Something new under the sun

[Zeuzzz]

I just cannot believe you folks are still feeding these EU-PU trolls...

I can not believe that every singe comment you have made on this thread has contributed absolutely nothing worthwhile to the discussion at all. Even the one calculation you did I had already done before in a previous post. You just seem to want an argument instead of debating the material. At least Sol is now engaging in a conversation. What you have said so far has either been a personal attack on someone or based on an extreme ignorance of what PU and EU is.

 

[sol invictus]

I just cannot believe you folks are still feeding these EU-PU trolls...

It's like picking a scab, or rubbernecking at an accident. You know you really shouldn't, but sometimes it's sooo hard to resist...

I never denied that, that would denying a well established fact. I do dispute the current method that produces this energy.

What method? What are you talking about? As usual, you're not making any sense.

The other description, magnetic reconnection, utilizes the "Bu approach" which treats the magnetic field and plasma bulk flow as primary quantities.

So, as far as I can tell, you've changed your position yet again. Now you agree Zig and my field configuration reconnects, you agree it satisfies Maxwell, you agree the same magnetic field configurations in the presence of plasma can occur, reconnect, and satisfy Maxwell, and you agree that when that type of magnetic reconnection occurs in plasma it releases a huge amount of energy.

(By the way, since I'm sure you don't know and just to save you the trouble of making a fool out of yourself yet again, Zig and my type of reconnection in plasma obviously involves large currents and electric fields.)

The only thing you dispute now is whether certain astro phenomena are or are not caused by magnetic reconnection versus some other process. Is that correct?

I'm sure now you'll claim that by "reconnection" you actually meant "solar flares" or something, all along.

 

[Zeuzzz]

What method? What are you talking about? As usual, you're not making any sense.

Its like talking to a brick wall.

I'll just repeat exactly what I said "I never denied that, that would denying a well established fact. I do dispute the current method that produces this energy."

OK?

So, as far as I can tell, you've changed your position yet again. Now you agree Zig and my field configuration reconnects, you agree it satisfies Maxwell, you agree the same magnetic field configurations in the presence of plasma can occur, reconnect, and satisfy Maxwell, and you agree that when that type of magnetic reconnection occurs in plasma it releases a huge amount of energy.

And I never said that any of these did not happen. It comes from you thinking that the joining of magnetic field lines in a standard magnetic setup is called magnetic reconnection, whereas I was referring to magnetic reconnection as the whole process, from the topological change in the lines all the way to the energy release.

(By the way, since I'm sure you don't know and just to save you the trouble of making a fool out of yourself yet again, Zig and my type of reconnection in plasma obviously involves large currents and electric fields.)

The only thing you dispute now is whether certain astro phenomena are or are not caused by magnetic reconnection versus some other process. Is that correct?

Which was my position all along, I dispute the current model based on the energy relase from field line connections (thus all the posts asking people how the lines release the energy) and instead think that Alfvens current disruption interpretation is a far more likely interpretation.

If you had read Scotts paper, you would know this, and maybe you could talk about it instead of just continually accusing me of shifting my position by misrepresenting what I have been saying.

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

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.

The diagram in Fig. 2 approximates a cross section of a cosmic Birkeland current pair. 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 [15], [17]–[20] 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. In certain situations, magnetic reconnection supposedly directly converts magnetic energy into kinetic energy in the form of bidirectional plasma jets. The process is initiated in a narrow source region that is called the “diffusion region.” One of the key predicted signatures of collisionless reconnection is the separation between ions and electrons (plasma) in the diffusion region. This separation is said to create a quadrupolar system of Hall currents and, thus, an associated set of Hall magnetic fields. Even here however, it is understood that any released energy comes not from neutral points, lines, or surfaces, where no energy is stored, or bulk movement of plasma but from the surrounding magnetic field structure that depends on those Hall currents for its existence.

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.

And just incase you yet again missed the whole point of this debate;
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.

Although there exists a kinetic approach to magnetic reconnection (see Hills model, or Galeevs model), most of the reconnection models are based on the concept that space plasmas behave like regular fluids and are well described under the Magneto-Fluid-Dynamic approximation. In this approximation the state of the plasma is represented by local macroscopic properties, which depend on position in space r, and on time, t. Magnetic reconnection also relies on the concept of magnetic field lines, and its probaly a good idea to recall that field lines were used by Faraday to assist visualization of the magnetic force on small magnets (often inproperly called magnetic lines of force). In space plasmas the mathematical concept of field line motion relies on its association with a flow field (see Newcombs work for the origin of this idea).

