Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[ben m]

How much energy is "stored" in a magnetic field where |B|=0?

The energy is not stored at that exact geometric point, that's just where the lines actually cross. The magnetic field is nonzero in a large region around the crossover, and that's where magnetic energy density is nonzero and that's where the magnetic forces are acting. Nobody ever said that the energy comes from the *lines themselves* at the exact point of crossing. There's a wholesale rearrangement of nonzero B fields from one orientation of "saddle" to another. In the middle of this rearrangement is a point where B=0 and lines reconnect.

Similarly, if you build a four-pole quadrupole capacitor, there's a spot in the center where electric field lines cross and where |E|=0. Is there energy density in these fields? Of course. If the pole pieces weren't mechanically pinned down, would they accelerate under the influence of electric forces? Yes. Where would the kinetic energy of the moving pole pieces have come from? From electric field energy density in the space between them, including near the E=0 point.

I would have been sympathetic to a claim, if you had made it, like the following: "When these magnetic reconnection topologies occur, the mainstream model says that the lines "run away" rapidly and spontaneously; my work shows that reconnection is a slow process that doesn't proceed spontaneously/doesn't change the magnetic field energy/moves magnetic fields around but doesn't couple to particle energies" I would have no particular scientific objection to that, except insofar as I know that a large number of smart people, doing careful numerical work, get the opposite result. It would not lead me to label the arguer as stupid, childish, or a crackpot.

But you never made such an argument. You argued that field lines cannot break (nobody ever said they could), then that they could not cross (but they can), then that there's no energy density at the crossing point (why would there need to be?). You made a bunch of arguments, in other words, that could only come from someone who didn't know much E&M but knew only that they need to conclude, somehow or another, that reconnection is broken.

And next month you're going to be back saying "Alfven was right because lines cannot break" and we're going to go through the whole thing again.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

What is the difference between MM's thousands of posts on magnetic reconnection (and what Alfvén said, and ...), and Dutch's thousands of posts on Hyper Dimensional Design?

Specifically, in what respect has a dialogue been taking place, between MM (Dutch) and those who've quoted words from MM's (Dutch's) posts?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The energy is not stored at that exact geometric point, that's just where the lines actually cross.

The correct answer is *ZERO*.

The magnetic field is nonzero in a large region around the crossover,

By non-zero you mean there is a "tiny little bit" of energy somewhere around that point where no energy exists in the EM field at all. Somewhere there is some magnetic energy that is 'stored' that can "induce" something called "current flow" in another circuit?

and that's where magnetic energy density is nonzero

So what? It's a tiny little bit of energy at best and induction is still not "magnetic reconnection'. The "crossing point" has zippidy-do-da in terms of actually energy to do anything to anything.

and that's where the magnetic forces are acting.

Acting on what? Acting "where" if not the "reconnection" point where no energy exists to work with?

Nobody ever said that the energy comes from the *lines themselves* at the exact point of crossing.

Where does enough energy to heat plasma to millions of degrees come from then? Don't tell me it's that tiny little bit of residual energy *NOT* inside the reconnection point.

There's a wholesale rearrangement of nonzero B fields from one orientation of "saddle" to another. In the middle of this rearrangement is a point where B=0 and lines reconnect.

If B=0 then you have no energy in the magnetic field which you could ever hope to transfer to any other charged particle. The only way you'll ever get any magnetic energy is an non zero point on the magnetic line! The points right around the zero point are the *VERY LEAST LIKELY* to ever even created INDUCTION in the first place.

The bottom line is that your "magnetic line" has "current flow" running through it. It's a "circuit" of moving charged particles "flowing" from point a to point b. Evidently none of you read any of those three papers I cited or the one Tim cited.

