0})=\int_{-\infty }^{t_{0}}v(t)i(t)dt.[/latex] (6)


For the case of the flux-linked conductors in the example, i(t) = 2I, and v(t) is the voltage drop across a unit length of the conductor in the direction of i(t). Faraday’s law indicates that;

[latex]v(t)=\frac{d\phi(t)}{dt}[/latex] (7)

where Phi ([latex]\phi[/latex]) is the total magnetic flux that links the conductors. Thus, the energy that is stored in the magnetic field that surrounds the conductors at time t0 is given by;

[latex]W(t_{0})=\int_{-\infty}^{t_{0}}\frac{d\phi}{dt}i(t)dt=\int_{\phi(-\infty)}^{\phi(t_{v})}id\phi[/latex] (8)

Where the total magnetic flux depends on the current’s amplitude, i.e.,

[latex]\phi(t)=Li(t)[/latex] (9)


The constant of proportionality L is called the inductance, which may be a constant or a function of φ. When a current flows in large regions, this single inductance element L should be replaced by a transmission line, and the situation is then more accurately (but less intuitively) described by partial differential equations [1]. Equations (6)–(9) demonstrate the basic principle that the total energy that is stored magnetically in the infinite volume surrounding the conductors completely depends on the current. That is, using (9), (8) may be written as an integral in terms of only the current. The total energy that will be released from this volume over any time interval is thus clearly a function of the change in current amplitude over that interval.

If these twin currents are disrupted (e.g., by an exploding DL in their path), the field will quickly collapse and liberate all of the stored magnetic energy that is given by (8).

Investigators who prefer to avoid explicit mention of electric current as a primary cause of cosmic energy releases fall back on magnetic reconnection as an explanation. The crucial difference between the two explanations is the question of which quantity (time-varying electric current or moving magnetic “lines”) causes energy release from the magnetized plasma.
 
Last edited:
But there is no current at the neutral point between two soleniod fields.

There can be. You can add a third solenoidal field with the neutral point at the center, with that third field being caused by a current which covers the neutral point. How many times do we have to go over this? So you're wrong. Again.
 
He shows directly the mathematics of the alternative model of reconnection, which i note no-one has faulted.

Yep. I know. I didn't say he didn't show any equations. Just none showing any instance of a wrong equation or number from an astrophysicist. Which, considering the paper is an attack on astrophysicists use of physics and physics is a subject all about equations and quantitative measurement, makes the paper rather obsolete.
 
There can be. You can add a third solenoidal field with the neutral point at the center, with that third field being caused by a current which covers the neutral point. How many times do we have to go over this? So you're wrong. Again.


Currents are made of ions. Ions have charge. All currents eminate a magnetic field.

What happens when these particles travel over a neutral point?
 
Last edited:
What are currents made of?

What happens when these particles travel over a neutral point?

We're working in the continuum limit, because there's no bloody point in trying to track individual charges in a macroscopically large system. Didn't you clue in last time I said this? The very concept of current only makes sense in the continuum limit. All you're doing is proving how little you understand the subject.
 
We're working in the continuum limit, because there's no bloody point in trying to track individual charges in a macroscopically large system.


But if you did model it to this high degree of accuracy, the neutral line would be moving all over the place in accordance to each ion.

Just like scott said, the magnetism arrising from the current would make the point not magnetically neutral. :D

And yes if you have a constant current density and if this is forms a solenoidal field and if this current is placed in an exact position and if you leave out the role of the individual charges that make up the current and if this cancels out the field, etc, etc.

This just wont happen, its just too much of an ideal situation.

Current is made of ions at a fundamental level, and any model that leaves out the role of ions in the system is not complete, nor can describe each component of the system accurately.
 
Last edited:
But if you did model it to this high degree of accuracy, the neutral line would be moving all over the place in accordance to each ion.

If you did model it to this degree of accuracy, there wouldn't ever be a neutral point, because you'd have to include electromagnetic radiation which makes the B field everywhere time-varying.

Just like scott said, the magnetism arrising from the current would make the point not magnetically neutral. :D

The author is wrong. He is not, however, as clueless as you. He is working in the continuum limit, which is the only sensible thing to do.

This just wont happen, its just too much of an ideal situation.

The whole setup is an ideal situation, so that's hardly a valid complaint. And even if you make the current non-uniform, you may shift the neutral point, but you can still VERY easily end up with a neutral point with current flowing through it.

Current is made of ions at a fundamental level, and any model that leaves out the role of ions in the system is not complete,

Surprise, surprise: Maxwell's equations aren't complete. But everybody already knows this. Go bother somebody else. You're becoming a mere nuisance, with nothing to contribute here.
 
Zeuzzz: I have many questions about Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation (cosmic plasma filaments + enormous Birkeland currents + a ball of plasma result in plasmoids that look like galaxies). The main one is:

Why does he compare the results of his computer simulation which are plasma density graphs to optical photographs of galaxies?

