Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Dancing David]

We went through this a few threads ago. Both of the following statements are true (modulo a basically unimportant caveat about external fields) in a world where Maxwell's Equations are true:

1) Plasmas can contain arbitrary charge and current fields J; if you know J then you also know the E and B vector fields everywhere.

2) Plasmas can contain E and B fields; if you know these fields then you also know the charge and current everywhere.

Flux tubes and field lines are 100% standard, mathematically valid ways to describe *any* vector field. We very commonly use them to describe the B field. Talking about flux tubes is not "ignoring current", since once is equivalent to the other via a derivative. Talking about contour lines on a topographic map is not "ignoring slope" or "ignoring altitude". Talking about waves in Fourier space is not "ignoring position space".

If you actually care---i.e. if you genuinely object to the flux tube representation for scientific reasons, rather than because Alfven told you to---please show us *exactly* what aspects of your beloved E and J vector fields *are* and *are not* mathematically recoverable from the field-line or flux-tube (they're the same thing) representations of B? It's not hard. Show your math. LaTeX works on this board if you need it.

So here we are Brantc although I think if you read tusenfem's posts you would find the same thing.

The use of either model is valid, and one can derive the other.

So how do YOU, show either through observation or experiment that there HAS to be a current flow. You have said that is the key point of PC, many have stated that plasma can be both with a current and without. So?

 

[Dancing David]

"Flux tubes and field lines are 100% standard, mathematically valid ways to describe *any* vector field. "

I totally agree. It is just an approximation....
And it is also a description of a real physical entity unless you want to claim that the mathematical flux tube came before the real thing, and that the math tells the plasma what to do.....
Or just separate the 2 and have 2 different names...
Flux tube for the math and plasma tube for the real thing...

But does a magnetic field actually consist of lines or is it a continuum?
Is it humanly possible to integrate a continuum(no limit)?

And is electromagnetism driven by electric current or gravity?

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

And a magnetic field(not bar) tells you there is a current flowing!!!!!

Really? How naive and sophmoric!

You really do not get science or the model of approximation, I am suprised to read you make such a newbie fallacy about causality.

ALL science is approximate models of the behavior of something whose ontology can NOT be known.

You are seriously mistaken is you think somehow you can grap the real thing of an 'electron', what is it? It is the approximate model of the behavior of something we label as a 'subatomic particle'.
What is magnetism? It is an approximate model of the behavior of something we label as a 'field'.

But you have made a serious mistake here, for someone who claims to understand science and plasma. You can NEVER model the reality of behaviors! You can only approximate them and then decide what difference there is between how different model predict the observation of the behavior of reality.

So inseatd of bombast and hyperbole, which is what you ave.

Why don't you DEMONSTRAT how, and why your model can make better predictions that the standard model.

If the gyro radius is so freaking imporatnt, then say why EXACTLY it is important, what predictions does it make about which behavior?

1. What is the model?
2. What predictions does it make?
3. What observations support or counter the model?

You and Michael are engaging in magical thinking, you say that your words are so strong that the words are all you need.

So put it to the test.

If you are right about the gyro radius of the e;ectron, then what observable prediction does it lead you to that is different from teh standard model?

Seriously dude, you haven't really ever thought about what science is? Have you?

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Except for the fact that you just engaging is 'it looks like a bunny' science. You have yet to show that you have a model that explains "aurora or rings, or coronal loops or jets or high speed solar wind" any better than the standard model.

You have yet to show an explanation of how it works other than 'Birkeland rode his horde to the hill andd saw it', you have not explained why the coronal loops are exactly or even approximately as they are. You have given a basic mechanism, but that is all, you have not explained , how, why and what it works.

So you have pointed to an iron ball and said 'it looks like the sun'. But you have not shown what your model can predict, no numbers no nothing.

And in fact you refuse to even try to explain the black body spectrum of radiation, which means you do not have a clue.

"Look it is a bunny", sure it looks like a bunny, but you haven't shown anything that mdodels the bunny, or the data that supports the model.