There is however the alternative interpretation of what is creating this energy release, the Current disruption approach that Alfven and others have endorsed.

Current sheets are ubiquitous and well recognized to exhibit dynamic activity in particle acceleration, intense wave generation, and plasma turbulence. Current disruption is basically caused by Intense current densities in current sheets. Current disruption and magnetic reconnection, arise from two different approaches in treating space plasma problems. The “Ej approach” considers electric field and current density as primary quantities while the “Bu approach” considers magnetic field and plasma flow as primary quantities. Current disruption is used in the former approach while magnetic reconnection in the latter.

There are many limitations of the B-u paradigm and merits of the E-j paradigm However, my main objection to the B-u paradigm is its reliance on magnetohydrodynamics, when many of the processes occurring in magnetic reconnection are inherently kinetic, requiring an approach that can better be summed up as the E-j paradigm that Alfven endorsed. However astronomers who prefer to avoid mentioning electric currents as a primary source of cosmic energy releases fall back on magnetic reconnection as an explanation.

 

[sol invictus]

I'll just repeat exactly what I said "I never denied that, that would denying a well established fact. I do dispute the current method that produces this energy."

OK?

No, I'm sorry, not OK. I still have no idea what you are trying to say. You keep repeating that you dispute the "method", and yet you refuse to say what that "method" is, and at the same time you now say you accept and agree with every single aspect of the standard treatment I have asked about.

The ONLY things involved in the standard treatment of magnetic reconnection are Maxwell's equations in plasma - that's all. Period. There is no more. There is no "method" beyond solving those equations, and checking numerically and experimentally that the solutions are correct. Remember - the experiment HAS BEEN DONE, the field HAS BEEN MEASURED, and it agrees PRECISELY with the standard treatment. There is simply no room for ambiguity. The ONLY thing you can dispute is whether some particular astrophysical phenomenon arises due to this effect or some other.

I think all of this flailing around is just because the words we use to describe those solutions make you feel uncomfortable, because you do not understand them, and you somehow "feel" they must be wrong. All that nonsense you were spouting earlier about how magnetic field lines cannot move (false), and do not really exist (they exist in just the same way fields do) is still affecting you, apparently.

And I repeat that the solution to those equations does NOT only involve magnetic fields - it follows immediately from the solution Zig and I presented that currents and electric fields are also present (as you would already know if you understood Maxwell's equations). It is impossible to separate time-varying magnetic configurations like this one from electric configurations, another basic fact that seems to have escaped you.

 

[Zeuzzz]

No, I'm sorry, not OK. I still have no idea what you are trying to say. You keep repeating that you dispute the "method", and yet you refuse to say what that "method" is, and at the same time you now say you accept and agree with every single aspect of the standard treatment I have asked about.

The ONLY things involved in the standard treatment of magnetic reconnection are Maxwell's equations in plasma - that's all. Period. There is no more. There is no "method" beyond solving those equations, and checking numerically and experimentally that the solutions are correct. Remember - the experiment HAS BEEN DONE, the field HAS BEEN MEASURED, and it agrees PRECISELY with the standard treatment. There is simply no room for ambiguity. The ONLY thing you can dispute is whether some particular astrophysical phenomenon arises due to this effect or some other.

I think all of this flailing around is just because the words we use to describe those solutions make you feel uncomfortable, because you do not understand them, and you somehow "feel" they must be wrong. All that nonsense you were spouting earlier about how magnetic field lines cannot move (false), and do not really exist (they exist in just the same way fields do) is still affecting you, apparently.

And I repeat that the solution to those equations does NOT only involve magnetic fields - it follows immediately from the solution Zig and I presented that currents and electric fields are also present (as you would already know if you understood Maxwell's equations). It is impossible to separate time-varying magnetic configurations like this one from electric configurations, another basic fact that seems to have escaped you.

Sol, do you agree that the magnetic lines themselves, being only mathematical constructs to represent a vector field, can not release the energy? and there has to be theory to explain why the energy is released?

