Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks.

In your view, then, does Plasma Cosmology (PC) include - by definition - study of the Earth's magnetosphere? the Moon? Saturn's rings?

It would include all thing related to astronomy in the sense that MHD theory and gravity applies to all objects in space, sure. There are more than just solar system issues and observations to consider, but to be sure, solar system "observations" and "in-situ measurements" are important and help us to verify the veracity of the model. For instance, if we did not see aurora or rings, or coronal loops or jets or high speed solar wind, the core tenets of EU theory would be falsified. These are "predictions" of Birkeland's model and they should apply inside our solar system as well as outside of it.

Again, in your view, is there any distinction between PC and astronomy? PC and astrophysics? PC and space science? PC and the planetary sciences?

There are "specialties" within EU/PC theory, but they all fall under the umbrella of EU/PC theory and space related physics.

What role, if any, do other parts of physics play in PC? For example, atomic and nuclear physics.

Any *demonstrated* physics is fine to include if you like. You aren't allowed however to simply "make up" stuff like inflation and 'dark' thingies without *demonstrating* they actually exist in nature. It works like all other branches of physics in other words and *nothing* like mainstream theory.

I will note, in passing, that your definition of PC seems to be somewhat different than that of Eric Lerner.

I'm fine with that.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It would include all thing related to astronomy in the sense that MHD theory and gravity applies to all objects in space, sure. There are more than just solar system issues and observations to consider, but to be sure, solar system "observations" and "in-situ measurements" are important and help us to verify the veracity of the model. For instance, if we did not see aurora or rings, or coronal loops or jets or high speed solar wind, the core tenets of EU theory would be falsified. These are "predictions" of Birkeland's model and they should apply inside our solar system as well as outside of it.



There are "specialties" within EU/PC theory, but they all fall under the umbrella of EU/PC theory and space related physics.



Any *demonstrated* physics is fine to include if you like. You aren't allowed however to simply "make up" stuff like inflation and 'dark' thingies without *demonstrating* they actually exist in nature. It works like all other branches of physics in other words and *nothing* like mainstream theory.


I'm fine with that.

Thanks.

In the MM definition of PC, is it valid to say that every part of the universe, observed to date, is evolving?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow, you really just don't get it at all. Of course it is all about semantics, and no it is not at all about physics,

That's where you're dead wrong. It's *all* about physics Tim.

which you resolutely ignore. The "physical substance" of magnetic field lines could not be more irrelevant to the topic of magnetic reconnection.

Wrong again. It's *the* critical issue. Magnetic field lack empirical substance and they form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. They are "physically" incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other non tangible line. In fact the whole concept of individual "lines" is simply a handy analogy it's actually a full and complete continuum. Only *particles* and "circuits* can "disconnect" and "reconnect" in plasma Tim. Magnetic lines are not capable of this feat because they lack the physical substance to do so, and they don't form as "disconnecting and reconnecting" discrete lines.

All physical phenomena are described by mathematical equations.

Sure, but they describe a *PHYSICAL* interaction with *REAL* particles.

The mathematical equations are used to predict what should be observed in a controlled laboratory experiment. Then we do the controlled laboratory experiment, and we compare what we see with what we predict. If what we see and what we predict agree, then we say that the mathematical description is "correct".

The math isn't the problem. In fact the math is almost NEVER the problem with you guys. It's always about your lack of knowledge related to physics that's the problem. You're so used to thinking in terms of mathematical abstractions that you forget that there is a real physical process being described by the math. I accept the math related to 'magnetic reconnection' theory is correct. It's the *physics* you have backwards. The physical *particles* can and do "reconnect" inside the plasma. The "circuit energy" determines the flow rate. The magnetic lines do *not* disconnect or "reconnect". They can't. They aren't incapable of doing so.

If what we see and what we predict do not agree, then we say that the mathematical description is "wrong".

Like I said, the math is fine, it's the physics you didn't get right.

The key to understanding the relationship between any physical phenomenon and its mathematical description is the relationship between prediction and experiment. I have given you a considerable collection of controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments which produce results which consistently agree with predictions made from the mathematical theory of reconnection.