"Look it is a mountain", sure but how did it get there?

 

[tusenfem]

If the gyro radius is so freaking imporatnt, then say why EXACTLY it is important, what predictions does it make about which behavior?

1. What is the model?
2. What predictions does it make?
3. What observations support or counter the model?

And even more, if the gyro radius is important, can you still use MHD?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Exploring MM's PC, what's acceptable and what's not

Michael,

In the MM version of PC, is it acceptable to explain bipolar jets - such as are observed in association with AGNs, at least some neutron stars, x-ray binaries, YSOs, at least some GRBs, and (no doubt) other objects 'in the sky' - by application of MHD theory to those objects in space, or perhaps the combination of GR and MHD theory (plus, maybe, some other parts of "*demonstrated* physics")?

In the MM version of PC, is it acceptable to explain Mpc-long 'filaments', that are apparently composed of plasma (at least in part), in terms of Birkeland currents?

In the MM version of PC, is it acceptable to explain the 'flat' rotation curves of (some) spiral galaxies in terms of the model Peratt describes in his published papers on this topic (I assume you are familiar with, and understand, this model)?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Per Michael's request, I'm copying a post - plus its relevant history - here.

The post is in the Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not? thread, and is #336*

My question to Michael Mozina was:

Are you prepared to go through this "whopper" in detail, to see just how well it accounts for all directly relevant astronomical observations?

The "whopper" is an unpublished paper by Ari Brynjolfsson (link is to the astro-ph preprint, the same link Michael provided in an earlier post).

Michael responded thusly: "Sure, I'll give it shot. I don't profess to be the author of the paper mind you, but I'll be happy to defend his work to the best of my ability."

And here is my post, containing the list:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Again, thanks for the swift response.

First, I assume you got the wrong Ari Brynjolfsson paper, in your earlier post (the one you provided a link to is only 19 pages long, not 95). No worries, I'll assume that you mean the set of Ari Brynjolfsson papers on 'plasma redshift', unless you tell us all otherwise.

Here's a few of the relevant observations, off the top of my head:

* Scranton et al.'s 2005 paper on weak gravitational lensing of quasars in the SDSS DR3 (link is to the arXiv preprint)

* the neutrino version of Olbers' paradox (especially one filled with stars that shine by the Michael Mozina/O. Manuel mechanism)

* quasar and quasar host galaxy redshifts are the same

* angular smearing of objects not observed, out to z ~6, across the whole EM spectrum (though this is not a particularly stringent test for the gamma ray region)

* ditto, wrt line widths

* existence of the Gunn-Peterson trough

* CMB temperature higher at high z (than locally)

* z-dependent AGN/quasar volume density (under AB's cosmology, MM's, or LCDM models)

* complete lack of GRBs with redshifts >~7

* disappearance of the "δz′MW ≈ 0.00095" signal in the much larger databases of SNe Ia than AB used, back in 2003/4

* heating of the IGM in rich clusters by AGN jets (leaves nowhere for AB's mechanism to dump its energy).

No doubt there's more, but that should get you started ... pick one and give us an 'AB plasma redshift/cosmology' explanation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* actually, that's the post which bumps the list

 

[brantc]

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"??

Woah, woah... Tell that to Tusenfem.... I was just asking him what I should do about the (his)idea that a flux tube didnt involve plasma.

If your talking about just(minus plasma) the magnetic measurement/field is a flux tube, I would disagree. It is the whole entity because the magnetic field tells you about how the particles(charges) are moving(current)...

(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.

And yes, thats what this whole thing is about, a current of charges surrounded by a magnetic field, or with a parallel component in the middle......
Does one moving charge constitute a current? Or 2?

(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.

He rubs the rod with the fur.....

 

[brantc]

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.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1192499b6711ad5d6.gif[/qimg]

I think that in terms of flux tubes it is mechanically correct. It is the same electrically as if you took 2 wires touched them in the center.