Yes, the field lines show a 'reconnection' phenomenon, but this in itself does not explain the energy associated with reconnection. Because of this magnetohydrodynamics and other equations are used to describe how the energy is released from the magnetic field configuration modelled by maxwells equations?

If you read any paper on the magnetic reconnection you will see that they do not just use maxwells equaations, they have various theories of how the energy is released from this configuration, and this is what i am disputing, the current method for the energy release. (how many times have i said this )

I suggest you actually respond to the material in my previous post instead of yet again dodgning the main bulk of what I post.

here it is again:

Which was my position all along, I dispute the current model based on the energy relase from field line connections (thus all the posts asking people how the lines release the energy) and instead think that Alfvens current disruption interpretation is a far more likely interpretation.

If you had read Scotts paper, you would know this, and maybe you could talk about it instead of just continually accusing me of shifting my position by misrepresenting what I have been saying.

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf


And just incase you yet again missed the whole point of this debate;
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.

Although there exists a kinetic approach to magnetic reconnection (see Hills model, or Galeevs model), most of the reconnection models are based on the concept that space plasmas behave like regular fluids and are well described under the Magneto-Fluid-Dynamic approximation. In this approximation the state of the plasma is represented by local macroscopic properties, which depend on position in space r, and on time, t. Magnetic reconnection also relies on the concept of magnetic field lines, and its probaly a good idea to recall that field lines were used by Faraday to assist visualization of the magnetic force on small magnets (often inproperly called magnetic lines of force). In space plasmas the mathematical concept of field line motion relies on its association with a flow field (see Newcombs work for the origin of this idea).

There is however the alternative interpretation of what is creating this energy release, the Current disruption approach that Alfven and others have endorsed.

Current sheets are ubiquitous and well recognized to exhibit dynamic activity in particle acceleration, intense wave generation, and plasma turbulence. Current disruption is basically caused by Intense current densities in current sheets. Current disruption and magnetic reconnection, arise from two different approaches in treating space plasma problems. The “Ej approach” considers electric field and current density as primary quantities while the “Bu approach” considers magnetic field and plasma flow as primary quantities. Current disruption is used in the former approach while magnetic reconnection in the latter.

There are many limitations of the B-u paradigm and merits of the E-j paradigm However, my main objection to the B-u paradigm is its reliance on magnetohydrodynamics, when many of the processes occurring in magnetic reconnection are inherently kinetic, requiring an approach that can better be summed up as the E-j paradigm that Alfven endorsed. However astronomers who prefer to avoid mentioning electric currents as a primary source of cosmic energy releases fall back on magnetic reconnection as an explanation.

 

[sol invictus]

Sol, do you agree that the magnetic lines themselves, being only mathematical constructs to represent a vector field, can not release the energy?

No, I do not agree. The field itself is simply a mathematical construct to explain the displacements of charged particles, which are what we measure. It is no more or less real than the lines. If the field can release energy, so can the lines.

However as I keep trying to tell you, that argument is philosophical, semantic, and totally irrelevant. If it's the case that whenever and wherever lines reconnect lots of energy is released, a normal human being would agree that it makes sense to say that the reconnection of the lines releases energy. Regardless, WORDS DO NOT MATTER - the solutions to the equations exhibit these behaviors, and the words are just a way to describe those solutions.

and there has to be theory to explain why the energy is released?

There IS a theory - it's called Maxwell's equations. What is wrong with you?

Yes, the field lines show a 'reconnection' phenomenon, but this in itself does not explain the energy associated with reconnection.

The SOLUTION TO THE EQUATIONS shows that energy is released when lines reconnect in plasma.

If you read any paper on the magnetic reconnection you will see that they do not just use maxwells equaations, they have various theories of how the energy is released from this configuration, and this is what i am disputing, the current method for the energy release. (how many times have i said this )

No, that is false. They have various ways of describing what happens using words, but they all agree on the solutions (with the possible exception of some of your crackpots).

This point is absolutely crucial - there is no point in moving on. So far you have acknowledged every single ingredient in standard magnetic reconnection, and yet you are still claiming there is something in dispute. The only thing it could be is your own incomprehension.

 

[robinson]

I can not believe that every singe comment you have made on this thread has contributed absolutely nothing worthwhile to the discussion at all.

I can. Just use the filter and save yourself some time. Trolls should never be fed.