I'd like you to pick *ONE* of them to start with and explain how you know that this experiment created a *UNIQUE* energy exchange that is tangibly and physically different from "particle reconnection" or "circuit reconnection".

I guarantee you that whichever one you pick it will involve *current flow*, not just magnetic lines. How do you know its "magnetic lines" that "reconnect" and not the particles in the plasma Tim?

 

[brantc]

Nice animation with it looks like aurora movies and the CLUSTER space craft position. Looks like net particle flow along a magnetic(parallel) tube towards the aurora?


"IMAGE and Cluster View Magnetic Reconnection"

The IMAGE and Cluster spacecraft were ideally positioned in their orbits to view the reconnection event which led to the proton aurora formation.
ttp://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010000/a010038/index.html

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks.

In the MM definition of PC, is it valid to say that every part of the universe, observed to date, is evolving?

Define the term "evolving". The physical universe is constantly "changing" over time, but you'll have to define what you mean by 'evolution' as it relates to objects in space.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nice animation with it looks like aurora movies and the CLUSTER space craft position. Looks like net particle flow along a magnetic(parallel) tube towards the aurora?


"IMAGE and Cluster View Magnetic Reconnection"

The IMAGE and Cluster spacecraft were ideally positioned in their orbits to view the reconnection event which led to the proton aurora formation.
ttp://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010000/a010038/index.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

"Angelopoulos was quite impressed with the substorm's power and he estimated the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion Joules. That's equivalent to the energy of one magnitude 5.5 earthquake . Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found the answer.

"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."

Here is how Alfven defines a "magnetic rope" in MHD theory in Cosmic Plasma:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes'. This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."

In short, there is your proof that these "flux tubes" are nothing more than large scale current threads and they manifest themselves in the solar system just as Alfven "predicted".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Define the term "evolving". The physical universe is constantly "changing" over time, but you'll have to define what you mean by 'evolution' as it relates to objects in space.

That's cool, thanks.

Is a scalar expansion of the universe, as predicted from the FRW metric, acceptable, within MM's version of PC, as part of this changing?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Dynamo Theory & Experiment

Please point me to that paper......

How about a book or few? Lets start with ... Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics (reviews emerging from the Durham Symposium on Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, July 29 to August 8, 2002); edited by Soward, Jones, Hughes & Weiss; CRC press, 2005. This particular book is good because it covers a wide range of topics in astrophysics and geophysics, and so gives a pretty good picture of the theoretical state of the science of dynamo theory. But it also includes a chapter on the experimental realization of self sustained dynamos.

The theory appears to have originated at the hands of Sir Joseph Larmor, who suggested in 1919 that sunspots were the result of a self sustaining dynamo on the solar surface. There has been a lot of work on the theory since then. In the case of stellar magnetic fields, then the book Stellar Magnetism by Leon Mestel (Oxford University Press, 2003) is the book to consult, though the topic is covered in any text on stellar physics. Likewise there is a great deal of material on dynamo generation of Earth's magnetic field (i.e., The Magnetic Field of the Earth, Merrill, McElhinny & McFadden, Academic Press, 1996, a significant update of the original 1983 book by Merrill & McElhinny; Foundations of Geomagnetism, Backus, Parker & Constable, Cambridge University Press, 1996). Glatzmaier & Roberts, 1995 was the first numerical model of the mathematical theory to qualitatively reproduce a spontaneous polarity reversal of a dynamo magnetic field, like the reversals of Earth's magnetic field. You can follow the citation trail to see that model improvements have enhanced the ability of models to qualitatively & quantitatively reproduce the observed behavior of real magnetic fields.

And for the fans of controlled laboratory experiments there are the Karlsruhe Dynamo (Müller & Stieglitz, 2002; Rädler, et al., 2002) & Riga Dynamo experiments (Gailitis, et al., 2000; Gailitis, et al., 2001; Gailitis, et al., 2008), both covered in the Soward, et al. book, and the Madison Dynamo Experiment (MDE, from the Plasma Physics Group; the MDE website is unresponsive at the moment; Forest, et al., 1998; Bastian, et al., 1998; Spence, et al., 2008), all of which have created self sustaining dynamo magnetic fields in the laboratory, as expected by theory.