If you look here at section IV "Biot-Savart forces between filaments" in this paper you can see what I mean.
ttp://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf
I know how to do algebra. My failing is using Maxwells to quantify a problem.

So I have attached a revised pic to more clearly represent the real thing...
Green is magnetic field. Red is current flow. P is particle ejection. DL is double layer. I have seen observations (Largest Reconnection Observed) where I'm pretty sure that the particles came from the DL position. I still have not resolved this yet but I trust the observations before the math.



First you have 2 flux tubes (1).
Then there is a current fluctuation causing the attraction/repulsion forces to unbalance(gyroradius to change) and the tubes to touch(2).
This causes the tubes to flow a bypass current which leads to a "short circuit"(3).
The short circuit section blows out and the tubes rejoin in their original configuration(1)....

 

[Michael Mozina]

Except for the fact that you just engaging is 'it looks like a bunny' science.

No, I'm engaging in "works in a lab" science. I don't suppose you've ever read anything about Birkeland's terella experiments?

You have yet to show that you have a model that explains "aurora or rings, or coronal loops or jets or high speed solar wind" any better than the standard model.

You mean besides the fact that these things have been empirically demonstrated by Birkeland in a lab?

You have yet to show an explanation of how it works other than 'Birkeland rode his horde to the hill andd saw it',

Maybe you should consider reading his work and find out how he did it?

you have not explained why the coronal loops are exactly or even approximately as they are. You have given a basic mechanism, but that is all, you have not explained , how, why and what it works.

Fortunately I don't have to do that. Birkeland already did that. Have you read it?

So you have pointed to an iron ball and said 'it looks like the sun'. But you have not shown what your model can predict, no numbers no nothing.

There's plenty of number in Kosovichev's paper on that "stratification subsurface" sitting about .995R in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone. Care to explain? How about that math Birkeland provided? Any comments on his work? If you won't read their math, why should I bother providing you with any math?

And in fact you refuse to even try to explain the black body spectrum of radiation, which means you do not have a clue.

It means nothing of the sort. Like the mainstream has explanations for solar wind?

"Look it is a bunny", sure it looks like a bunny, but you haven't shown anything that mdodels the bunny, or the data that supports the model.

If you don't read Birkeland's work or Alfven's work on double layer explosions i the solar atmosphere or his paper on ring current in the magnetosphere, is that my fault somehow? I'm not your math mommy. I'll be happy to provide you with reference material to support my case, but then *you* are obligated to read it and comment on it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701

What's wrong with that math?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

A new pet? LOL. You're quite a head trip.

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.

I don't have time to worry about your spat with brantc, I'm more interested in busting your show over the magnetic reconnection claim. What *specifically* is unique about "magnetic reconnection" that can be physically and empirically distinguished from induction or particle reconnection?

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.

Why then aren't you calling it "circuit reconnection" rather than "magnetic reconnection"?

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!

If you were actually taking them into account then you would not be calling this process "magnetic reconnection". It's a "short circuit" just like brantc explained to you in great detail. The topology of the magnetic field changes as the two filaments twist into each other and short circuit and send particles flying in all directions. Why not call it by it's proper name if you're so damn smart? Alfven called magnetic reconnection theory "pseudoscience" for a reason, and brandtc explained that reason. This is not "magnetic reconnection", it's "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection", but as Alfven said, not a single line is disconnected or reconnected to any other line.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, if you say so? Magnetic fields are a contiuous VECTOR field, with a magnitude and a direction at EVERY location.

Yes indeed, it is a continuous vector field, without beginning or ending and you just claimed it "disconnects" from one line and "reconnects" to another. Care to explain how you justify that nonsense?

 

[Tim Thompson]

No RHESSI Fusion

RHESSI does not observe fusion processes.

Not true.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

All of the gamma rays observed by RHESSI are identifiable as positron annihilation, neutron capture or nuclear de-excitation (mostly the latter). I have seen it suggested that deuteron fusion could take place in hot solar flares, but I am unaware of any observational evidence to support such speculation. But I am aware that there is no evidence for CNO or PP fusion from RHESSI data.