Its like talking to a brick wall.

And just incase you yet again missed the whole point of this debate;
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.

It is unbelievable. You keep pointing out the facts, or at least papers about stuff, and it is like nobody reads them.

No, I'm sorry, not OK. I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

I really think you just don't read anything, just keep repeating the same thing, like that will make it true.

However as I keep trying to tell you, that argument is philosophical, semantic, and totally irrelevant.

Now that is just dumb. Cmon, if you can't reply to a scientiic paper, don't say anything at all.

How many times does the same thing have to be repeated? Do you just not read?

 

[MattusMaximus]

It's like picking a scab, or rubbernecking at an accident. You know you really shouldn't, but sometimes it's sooo hard to resist...

I prefer to think of it as watching a train wreck in slow motion... it is a tragic event, yet you simply cannot tear your eyes away from the mayhem & carnage

 

[robinson]

From reading and researching the presented material, it is obvious that for some reason certain scientist just don't want to use the word "electricity" or "electric" in regards to the sun, plasma in space, or any other event out there.

I have no idea why. But it is obvious once you look at the data.

It is also obvious that electricity is involved, despite the lack of some people in mentioning it.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Watching Robinson & Zeuzzz go up against Sol Invictus is like watching ants try to battle a bulldozer.

As I said just now - it's a train wreck... in... slooooow... moootion...

This is some of the best entertainment I've had all day so far

 

[MattusMaximus]

From reading and researching the presented material, it is obvious that for some reason certain scientist just don't want to use the word "electricity" or "electric" in regards to the sun, plasma in space, or any other event out there.

I have no idea why. But it is obvious once you look at the data.

It is also obvious that electricity is involved, despite the lack of some people in mentioning it.

 

[robinson]

As obvious as how this topic went from discussing the mystery of gravitational issues in our deep space probes, to a very long discussion about mostly magnetic reconnection.

 

[robinson]

It is clear that a rigorous understanding of the real physical
properties of magnetic fields in plasmas is crucial for astrophysicists
and cosmologists. Incorrect pronouncements about
the properties of magnetic fields and currents in plasma will be
counterproductive if these conceptual errors are propagated into
publications and then used as the basis of new investigations.
There are some popular misconceptions.
1) Magnetic “lines of force” really exist as extant entities in
3-D space and are involved in cosmic mechanisms when
they move.
2) Magnetic fields can be open ended and can release energy
by “merging” or “reconnecting.”
3) Behavior of magnetic fields can be explained without any
reference to the currents that produce them.
4) Cosmic plasma is infinitely conductive, so magnetic fields
are “frozen into” it.

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

3) Behavior of magnetic fields can be explained without any
reference to the currents that produce them.

That is so true. It is true about planetary fields, solar fields, even the Galactic magnetic field. It's like somehow, magnetic fields just happen, when we now know that the sun and earth both have fields that switch poles, meaning the magnetic field is anything but a permanent magnet.

Changing magnetic fields are produced by current. Electric currents. I don't know enough about the physics of most of this to argue, but even I can see the problem with claiming that magnetic fields change, without any mention of the current that gives rise to the field.

It is all so fascinating.

 

[ben m]

I want to clarify something with respect to electric fields. When reconnection allows a B field reconfiguration, and we say that this accelerates particles: that is an electric field at work. It's Maxwell's curl E = dB/dt electric field and no other. (A pure magnetic field can never increase the energy of an ion, since that requires F.V != 0 which cannot occur via the Lorentz force law.). The electric field is fully determined by the magnetic field and is fully accounted for in the standard reconnection picture. No one is pretending that it isn't there. It's the same as the electric field which accelerates particles in a "magnetically driven" betatron, or a "magnetically coupled" transformer, or whatever.

This is what Sol has been saying. Standard reconnection is a Maxwell's Equations solution. It starts with magnetic fields, the fields reorganize, and that results in acceleration of ions. There's an inductive electric field in the middle of this process. We don't need to calculate it separately, it's already there in your dB/dt and we're already handling it correctly. Happy?

There is not, as I think you want there to be, a DC, nonzero-divergence, zero-curl electric field driven by charge separation. No evidence for it. Don't need it to explain reconnection.