 

[brantc]

Electrical Model of Reconnection

You could model a reconnection as a circuit consisting of 2 parallel wire carrying current from some source. Between these 2 wires is a third wire with an infinite resistance variable resistor, R1.



Now as you decrease the resistance of the resistor R1 and current begins to flow, the magnetic field begins to increase following the current flow across the middle section. Now you have a magnetic field across the middle section.
And it has manifested as a continuum. If you do this very quickly say in a microsecond, the same thing happens but you would not say the magnetic field lines reconnected or snapped into place. It has only changed amplitude at any one place due to the change (or not) of the current flow. Of course in a plasma other things will affect the current unlike a wire which is mechanically stable..
As a matter of fact this is the exact model for a reconnection if you add 3 more resistors, R2, R3 and R4.
R2 and R3 go to infinity as R1 and R4 go to zero.
Its a transition not a reconnection.
If the connecting wires and resistors are under rated they will go up smoke returning everything back to the original 2 wires.
And you can measure this and do some vector math to understand what is happening.
Now what if you didnt know about electricity, what would you say is the cause of the magnetic field around the wire??
But fortunately we know that electricity is the cause of the magnetic field, and we can measure this and know how much electricity is flowing in the wires.

 

[Ziggurat]

Now you have a magnetic field across the middle section.
And it has manifested as a continuum. If you do this very quickly say in a microsecond, the same thing happens but you would not say the magnetic field lines reconnected or snapped into place.

Your analogy isn't very good. Let me give you a concrete example of a magnetic field which exhibits reconnection. Consider the field

[latex]$\vec{B} = by\hat{i} + ax\hat{j}$[/latex]

This field satisfies Maxwell's equations for any and all a and b.

Now, if you vary the prefactors a and b, what happens? Well, consider the points (-1,1), (1,1), and (-1,-1), shown by the black dots below. For any a < b, the points (-1,1) and (1,1) will be connected by a magnetic field line, as shown on the left. For any a > b, the points (-1,1) and (-1,-1) will be connected by a magnetic field line, as shown on the right. The field itself varies smoothly as a and b change continuously, but the change in connectivity between those points is still abrupt.

 

[ben m]

Or just separate the 2 and have 2 different names...
Flux tube for the math and plasma tube for the real thing...

To be perfectly correct, we should call them "patterns of pixels on a computer screen, some of which line up to represent a 2-D plane, which by convention we associate with real 2D space (a "graph"), and on which other pixels are conventionally made to represent the magnetic field direction ..."

Your distinction is meaningless. I can go out into space with a 3D Hall probe in hand; I can look at the direction of the magnetic field. I can follow the field in that direction, look at the field again, and move in that direction. I would describe this action as "following a field line". If five people do this at the same time, they could join hands and the space between them would "follow a flux tube". It's not "just mathematical".

What next? "I don't ski down your fictional mathematical "fall line", I ski down the hill"??

Is there a first cause?????????????? Charge before magnetic field!!

(A) Current, not charge. Put a magnetometer next to a black box---measure the B field anywhere you like---now tell me what's the charge inside the box. Can't do it? Can you tell me whether the box is neutral, positive, or negative? No? Can you tell me whether there's any charge separation in the box? No? You can't tell if it's electrons moving (say) clockwise or protons moving counterclockwise or equal numbers of each. Current, not charge, generates magnetic fields.

(B) Let me head off your objection: "But where did the current come from with no electric field??!?!?" Ohm's Law is not the only place to get an electric current, my friend. Here is another place: http://www.arborsci.com/detail.aspx?ID=559 just for example.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's cool, thanks.

Is a scalar expansion of the universe, as predicted from the FRW metric, acceptable, within MM's version of PC, as part of this changing?

If you intend to stick anything else into EU/PC theory (as I personally practice it) you will need to be able to demonstrate your claim in controlled experiments. As long as you can physically demonstrate your case with real experiments and real control mechanisms, you are welcome to add it in. If not, "forgetaboutit". You are welcome to add an "objects in motion stay in motion" sort of "spacetime' expansion anytime you like, but forget about trying to claim "space" expands unless of course you're the only human on the planet who can physically demonstrate this process in controlled experiments.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You could model a reconnection as a circuit consisting of 2 parallel wire carrying current from some source.