Then you'll have to find the fault in my paper. The neutron capture signatures in the solar atmosphere in particular would suggest your statements are false. There are very highly energetic events occurring in the solar atmosphere, well into the tens of millions of degree temperatures necessary to induce fusion.

Well, let us look into this. I believe I said: "RHESSI does not observe fusion. What does RHESSI observe? It observes gamma rays. Now your paper uses gamma ray observations of solar active region 10039, 23 July 2002. The gamma rays in your paper are 0.511 MeV and 2.2 MeV. You say in your paper that those gamma rays are characteristic of positron annihilation and neutron capture. I said "All of the gamma rays observed by RHESSI are identifiable as positron annihilation, neutron capture or nuclear de-excitation ...".

So your paper and my quote above are in fact in complete 100% agreement: The gamma rays observed by RHESSI do not include the gamma rays of any fusion reactions. Indeed, despite your emphatic "Not true" above, your own paper does not support your claim. Your paper does not include any direct observational evidence for fusion reactions observed by RHESSI. Considering your own oft expressed disdain for anything less than a controlled laboratory experiment, I find it somewhat amusing that the claims in your paper are so indirect as to be nearly invisible.

Your entire argument rests on the time difference between the positron annihilation and neutron capture signals, and the fact that the time differences are qualitatively similar to free neutron and ¹³N lifetimes. That's it. Your "observational evidence" for CNO reactions in the corona rest entirely on that one fact. It is a dubious claim at best, and notably one with absolutely no physical justification presented in the paper, aside from a vague reference to high energy events.

In your paper you say: "H⁺ ions may be accelerated in the loop to energy levels that surpass the coulomb barriers for the ¹²C(¹H, gamma)¹³N and ¹⁴N(¹H, gamma)¹⁵O reactions at the feet of the loop". Incredibly, there is no reference cited to support this claim. In fact the relevant physics is totally ignored beyond that one-liner. What is the reaction rate & cross section? You don't say. What is the effect of electron screening? You don't say. What is the proton population density? You don't say. What are the CNO nuclear population densities? You don't say. You never would have gotten away with that kind of sloppy writing had you published this in a peer reviewed journal.

The minimum temperature required to barely start CNO fusion is about 13,000,000 Kelvins. Now the quote from your paper specifies "... at the foot of the loop." But we see in, for example, Warren & Reeves, 2001 that the hot spots where temperatures exceed about 10,000,000 Kelvins are above the loop, not at the foot of the loop. So not only does your paper provide zero direct evidence of fusion, but observations indicate that the high temperatures you require are located at the opposite end of the loop from where you want it to be.

But your paper leaves a serious question ignored. The CNO reactions emit their own gamma rays. RHESSI is a gamma ray telescope. So if there are CNO reactions in the corona, why do we not see the direct gamma rays? They are certainly in the energy range RHESSI should see, so why don't we see them? This is a question not addressed in your paper at all. You spend all of your effort on gamma rays already identified as positron annihilation and neutron capture, and then don't even bother to mention the possibility of observing the direct CNO gamma rays. Why is that?

Then there is the curious publication venue: The Journal of Fusion Energy. Just read the "Aims and Scope" of this journal: "Journal of Fusion Energy features contributions and review papers pertinent to the development of thermonuclear fusion as a useful power source. Intended to serve as a journal of record for publication of research results, the journal also provides a forum for discussion of the broader policy and planning issues that have played, and will continue to play, a crucial role in the fusion program. To this end, the journal presents articles on important matters of policy and program direction." So you submitted a paper on stellar astrophysics to a journal that specializes in nuclear reactor technology and social policy. If you are so confident in your claims, why did you not submit your paper on stellar astrophysics to a journal that publishes papers on stellar astrophysics? You chose a venue that would effectively hide your results from the very community of scientists whom you should most want to read the paper. Why did you do that?