But I've said this a dozen times: mainstream plasma physicists do not arbitrarily ignore electric fields. They include them when they occur, with the appropriate magnitudes and units. They ignore them when they don't seem to be in effect.

 

[robinson]

Thanks ben. I don't understand most of what you said, but at least you are responding to a point.

Is it even possible to have these huge magnetic fields, full of flowing ionized particles, without having huge electric currents as well?

By that, I mean simply, doesn't a moving magnetic field, by the laws of physics, mean their is current? Or if that isn't asked correctly, don't moving charges mean you have current? And isn't current electricity, not magnetism?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Depends on whether you consider the term magnetic reconnection to be referring to the connection of field lines around a standard neutral point (which i never disputed), or the astrophysical process used to explain various energy releasing events in space.




I never said that it violated any of maxwells laws. You can check if you really want.




I never denied that, that would denying a well established fact. I do dispute the current method that produces this energy.




Yes. I believe Alfvens model holds more merit than the current models that exclude the electrical component and fall back on exclusively magnetism to explain the reconnection phenomenon. I much prefer the current disruption model (or the double layer model), utilizing the "Ej approach" which considers the electric field and current density as primary quantities. The other description, magnetic reconnection, utilizes the "Bu approach" which treats the magnetic field and plasma bulk flow as primary quantities.




Alfvens model of reconnection, the one addressed in Scotts paper, and the one I have been talking about for the past ten or so pages (or at least trying to whilst having about nine different arguments with separate people all on different subjects )

.
Then why not simply repeat what ben m said, way back on 26 March? (I used bolding to highlight some stuff)
.

sol invictus and and ben m: do you think Alfvén, in the bit iantresman quoted, is right about the equivalence of treatment (B vs i), and the possible loss of some important aspects by using B instead of i?

This is where I keep tearing my hair out: space plasma physicists aren't ignoring anything. My colleagues who work on the WIND spacecraft have lots of data on the "lunar wake": there's an electric field behind the Moon due to the fact that moon casts a "shadow" in the Solar Wind, and this shadow is filled in more rapidly by electrons than by protons. They deal with non-equilibrium plasmas where the protons and electrons have different temperatures. They talk to tokamak experts for whom the currents are the most important parameters. The "plasma waves" they talk about are not disembodied magnetic fields: they're a coupled system of currents, fields, and densities/pressures. If these wave modes are the appropriate degrees of freedom, then it's fine to only talk about one marker of the waves---it's like talking about a pendulum's motion by describing its "amplitude". ("Amplitude? You forgot about momentum-space", says the pedant. No I didn't---if we're talking about a pendulum with an oscillation period, the momentum is in there.) Are these waves "appropriate" degrees of freedom? Generally, half of the history of physics has been describing complex systems as the sum of a bunch of wave modes---we're quite good at identifying the benefits and pitfalls of this approach, and plasma people talk a lot about which degrees of freedom to use where.

Nonetheless, the PC persecution-fantasy requires them to think that we're leaving something out. So they make stuff up. You're leaving out electric fields! (Not where they exist, we're not.) You're leaving out the particle properties! (Nope.) You're leaving out the currents! (Where do you think we got the fields from?) You're leaving out the charge on the Sun! (Because it isn't there.) You only think it isnt there because you ignore electric fields! (Lather, rinse, repeat.)

The PC argument you mention---"You should use my technique, your technique is ignoring several effects"---hasn't actually been advanced at all on this board, since BAC and Zeuzzz are busy convincing us that magnetic field lines don't really exist. The hypothetical argument would be more impressive if the arguers could actually show examples where (a) their effect is actually ignored, causing (b) the results to disagree with observations. I haven't seen anything to convince me.

.
Zeuzzz, if all you had been trying to say, over dozens of posts, is that

* Maxwell's equations rule
* in plasma physics, two treatments are often used, 'B-v' and 'E-j'
* Alfvén favoured one approach, but the other is more common in modern space science
* the two approaches cannot produce inconsistencies, because they are equivalent and are derived from Maxwell's equations

Then you should simply have said that, surely.

Note that space scientists (those who study plasmas found in the solar system, for example) are fully aware of the equivalence of the two approaches (they have to, in order to get their PhDs).