A "circuit" is a "circuit". It's not a sterile magnetic line. The energy that heats the plasma to a million degrees or more comes from the "circuit energy" of the *ENTIRE CIRCUIT*, not simply the residual magnetic energy near a null point where no energy exists! You've got physics standing on it's head Ben, and you're calling a "short circuit" in two "circuit" a "magnetic reconnection' event. The energy that heats the plasma in the solar atmosphere is exactly the energy that heats plasma in the Earth's atmosphere to high temperatures. It's called an "electrical discharge".

 

[Reality Check]

The correct answer is *ZERO*.

The correct answer is *ZERO* at that point because the magnitude of the magnetic field (B) is zero at that point and *NONZERO* for the magnetic field as a whole because B is non-zero for the magnetic field.

By non-zero you mean there is a "tiny little bit" of energy somewhere around that point where no energy exists in the EM field at all. Somewhere there is some magnetic energy that is 'stored' that can "induce" something called "current flow" in another circuit?

By non-zero he means non-zero in the EM field.
Simple electromagnetism tells us that energy is stored in electric and magnetic fields. Experiments tell us that this is true.

So what? It's a tiny little bit of energy at best and induction is still not "magnetic reconnection'. The "crossing point" has zippidy-do-da in terms of actually energy to do anything to anything.

No. It is a whopping great big chunk of energy at least.
ben_m never stated that the "crossing point" has anything to do with the energy.

The energy is not stored at that exact geometric point, that's just where the lines actually cross. The magnetic field is nonzero in a large region around the crossover, and that's where magnetic energy density is nonzero and that's where the magnetic forces are acting. Nobody ever said that the energy comes from the *lines themselves* at the exact point of crossing. There's a wholesale rearrangement of nonzero B fields from one orientation of "saddle" to another. In the middle of this rearrangement is a point where B=0 and lines reconnect.

Acting on what? Acting "where" if not the "reconnection" point where no energy exists to work with?

On the charged particles in the region of the magnetic reconnection.

Where does enough energy to heat plasma to millions of degrees come from then? Don't tell me it's that tiny little bit of residual energy *NOT* inside the reconnection point.

The Sun and the energy that it stored in the EM fields during the creation of the magnetic flux tube that formed the flare.

If B=0 then you have no energy in the magnetic field which you could ever hope to transfer to any other charged particle. The only way you'll ever get any magnetic energy is an non zero point on the magnetic line! The points right around the zero point are the *VERY LEAST LIKELY* to ever even created INDUCTION in the first place.

If B = 0 then you have no energy in the magnetic field where B = 0.
But B = 0 only at the one point that you are talking about. It is non-zero elsewhere.

The bottom line is that your "magnetic line" has "current flow" running through it. It's a "circuit" of moving charged particles "flowing" from point a to point b. Evidently none of you read any of those three papers I cited or the one Tim cited.

The bottom line is that the plasma in the magnetic reconnection flows because... it is charged particles in a magnetic field!

A "circuit" is a "circuit". It's not a sterile magnetic line. The energy that heats the plasma to a million degrees or more has nothing comes from the "circuit energy" of the *ENTIRE CIRCUIT*, not simply the residual magnetic energy near a null point where no energy exists! You've got physics standing on it's head Ben, and you're calling a "short circuit" in two "circuit" a "magnetic reconnection' event. The energy that heats the plasma in the solar atmosphere is exactly the energy that heats plasma in the Earth's atmosphere to high temperatures. It's called an "electrical discharge".

A circuit is a circuit.
A magnetic field is not a circuit. The current flowing in a magnetic reconnection cannot create the magnetic reconnection . The magnetic reconnection is created elsewhere and then the current flows.

The energy that heats the plasma to a million degrees or more comes from the "magnetic energy" of the *ENTIRE MAGBETIC FIELD*.

Only someone with no knowledge of EM could think that it came from the "the residual magnetic energy near a null point where no energy exists". They would be wrong.

I fixed your last statement:

The energy that heats the plasma in the solar atmosphere is exactly the energy that heats plasma in the Earth's magnetosphere to high temperatures. It's called the Sun.