Finally, just for grins, allow me to quote the very first sentence of your paper: "Deep seated magnetic fields accelerate H⁺ ions, an ionized neutron decay product, upward from the suns core." You complain loudly about other people appealing to magnetic fields when they should be appealing to electric fields. And yet in your very first sentence, you yourself tell us that magnetic fields accelerate protons. So how do they do that if they don't do that? And isn't that part about "ionized decay product" a bit misleading? Surely there are plenty of protons laying around that did not fall out of neutrons only yesterday (or yesteryear & etc.).

So, I stand by what I said before: RHESSI does not observe fusion processes. Furthermore, I cite your paper as a specific reference to back me up. After all, your paper specifically says the gamma rays observed come from positron annihilation and neutron capture, and nowhere claims that they come directly from CNO reactions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

What not call it what it actually is, namely a current carrying plasma filament?

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.

The math isn't the problem in this case so what is the point on fixating on something that isn't the problem in the first place? Alfven rejected you ideas outright and provide you with plenty of math. If his math doesn't convince you and he wrote MHD theory, why in the world should I think some few lines of math from me will make any difference to you? I can't teach you squat about math. I can teach you something about physics. Your problem isn't the math, it's your piss-poor understanding of physics that is the problem.

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".

For the record, I do believe in a "convection zone". It's just not as deep as you imagine as Kosovichev's heliosiesmology paper on that stratification subsurface at sitting at approximately .995R demonstrates.

As it relates to the radius of flux tubes, it's simply a function of the current flow and what the exact discharge conditions happen to be at that moment in time. I want to know what you think that tube is made of if not moving charged particles like in any ordinary plasma filament?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, let us look into this. I believe I said: "RHESSI does not observe fusion. What does RHESSI observe? It observes gamma rays. Now your paper uses gamma ray observations of solar active region 10039, 23 July 2002. The gamma rays in your paper are 0.511 MeV and 2.2 MeV. You say in your paper that those gamma rays are characteristic of positron annihilation and neutron capture. I said "All of the gamma rays observed by RHESSI are identifiable as positron annihilation, neutron capture or nuclear de-excitation ...".

So your paper and my quote above are in fact in complete 100% agreement: The gamma rays observed by RHESSI do not include the gamma rays of any fusion reactions.

Well, I'm tired, but I might as well start chipping away at this one tonight. What known force of nature has been shown to "naturally" create gamma rays in the atmosphere of Earth?

 

[brantc]

If the gyro radius is so freaking imporatnt, then say why EXACTLY it is important, what predictions does it make about which behavior?

1. What is the model?
2. What predictions does it make?
3. What observations support or counter the model?

You and Michael are engaging in magical thinking, you say that your words are so strong that the words are all you need.

So put it to the test.

If you are right about the gyro radius of the e;ectron, then what observable prediction does it lead you to that is different from teh standard model?

Seriously dude, you haven't really ever thought about what science is? Have you?

The broad claim is that flux tubes carry an electrical current that does work.
Maybe its heating the planets, maybe its powering the aurora.
The hypothesis is that the gyroradius of the electron is responsible for the central parallel magnetic vector component of flux tubes where plasma conditions are such that the gyroradius is large enough. Otherwise a flux tube carrying current has a helical perpendicular component that dominates.

In the abstract below they imply from data that flux tubes carry an electrical current.
Paul Bellan says that for the collimation of plasma to occur in the structures that are observed, an electrical current is required.
Thats it. Thats all I'm saying. No mystery. A traditional electrical current is at work.
And then taking the idea of a current carrying flux tube, equating that to a wire and saying " how would a wire act" in a what is termed a reconnection. This is modeled using the right hand rule. Its relatively simple to figure out what the magnetic field is doing based on current flow in 2 wires as they are physically moved them around.
That is the model of what is termed a reconnection that is being advanced.
The magnetic field "follows" the current. It lags slightly behind the current in manifestation of effects. The current causes the magnetic field.
For induction to be a viable mechanism(of tube creation) it must take place at all points along the flux tube. Otherwise the flux tube still a current carrier which is the original claim.