Indeed. One of the great "mysteries" of "magnetic reconnection" theory seems to be explaining the "rate" of reconnection. It seems that they don't actually understand that the particle ejection rate inside the current sheet is actually related to the *total* circuit energy. They don't "get it" because the keep trying to put the cart (magnetic fields) before the horse (current flow), but it is the "current flow" that generates the magnetic field which "pinches" the filament together into tornado-like filaments. The mainstream doesn't grasp the fact that "return currents" play a role in that process.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701

 

[The Man]

Indeed. One of the great "mysteries" of "magnetic reconnection" theory seems to be explaining the "rate" of reconnection. It seems that they don't actually understand that the particle ejection rate inside the current sheet is actually related to the *total* circuit energy. They don't "get it" because the keep trying to put the cart (magnetic fields) before the horse (current flow), but it is the "current flow" that generates the magnetic field which "pinches" the filament together into tornado-like filaments. The mainstream doesn't grasp the fact that "return currents" play a role in that process.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701

Nope, you are the only ones trying to separate “electro” form “magnetism” in this experimentally verifiable thing that we call General Relativity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope, you are the only ones trying to separate “electro” form “magnetism” in this experimentally verifiable thing that we call General Relativity.

I'm sorry but I just don't follow your point here. It is you that seem to be *oversimplifying* the issue to the point of absurdity IMO. There are only really two useful items to choose from when deciding what physical things "reconnect" in plasma, electrons and ions. "Magnetic fields" lack physical substance and form as a full continuum, without beginning and without and they are therefore physically incapable of "reconnecting" inside the plasma.

The only thing "reconnecting" in that plasma are electrons and ions and two circuits. The reconnection process will be determined by the total circuit energy.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Is a scalar expansion of the universe, as predicted from the FRW metric, acceptable, within MM's version of PC, as part of this changing?

If you intend to stick anything else into EU/PC theory (as I personally practice it) you will need to be able to demonstrate your claim in controlled experiments. As long as you can physically demonstrate your case with real experiments and real control mechanisms, you are welcome to add it in. If not, "forgetaboutit". You are welcome to add an "objects in motion stay in motion" sort of "spacetime' expansion anytime you like, but forget about trying to claim "space" expands unless of course you're the only human on the planet who can physically demonstrate this process in controlled experiments.

Michael,

I am not trying to do anything other than understand what it is that you, MM, consider to be "Plasma Cosmology" ... and I am using nothing other than your own words to do that.

My question follows naturally from three of your earlier posts:

In a broad sense [Plasma Cosmology, as defined by MM] is the application of MHD theory to objects in space, the combination of GR and MHD theory.

[Plasma Cosmology, as defined by MM] would include all thing related to astronomy in the sense that MHD theory and gravity applies to all objects in space, sure.

The physical universe is constantly "changing" over time

Did I misunderstand what you wrote?

I presume you are well aware of numerous "real experiments and real control mechanisms" that have been performed to test GR (example); are you?

 

[tusenfem]

You're either avoiding my question or at least you did not address it. What *physical thing* defines this "tube"?

You were asking "what diameter" so I told you. Even you must admit that you SEE something on the Sun coming out of the surface, turning around, and entering the surface of the Sun again. That is what I call a magnetic loop, it is magnetic field with plasma and associated currents. Now the foot points have a diameter.

Huh? What's good for me is a test of concept. You guys never do that. You make up math formulas and stuff them into computer simulations and you never actually "test" any of this stuff.

wrong answer MM. It was good for you that the electron gyro radius is small compared to the magnetic loop on the Sun, because you are therefore allowed to describe what happens with the loop with MHD, your favourite theory. You are so HOT for Alfven, but when it comes to applying his theory (math that is, which Alfven indeed did himself too) you back out, presumably because you don't understand it.

Then you claimed in the post:

The "radius" your talking about is a function of the density of the plasma and the amount of current flow inside the tube. It's not related to a single electron or a single atom, but rather it is related to the "whole system" and the events within the "whole system".

One of the radii that I was talking about was that of the foot point of the magnetic loop on the Sun. There is no specific process or specific conditions that prescribe what its size should be, it just is. The big magnetic fields are generated in the convection layer of the sun (whcih you do not believe in, because you prefer a solid surface or a solid sun) and then parts of those loops "break through the surface of the sun".