Optical photographs of galaxies show their apparent shape. Galaxies are actually disk shaped. Spiral galaxies have spiral arms in photographs because these are regions of star formation (lots of young, bright stars). There are a couple of theories (not mutually exclusive) for this -the density waves model and the shock waves model.
The density of matter does not drop to very low values between the arms as suggested by Peratt's plasma density graphs and the plasmoid experiments that he bases his simulation on.

Others are
  • Why don't we see this happening?
  • Are cosmic plasma filaments associated with galaxies? There are images of cosmic plasma filaments (not to be confused with the cosmological filaments of galaxies) that have structures in them that look like the result of Birkeland currents. But I have not seen any evidence of associated galaxies.


Zeuzzz, Did you read this posting and do you have answers?

For that matter have you read any of the papers on the magnetic reconnection experiments that have been posted here?
The last I heard you were looking at the one I suggested but maybe you have been distracted.

The posts about Scott's paper have concentrated on the theory. But his abstract ends with the sentence
The “magnetic merging” (reconnection) mechanism is also falsified by both theoretical and experimental investigations.
Here we have 3 experimental faculties investigating magnetic reconnection which according to Scott's paper does not exist.
 
.
I don't think it's being said that "no electric currents exist near or at the neutral point" PERIOD, under any circumstances.

I read it as, "no electric currents exist near or at the neutral point" because if there was an electric current, "the point would no longer be magnetically neutral".

I had to drop calculus II because I couldn't do the hoework with athree month old baby on my lap.

But you should look at Zig's comment here:
Yes, the line with zero magnetic field is a one-dimensional object. But so is the neutral point in the examples he's considering, in case you didn't notice. You ALWAYS have to integrate over a finite spatial extent for any real system if you want to get a nonzero current, because current densities are never infinite. Surely the author of the paper is aware of this. So it makes absolutely no sense to talk about the current being zero at a point on account of the current density being finite, which is essentially what you're arguing in an attempt to brush that mistake under the rug. But the irony is that such an absurd argument still doesn't rescue that mistake, since he said the current had to be zero at and near the neutral point, meaning we can integrate over an area around the neutral point and still get no current. Which the case of a wire of uniform current density disproves.

Zig is saying that there is acase where Zeuzz interpretation breaks down, and in the math of science that is usually a rather fatal case.
 
I would dispute that, everyone who knows maxwells equations knows that in practise a neutral point that has a current flowing over it will no longer remain a neutral point, the flow of charge has to be creating magnetic field which would alter the position of the neutral point as each charge passes by it, effecting the topology of the magnetic field.

False. The relevant equation says the current is the curl of the B field. There's no reason in the world why the curl can't be non-zero where the field is zero. In fact, give me ANY magnetic field, and by subtracting a constant I can make it zero at any point I want, without changing the curl (and therefore the current) one bit.

But I doubt you understand anything I just said, because you have no clue what Maxwell's equations even are, let alone what they imply.

In your ideal situation the current that you can add in the z axis direction has to be uniform, and when you actually consider the nature of the individual ions that form the current it clearly is not uniform. Also for your situation to work the current has to either extend infinitely (not possible in practise), or else has to be perfectly symetrical about the Z axis to maintain the magnetic equilibrium.

Nope - wrong again. It doesn't need to be symmetrical, it doesn't need to be infinite, and considering ions is irrelevant and doesn't change the conclusion.

You still think that the field you posted back then is an example of magnetic reconnection?

Yes, as does everyone else in the world.

Since you have been completely unable to explain how the energy is liberated from this system, it is quite obviously not magnetic reconnection, or you would have posted an explanation for how this occurs by now.

Nonsense. As I already told you several times, the energy is changing is the reconnection is occuring, because a and b are changing. Furthermore the question of energy release is independent from the question of whether the field reconnects, and the presence or absence of plasma is crucial for that.

Just saying reconnection happens, then lots of energy is released, is not an explanation! Just explain how the lines reconnecting create the observed energy.

I already did, and I showed you a numerical simulation and experimental results backing it up.

I think thats not an explanation for the production of energy. If what you are claiming is magnetic reconnection then i should beable to produce magnetic reconnection with a simple configuration of electromagnets. I'm sure that the guys at MRX at Princeton wont be happy when they find they needn't have spent all that money on the machine to attempt to achieve magnetic reconnection.

No, you have no clue what you're talking about. They wanted to study reconnection in plasma. Reconnection is trivial to achieve without plasma - it happens all the time. What makes it hard in plasma is the high conductivity.

Okay we're getting somewhere here. Given the properties of the vector field that the field lines are describing, explain why two points which were not connected by a B field line suddenly become connected; in terms of the vectors that the lines are describing.

I already did, about 15 times. If you were unable to comprehend it the first 15 times, I very much doubt a 16th is going to help. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Could someone confirm whether:

1. a broken field line is consistent with, or violates Gauss's law?

2. a broken field line is the same as an open field line?

3. reconnection involves breaking any field lines.


Good luck getting anyone to answer that. :rolleyes:

I've asked many people here to explain the magnetic reconnection process, from the magnetic field lines right up to the energy release, but no-one seems able to so far.
 

Back
Top Bottom