"Field-aligned currents associated with flux transfer
events deduced from Cluster magnetic field and particle data"
A. Marchaudon (1), J.-M. Bosqued (2), J.-C. Cerisier (3), A. N. Fazakerley (1), A. Balogh (4), and H. Rème (2) (1) Mullard Space Science Laboratory, UCL, Dorking, UK, (2) Centre d’Etude Spatiale des Rayonnements, Toulouse, France, (3) Centre d’Etude des Environnements Terrestre et Planétaires, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, France, (4) Imperial College, London, UK
(am@mssl.ucl.ac.uk / Fax: +44 1 483 278312 / Phone: +44 1 483 204293)
The Cluster multi-spacecraft mission allows studying the fine structure of polar cusp injection events due to transient reconnection, the so-called Flux Transfer Events (FTE). In particular, it is possible to study the electric currents flowing along the reconnected flux tubes from the measurement of particles and magnetic field by the PEACE, CIS and FGM experiments onboard the Cluster spacecraft.
During mid-altitude cusp crossings (2001-2002 seasons), the Cluster spacecraft are in a “string-of-pearl configuration”. Field-aligned currents (FAC) associated with injections are calculated independently from magnetic and particle data. From the particle data, the field aligned currents are obtained as the sum of the ion and the electron parallel currents. The Cluster spacecraft configuration does not allow us to derive FACs from magnetic data by the curlometer method. However FACs can be calculated by
a single-spacecraft method for each Cluster spacecraft. At mid-altitude (3-7 RE), because the drift velocity of the current sheets can be of the order or larger than the spacecraft velocity (Lockwood et al., 2001), this drift velocity must be taken into account when deriving FACs from the magnetic data by the single-spacecraft method.
We describe and discuss the methods used to determine the FACs from the particle and magnetic field data. By fitting the field-aligned currents deduced from magnetic and particle data, we determine the drift velocity of the current sheets and we compare it with the drift velocity deduced from the multi-point measurements of Cluster. Finally, we check the agreement of these results with electrodynamic models reconnected flux tubes and we discuss the particle populations carrying the FACs in the cusp.

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/IAGA2005/00913/IAGA2005-A-00913.pdf

 

[sol invictus]

Yes indeed, it is a continuous vector field, without beginning or ending and you just claimed it "disconnects" from one line and "reconnects" to another. Care to explain how you justify that nonsense?

Your ability to totally ignore the evidence put in front of your face are remarkable.

If you somehow managed to miss it, read post 1330. But I'm sure you'll just ignore it again and go on lying.

 

[tusenfem]

A new pet? LOL. You're quite a head trip.

Ah sure! Care to share my bong?

I don't have time to worry about your spat with brantc, I'm more interested in busting your show over the magnetic reconnection claim. What *specifically* is unique about "magnetic reconnection" that can be physically and empirically distinguished from induction or particle reconnection?

That little "spat" is exactly the same thing what you want to discuss, but apparently you are not interested in your allies.

Magnetic reconnections shows a distinguished topological change of the magnetic vector field that cannot be described by induction. The whole morphology is different. The arrows of the vector field cannot be connected in the same way after reconnection.

Particle reconnection is just a semantic word game that you are playing in order not to say magnetic reconnection. Unless you start showing me a model, this discussion might as well be over. At least brantc actually tries to do some real physics, which we cannot say about you. You just keep on repeating the same old line "particle reconnetion" (at least call it current reconnection then, because only currents can change the magnetic vector field).

Why then aren't you calling it "circuit reconnection" rather than "magnetic reconnection"?

Because, if you read the paper, there is no reconnection there. The double layer model is used to explain the type III radio emission bursts that are connected to solar flares. And the reason why I mentioned that paper is because it specifically uses return currents, which suddenly have caught your eye as being profound in some way, and you claim that mainstream physics does not care about return currents.