The other radius that I was really discussing at that point was the gyro radius of the electron. Maybe you should write more clearly about what you want to comment on.

No, that would be a strawman or something that is again unresponsive to my point. You're now 0 for 3 in addressing my points. Is that typical? If so, this is going to take forever.

Let's try this one more time, and from a different angle. Yes or no, are there "return currents" in coronal loop activity, and are these events "discharge" related?

Return currents are currents generated when a beam of charged particles is entering a plasma. The plasma reacts to the imposed current by this beam and set up a current with streams in the other direction. I use those currents in this double layers and solar flares paper (freely available from ADS) and references therein (e.g. the paper by van den Oord).

If you mean with "return currents" the generally accepted definition, then YES, they happen when e.g. a (relativistic) double layer forms in the coronal loop, like I describe in my paper. However, knowing you, you might well have a different definition for "return currents". Unless you tell me what that definition is, I cannot fully support my YES from above.

(now that answer will get you foaming at the mouth, probably)

 

[tusenfem]

You still dont get the causality issue. AND that is the root of all MS problems.

The current flows. Magnetic fields arise. Electrons start to gyrate.

Core or whatever other thing you want to invoke, its still an electric current that flows and makes the magnetic field. There is nobody holding a bar magnet next to the flux tubes in space.....

I mean how much clearer do I have to make it?

If you had read carefully, than you would have seen that I mention the creation of the "core field" in the message. It is generated as a large magnetic loop in the convection layer of the Sun. That is where most of the currents are that generate the coronal loops. Naturally, there will be current flowing in those loops, electric fields are generated by shear motion of the foot points of the loops. And currents flow because the magnetic field is bent. However, you have already stated that you do not believe in the turbulence/dynamo theory for the creation of magnetic fields, which create large fields from stray seed fields that pop up spontaneously in the plasma of the Sun. So any more description I can give will fall on deaf ears.

You are so totally confused between math and reality.
And again magnetic fields are a continuum. As are the magnetic fields around a flux tube.
If it will make you feel better we can change the name to EU plasma tube minus the MS math description of "field lines are a flux tube".
Its still the same physical thing bound by the same rules.

Well, if you say so? Magnetic fields are a contiuous VECTOR field, with a magnitude and a direction at EVERY location. Therefore, we can draw field lines, just the same as we can draw flow lines in a fluid (or don't you believe those either?) because a flow is also a vector field, or you can draw equipotential lines on a map of the Earth.

Mainstream does not say "field lines are a flux tube", mainstream says that one can define a flux tube through field lines. First you talk about me not understanding causality, when this is a similar faulty reasoning from your part.

"I said Paul makes a couple of really good experimental points". I said nothing as to if he makes my points. And I did give credit..... English is a tuff language.

And I just commented that the first author is a certain Dr. You, so to be nice you should say that Dr. You makes the remarks, not Dr. Bellan. This is just how it is done in the scientific world.

Apparently not because I am still arguing with you about whether the cause is electrical or not. All you have to do is apply the right hand rule and your done, of course making exceptions for the gyroradius of electrons in a plasma.
I have seen MS say things like twisting like a rubber band, rotating elephant trunks, magnetic slinkys etc. If they really understood it there would be a common language , and they would be looking for an electrical source instead of gravity.

The gyration of the electrons is NOT creating the helical shape of the jets, the component of the current flowing along the magnetic field is causing the field to become helical. That is the right hand rule for you.

The word you are quoting all stem from press releases which are for the general only slightly edumacated in plasma physcs population. You have to come up with something that the dumb masses can understand. Apparently, you don't read real papers, otherwise you would not make such a remark.

I have not seen another MS paper that actually gives the root cause of the helical magnetic fields as electricity, not some fossil 13 billion year magnetic field that came from nowhere....

There are lots of papers that describe that, go to ADS and search for them.
If I am not mistaken, 1 year ago (or a bit more) a paper was published in which the currents were actually mearused by satellites. I think this was related to the "slinky" that you quoted above. Look for it.

Your the expert, ask Paul.