We would not like people to think that you are an idiot that thinks that there electrical discarges (as in lightning) on the Sun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

yeah yeah I know we are nitwits

No, just stubbornly and willfully ignorant by choice. Did you ever bother reading Cosmic Plasma or are you just winging it as it relates to applying MHD theory to objects in space?

Let me guess? You never read it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The correct answer is *ZERO* at that point because the magnitude of the magnetic field (B) is zero at that point and *NONZERO* for the magnetic field as a whole because B is non-zero for the magnetic field.

So what? At your supposed "reconnection" point, you have *ZERO ENERGY* in the magnetic field in that area to work with! Hello? What the hell heats the plasma to a million degrees and accelerates charged particles in a null point when there is no energy in the field at that point to work with?

 

[Reality Check]

You know RC, when you say ignorant stuff like this, it's really hard to take you seriously. He most certainly produced it and therefore "predicted" it. Nobody at the time was claiming solar wind traveled at more than a few kilometers/second at the time. Birkeland was the first one to predict that the particle flow was "high speed" and during solar storms could approach even light speed. He didn't 'make it up in his head' like you folks, he build "real physical empirical experiments" and his "predictions" were a direct result of the standard empirical method. When you simply go into pure denial like this it becomes very clear you didn't ever read his material. I have quoted him for Geemack in one of these threads somewhere. The fact you can't even be bothered to keep up with these conversations speaks volumes IMO.

You know Michael Mozina, when you say ignorant stuff like this, it's really hard to take you seriously rolleyes.
Birkeland never produced the solar wind in his experiments. He produced pencils of electrons.

First asked 28 December 2009
Michael Mozina,
Can you give a citation for Birkeland's prediction for the high speed solar wind?
We know that he predicted a solar wind. All you need to do is cite where he calculated the speed of the solar wind. Then we can compare it to the actual measured speed of the solar wind.

I have seen a prediction of the speed of his cathode-ray pencils which are not any known solar phenomena and was wrong for speeds of the the solar wind, flare, and CME events.

First asked 28 December 2009
Michael Mozina,
Just what are Birkeland's cathode-ray pencils in modern terms?
They are not the solar wind which is both protons and electrons.
They are not flares which are both protons and electrons.
They are not CME which are both protons and electrons.
Also the maximium speed involbed in these is one CME that got to half the speed of light.

A question first asked on 27 December 2009:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
I looked up the context of the quote in his book and you are right.
Birkeland is actually talking about "long pencils of cathode-rays" from electrical discharges from his metal globes when a magnetic field is not applied.
These discharges look a bit like sunspots when a magnetic field is applied.

Birkeland states on page 662

If the pressure of the gas is very small during these discharges, there issues (fig. 249, globe not magnetised) from each of the patches
narrow pencil of cathode-rays so intense that the gas is illuminated all along the pencil up to the wall of the tube. This splendid phenomenon
recalls our hypothesis according to which sun-spots sometimes send out into space long pencils of cathode-rays.

So he is not really talking about what we call solar flares - they are not "long pencils" of particles as Birkeland must have known.

Someone like you who knows such a lot about experimental physics rolleyes will instantly see the defect in Birkeland's analysis of his experiments. Figs 248 and 249 should give you a clue. You will need to know some basic electromagnetism.

I do not think, however, that Schuster's objections have any serious bearing on my theory, if we consiider the properties which the new sunbeams must be assumed to possess.
I have shown that cathode-rays from the sun, which are to strike down towards the earth in the Aurora polaris zones, must have a transversal mass about m = 1.83 X 10^3 X m . In other words, the longitudinal mass of our particles is 6 milliard times greater than the mass of the particles upon which Schuster calculates in his energy-comments. Thus these cathode-rays will pass the earth, not with a velocity of 9 kilometres, but with a velocity very little short of that of light.