If you were actually taking them into account then you would not be calling this process "magnetic reconnection". It's a "short circuit" just like brantc explained to you in great detail. The topology of the magnetic field changes as the two filaments twist into each other and short circuit and send particles flying in all directions. Why not call it by it's proper name if you're so damn smart? Alfven called magnetic reconnection theory "pseudoscience" for a reason, and brandtc explained that reason. This is not "magnetic reconnection", it's "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection", but as Alfven said, not a single line is disconnected or reconnected to any other line.

Like I said, because the paper was not about reconnection, part of the paper is about return currents, their dissipation through Ohmic heating of the plasma and the subsequent breaking of the Bohm criterion for a stable double layer.

Alfven called it pseudo science because he did not understand the process. He also claimed frozen in field does not exist and that you cannot use it (at least according to the EU proponents).

If you would even take the slightest effort to really understand what is happening at an X-line, where the magnetic field strength goes to zero (0) and about the definition of field lines, then maybe, just maybe you might get some insight. Also, you might find something out about the currents that are flowing in the reconnection regions, the Hall currents perpendicular to the magnetic field and the field aligned currents which close the Hall current system, etc. etc.

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks for the response!

No, I'm engaging in "works in a lab" science. I don't suppose you've ever read anything about Birkeland's terella experiments?

I don't suppose you can explain how, what and why they scale to solar processes? You have not explained that at all. So what current flows and forces on the sun, what magnetic strengths and other processes, how do they scale from Birkeland's experiement to the sun.

especially the source of charge and current.

I can look at Birkeland's stuff and I have, you have a chaged iron ball in a lab. Now explain how that is a model of the sun.

I asked you before 'where does the current come from?' , we know where is came from in Birkeland's experiment.

How does it scale to the sun?

You mean besides the fact that these things have been empirically demonstrated by Birkeland in a lab?

Oooh, shown in a lab, but how does the model work for the sun?

Maybe you should consider reading his work and find out how he did it?

Maybe you could actually present why Birkeland's model is relevant to explaining data about the sun?

How do you scale the metrics?

Fortunately I don't have to do that. Birkeland already did that. Have you read it?

I am asking you to defend you model. Sure he charged an iron ball (in a partial vacuum), but what does that have to do with actually modeling the behavior of the sun?

There's plenty of number in Kosovichev's paper on that "stratification subsurface" sitting about .995R in the middle of what is supposed to be an open convection zone. Care to explain? How about that math Birkeland provided? Any comments on his work? If you won't read their math, why should I bother providing you with any math?

Nice dodge, you can't answer a direct question, so you shift attention from the fact you don't have an answer.

It means nothing of the sort. Like the mainstream has explanations for solar wind?

They at least try to present and defend a model, you seem to just hide behind Birlkeland. "It looks like a bunny".

If you don't read Birkeland's work or Alfven's work on double layer explosions i the solar atmosphere or his paper on ring current in the magnetosphere, is that my fault somehow? I'm not your math mommy. I'll be happy to provide you with reference material to support my case, but then *you* are obligated to read it and comment on it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701

What's wrong with that math?

The question is:
Why won't you answer a direct question?
1. No model.
2. No data.
3. No observations.

Looks like Plasma Cosmology.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, let us look into this. I believe I said: "RHESSI does not observe fusion. What does RHESSI observe? It observes gamma rays. Now your paper uses gamma ray observations of solar active region 10039, 23 July 2002. The gamma rays in your paper are 0.511 MeV and 2.2 MeV. You say in your paper that those gamma rays are characteristic of positron annihilation and neutron capture. I said "All of the gamma rays observed by RHESSI are identifiable as positron annihilation, neutron capture or nuclear de-excitation ...".

So your paper and my quote above are in fact in complete 100% agreement: The gamma rays observed by RHESSI do not include the gamma rays of any fusion reactions. Indeed, despite your emphatic "Not true" above, your own paper does not support your claim. Your paper does not include any direct observational evidence for fusion reactions observed by RHESSI. Considering your own oft expressed disdain for anything less than a controlled laboratory experiment, I find it somewhat amusing that the claims in your paper are so indirect as to be nearly invisible.