Note too that plasma cosmology supporters who write, as you have done (often with great passion and energy) - "I believe Alfvens model holds more merit than the current models that exclude the electrical component and fall back on exclusively magnetism to explain the reconnection phenomenon" - are telling their audience that they don't know what they're talking about (well, those in their audience who know plasma physics anyway)?

In your case, if I may say so, the damage you have done to your credibility is considerably greater ... because you have stated unequivocally that you do, in fact, understand the math.

Perhaps you should take a page from iantresman's book, and ask questions when you don't know for sure?

 

[ben m]

Thanks ben. I don't understand most of what you said, but at least you are responding to a point.

Is it even possible to have these huge magnetic fields, full of flowing ionized particles, without having huge electric currents as well?

By that, I mean simply, doesn't a moving magnetic field, by the laws of physics, mean their is current? Or if that isn't asked correctly, don't moving charges mean you have current? And isn't current electricity, not magnetism?

Again, we've said this several times: yes, the fields (even static ones) are generated by electric currents flowing through the plasma somewhere. If you specify these currents, you can draw the fields, but the reverse is true too: if you specify the fields, you can figure out exactly what currents generated them.

There is no coherent separation of "electricity" from "magnetism"---they're both aspects of electromagnetism.

The crazy PC claim isn't "there are currents", though---the crazy claim is "there are large electrostatic fields/potentials", which they either allow to drive currents (when they want to use currents as evidence) or magically forbid from driving currents (when they want to prevent the field from shorting to zero.) Sorry, no. There are currents, but they originate in dynamo-like magnetohydrodynamics, and they persist for a long time because plasma is highly conductive.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks ben. I don't understand most of what you said, but at least you are responding to a point.

Is it even possible to have these huge magnetic fields, full of flowing ionized particles, without having huge electric currents as well?

By that, I mean simply, doesn't a moving magnetic field, by the laws of physics, mean their is current? Or if that isn't asked correctly, don't moving charges mean you have current? And isn't current electricity, not magnetism?

.
robinson, note please that the equivalence of the B-v and E-j approaches (or models, or whatever label you want to give them) is built in to Maxwell's equations, and thus all of plasma physics (except, perhaps, those parts which use the big quantum mechanics guns).

Not only has this been pointed out, several times, in this thread (not only in the ben m post I quoted, but also in many of the materials that sol invictus provided links to), but iantresman picked up on this very early on ... and he was also quite open about not having the math to be able to follow.

If I may repeat the advice I gave to Zeuzzz, to you: as you don't follow the math, wouldn't it be better to ask questions instead of taking what Scott writes at face value? Especially as several professional physicists have stated that the Scott document contains fatal flaws?

Finally, do you understand what it means that the 'B-v' and 'E-j' approaches are equivalent?

 

[Belz...]

I can. Just use the filter and save yourself some time. Trolls should never be fed.

At least you don't deny it.

 

[Zeuzzz]

.
Then why not simply repeat what ben m said, way back on 26 March? (I used bolding to highlight some stuff)
..
Zeuzzz, if all you had been trying to say, over dozens of posts, is that

* Maxwell's equations rule
* in plasma physics, two treatments are often used, 'B-v' and 'E-j'
* Alfvén favoured one approach, but the other is more common in modern space science
* the two approaches cannot produce inconsistencies, because they are equivalent and are derived from Maxwell's equations

Then you should simply have said that, surely.

Note that space scientists (those who study plasmas found in the solar system, for example) are fully aware of the equivalence of the two approaches (they have to, in order to get their PhDs).

Note too that plasma cosmology supporters who write, as you have done (often with great passion and energy) - "I believe Alfvens model holds more merit than the current models that exclude the electrical component and fall back on exclusively magnetism to explain the reconnection phenomenon" - are telling their audience that they don't know what they're talking about (well, those in their audience who know plasma physics anyway)?

In your case, if I may say so, the damage you have done to your credibility is considerably greater ... because you have stated unequivocally that you do, in fact, understand the math.

Perhaps you should take a page from iantresman's book, and ask questions when you don't know for sure?

Could you stop saying I dont understand the maths, if you think this then show an example of this. I have actually agreed with much of what people have posted, I did debate some of its relevance to the subject at hand, and I did look at a couple of assumptions in them.

I think that Sol was wrong about this for example;

Incidentally, the reconnecting field we have been discussing for the last few pages is another explicit counterexample to the false statement in that paragraph. For a not equal b, there is a constant current density (flowing in the z direction) everywhere in the xy plane, and yet the B field is zero at x=y=0.