I am not the expert on "unneutralized currents", but I downloaded the paper, so I can read it and find out what the are. But you apparently found it important because you coloured it red. Seems like you just like to play with crayons, colouring stuff, without even knowing what you are actually calling important.

I suspect that I could tell you not to touch that wire because its live with 10,000 volts at 1000 amps, and you would touch it, get your hand blown off, and then tell me it wasnt electricity, it was gravity accelerating electrons into your hand causing it to fall off!!!!

No, I would probably say that is was dark matter that ate my substance.

 

[tusenfem]

You could model a reconnection as a circuit consisting of 2 parallel wire carrying current from some source. Between these 2 wires is a third wire with an infinite resistance variable resistor, R1.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/30355499b5f716a5fe.jpg[/qimg]

Now as you decrease the resistance of the resistor R1 and current begins to flow, the magnetic field begins to increase following the current flow across the middle section. Now you have a magnetic field across the middle section.
And it has manifested as a continuum. If you do this very quickly say in a microsecond, the same thing happens but you would not say the magnetic field lines reconnected or snapped into place. It has only changed amplitude at any one place due to the change (or not) of the current flow. Of course in a plasma other things will affect the current unlike a wire which is mechanically stable..
As a matter of fact this is the exact model for a reconnection if you add 3 more resistors, R2, R3 and R4.
R2 and R3 go to infinity as R1 and R4 go to zero.
Its a transition not a reconnection.
If the connecting wires and resistors are under rated they will go up smoke returning everything back to the original 2 wires.
And you can measure this and do some vector math to understand what is happening.
Now what if you didnt know about electricity, what would you say is the cause of the magnetic field around the wire??
But fortunately we know that electricity is the cause of the magnetic field, and we can measure this and know how much electricity is flowing in the wires.

This is a very simplified and misleading picture of what you think reconnection is. Although I can go with you a bit about the "reorganization of the currents, things that are missing completely are:

1. The Hall current system observed at reconnection, because you introduce a "wire with resistance R1/4" there is no current flowing perpendicular to the magnetic field, or what exactly would the "wire" be?
2. The outflow regions of reconnection, which would be the region between the two vertical lines and above R1 and below R4. There we OBSERVE (i.e. real measurements in space and in laboratories, so it is an experiment, it is REAL). One observes there plasma (ions and electrons) which are accelerated strongly moving upward in your figure above R1 and downward in your figure below R4. How does that come out of this simplistic view?
3. Also, you fail to draw the magnetic field continuum, what in your case does the magnetic field look like, from step by step.
4. How do you get the process in your model that at one point the ions are demagnetized and at a further point the electrons get demagnetized?

Coming up with a circuit model is okay, I have used them myself, but you should not forget about the real world, after all a circuit is just a drawing, and nothing substantial and highly based on math.

 

[tusenfem]

Indeed. One of the great "mysteries" of "magnetic reconnection" theory seems to be explaining the "rate" of reconnection. It seems that they don't actually understand that the particle ejection rate inside the current sheet is actually related to the *total* circuit energy. They don't "get it" because the keep trying to put the cart (magnetic fields) before the horse (current flow), but it is the "current flow" that generates the magnetic field which "pinches" the filament together into tornado-like filaments. The mainstream doesn't grasp the fact that "return currents" play a role in that process.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701

Ah, I see you have a new pet now, called "return current," suddenly mainstream does not think about return currents.

If it is all so simple MM, then please, show us in mathematical detail how your idea of "reconnection" works, including all the things that I listed missing in brantc's messages about his little circuit.

From the Bataglia & Benz paper:
Accelerating electrons out of the coronal source region drives a return current to maintain charge neutrality in the whole loop. WOW! that is EXACTLY what I used in my double layer and solar flare paper, guess mainstream does not take return currents into account.
we demonstrate that, in some cases, electric fields related to return currents can indeed explain the relation between coronal and footpoint spectra. Ehhh, yeah, nothing new under the Sun, because that is basically what van den Oord discussed in 1990 (here is the paper for free from ADS, and such accelerated electrons creating the emissions from the foot points and from the top of coronal loops is well discussed e.g. Lyndsay Fletcher (here, here, and here)

I can really see how mainstream does not take return currents into account. NOT!