Your entire argument rests on the time difference between the positron annihilation and neutron capture signals, and the fact that the time differences are qualitatively similar to free neutron and ¹³N lifetimes. That's it. Your "observational evidence" for CNO reactions in the corona rest entirely on that one fact. It is a dubious claim at best, and notably one with absolutely no physical justification presented in the paper, aside from a vague reference to high energy events.

In your paper you say: "H⁺ ions may be accelerated in the loop to energy levels that surpass the coulomb barriers for the ¹²C(¹H, gamma)¹³N and ¹⁴N(¹H, gamma)¹⁵O reactions at the feet of the loop". Incredibly, there is no reference cited to support this claim. In fact the relevant physics is totally ignored beyond that one-liner. What is the reaction rate & cross section? You don't say. What is the effect of electron screening? You don't say. What is the proton population density? You don't say. What are the CNO nuclear population densities? You don't say. You never would have gotten away with that kind of sloppy writing had you published this in a peer reviewed journal.

The minimum temperature required to barely start CNO fusion is about 13,000,000 Kelvins. Now the quote from your paper specifies "... at the foot of the loop." But we see in, for example, Warren & Reeves, 2001 that the hot spots where temperatures exceed about 10,000,000 Kelvins are above the loop, not at the foot of the loop. So not only does your paper provide zero direct evidence of fusion, but observations indicate that the high temperatures you require are located at the opposite end of the loop from where you want it to be.

But your paper leaves a serious question ignored. The CNO reactions emit their own gamma rays. RHESSI is a gamma ray telescope. So if there are CNO reactions in the corona, why do we not see the direct gamma rays? They are certainly in the energy range RHESSI should see, so why don't we see them? This is a question not addressed in your paper at all. You spend all of your effort on gamma rays already identified as positron annihilation and neutron capture, and then don't even bother to mention the possibility of observing the direct CNO gamma rays. Why is that?

Then there is the curious publication venue: The Journal of Fusion Energy. Just read the "Aims and Scope" of this journal: "Journal of Fusion Energy features contributions and review papers pertinent to the development of thermonuclear fusion as a useful power source. Intended to serve as a journal of record for publication of research results, the journal also provides a forum for discussion of the broader policy and planning issues that have played, and will continue to play, a crucial role in the fusion program. To this end, the journal presents articles on important matters of policy and program direction." So you submitted a paper on stellar astrophysics to a journal that specializes in nuclear reactor technology and social policy. If you are so confident in your claims, why did you not submit your paper on stellar astrophysics to a journal that publishes papers on stellar astrophysics? You chose a venue that would effectively hide your results from the very community of scientists whom you should most want to read the paper. Why did you do that?

Finally, just for grins, allow me to quote the very first sentence of your paper: "Deep seated magnetic fields accelerate H⁺ ions, an ionized neutron decay product, upward from the suns core." You complain loudly about other people appealing to magnetic fields when they should be appealing to electric fields. And yet in your very first sentence, you yourself tell us that magnetic fields accelerate protons. So how do they do that if they don't do that? And isn't that part about "ionized decay product" a bit misleading? Surely there are plenty of protons laying around that did not fall out of neutrons only yesterday (or yesteryear & etc.).

So, I stand by what I said before: RHESSI does not observe fusion processes. Furthermore, I cite your paper as a specific reference to back me up. After all, your paper specifically says the gamma rays observed come from positron annihilation and neutron capture, and nowhere claims that they come directly from CNO reactions.

Enquiring minds what to know!

 

[Dancing David]

Well, I'm tired, but I might as well start chipping away at this one tonight. What known force of nature has been shown to "naturally" create gamma rays in the atmosphere of Earth?

Can't answer a direct question, change the topic.

Looks like Plasma Cosmology.