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

If your Z-axis is at the centre of the neutral point then the current would certainly have to either infinite, or symetrical about the Z axis, so the neutral line from your current flow is directly on x=y=0, if it was not symetrical about the Z axis the neutral point would no longer remain neutral (by amperes law)

And all the other maths I have largely agreed with, although I would still dispute the relevance of some of them. What do you want me to say? nice calculation dude!, but I dont think its relevant. No. I'm obviously just going to say why I think that calculation is irrelivant, irrespective of whether the person who wrote it got the calculation right or wrong.

.
robinson, note please that the equivalence of the B-v and E-j approaches (or models, or whatever label you want to give them) is built in to Maxwell's equations, and thus all of plasma physics (except, perhaps, those parts which use the big quantum mechanics guns).

Not only has this been pointed out, several times, in this thread (not only in the ben m post I quoted, but also in many of the materials that sol invictus provided links to), but iantresman picked up on this very early on ... and he was also quite open about not having the math to be able to follow.

If I may repeat the advice I gave to Zeuzzz, to you: as you don't follow the math, wouldn't it be better to ask questions instead of taking what Scott writes at face value? Especially as several professional physicists have stated that the Scott document contains fatal flaws?

Finally, do you understand what it means that the 'B-v' and 'E-j' approaches are equivalent?

They are not equivalent, there are differences. Magnetic reconnection does not encompass automatically all current-driven processes because an electric current based on the Ampere’s law is associated with a non-zero curl B and thus can be cast into a magnetic reconnection configuration when the background field is removed.

And what fatal flaws? They have shown that one sentence in his paper does not hold true for evey single idealised field configuration. They have not refuted any of the maths, or the main material in his publication.

I can see that we're not getting anywhere in this discussion. Everyone just seems to be making accusations instead of addressing the material.

Let’s outline my points in a more coherent manner then. And maybe some of the differences betwen the Ej approach and the Bu approach would be a good idea.

• The standard description of Magnetic reconnection in plasma is the process by which magnetic field energy is converted into kinetic energy.
• The field configuration of the neutral point involved in magnetic reconnection configuration obeys Maxwell’s laws.
• None of the above are a physical description of how the magnetic energy is liberated from the field; there is no mention of the physical object that has to be receiving the kinetic energy, or any of the magnitudes involved.
• Hannes Alfvén, the founder of the concept “frozen-in magnetic field lines” (which he later spoke critically of), was severely opposed to the concept of magnetic reconnection and preferred to use plasma physics and the current disruption model, the “Ej approach” which utilizes the electric field and current density instead of the magnetic field and bulk plasma flow model magnetic reconnection is currently based on.
• Alfven also proposed that the E-fields resulting from double layers in the plasma may play a role in particles gaining their kinetic energy.
• The Ej Aprroach (Current disruption) and the Bu approach (magnetic reconnection) have several differences, however they are similar in the sense that they are both phenomena that involve the breakdown of the ideal MHD condition and both can arrise from the same magnetic field neutral point setup.
• One major characteristic of current disruption is the large magnetic fluctuations and time-varying electric currents. No large magnetic fluctuations are expected for the “dissipation” region in Magnetic reconnection.
• A magnetic neutral line is essential for magnetic reconnection, but not for current disruption, which can occur in various other field conditions, and is well known for releasing energy from solar flares and other phenomenon (one of the few areas where this idea has gained some acceptance, mainly due to Alfvens persistence of pursuing the electrical current theory as opposed to the magnetic one) (ref ref)
• Local current is reduced and breaks up into filaments in current disruption, but not so in magnetic reconnection.
• The plasma instabilities invoked for their onsets are different. For magnetic reconnection, the tearing instability is thought to be the main mechanism (ref), and instead KBI and CCI instabilities are used for current disruption. (ref)(ref)
• The plasma flow pattern associated with current disruption is not ordered by the magnetic field configuration, and the change in magnetic field topology is not essential (although it may occur)
• Reduction and filamentation of local current is a characteristic of the Ej approach that is not manifested in magnetic reconnection theory.
• The Ej approach, although very similar, is not equivalent to the Bu approach for magnetic reconnection.