Birkeland is stating that the cathode-rays (electrons) will pass the Earth with a velocity very little short of the speed of light. He is wrong as we now know that

1. There are no electrical discharges on the Sun. Sunspots are primarily magnetic phenomena.
2. The Sun emits protons and electrons.
3. Their velocity is much less than the speed of light.

As for your link - the speed of particles in solar storms is typically much less than the speed of light.
Solar flare: "Most proton storms take two or more hours from the time of visual detection to reach Earth's orbit. A solar flare on January 20, 2005 released the highest concentration of protons ever directly measured,[3] taking only 15 minutes after observation to reach Earth, indicating a velocity of approximately one-half light speed.".

This was a A New Kind of Solar Storm and not typical of solar storms. It was the only storm of this type to be confirmed in 2005 (a proton storm in February 1956 is suspected to be similiar).

 

[ben m]

By non-zero you mean there is a "tiny little bit" of energy somewhere around that point where no energy exists in the EM field at all.

No, I mean that there is an energy density rho = 1/(2 mu0) B^2, just like anywhere else that there is a magnetic field. Who said it was small?

Somewhere there is some magnetic energy that is 'stored' that can "induce" something called "current flow" in another circuit?

Yes. We've been talking about Maxwell's Equations all along, right? When you zoom in on a reconnection event, all you find are Maxwell's Equations, including induction. When you step back a bit, there's a recognizable pattern of magnetic field reorganization---just as recognizable as the pattern we call an "Alfven wave" or a "Z-pinch" or a "Raleigh-Taylor instability" or whatever. This magnetic field reorganization, the one we're talking about, the one with a zero in the middle of a saddle, is called "reconnection".

Anyway, I see that now we've gone from "reconnection requires broken field lines and is therefore impossible" to "reconnection is a stupid name for it, because I want to call it induction; and it can only release small amounts of energy at best". I'd call that progress!

 

[Michael Mozina]

On the charged particles in the region of the magnetic reconnection.

At a ZERO point in the magnetic field you have no energy to pass on to charged particles! Try again. Think "current flows" and "short circuits". You'll find that one works a lot better because the energy isn't coming from a magic zero point devoid of energy, but the "circuit energy" of both circuits.

 

[ben m]

At a ZERO point in the magnetic field you have no energy to pass on to charged particles! Try again. Think "current flows" and "short circuits". You'll find that one works a lot better because the energy isn't coming from a magic zero point devoid of energy, but the "circuit energy" of both circuits.

The plasma which is getting heated up is not all crammed into a thimble right at the reconnection point. It's spread out in space; an infinitesimal amount of it is at the reconnection point, and approximately all of it is away from that point, in regions of nonzero field.

Seriously, MM, take another look at my quadrupole capacitor analogy.

Define "circuit energy", please.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, I mean that there is an energy density rho = 1/(2 mu0) B^2

That is equal to 0 at your null point ben. Zero energy isn't going to heat plasma and spit out high velocity particles galore. You're whistling Dixie. Even the regions directly around the zero point are going to be extremely weak in terms of the amount of energy to work with. There is no way in hell you can account for million degree plasmas and CME's with the little residual energy around a null point. You'll need "circuit energy" in massive quantities even to explain why *ONE* coronal loop reaches millions of degrees, let alone what happens when they "short circuit".

just like anywhere else that there is a magnetic field. Who said it was small?

It's going to be right next to a zero point in the field ben.

Yes. We've been talking about Maxwell's Equations all along, right? When you zoom in on a reconnection event, all you find are Maxwell's Equations, including induction.

True, but you're *INTENTIONALLY* mislabeling a "short circuit" or "circuit reconnection" or "induction" something that it is not, and something that is physically impossible. Magnetic lines do not and cannot "disconnect" or "reconnect" to other magnetic lines. That is physically impossible and violates the whole concept of electrical engineering! You have physics working backwards ben. DISCHARGES heat plasma to millions of degrees. Circuits disconnect and reconnect. Discharges and induction transfer and create kinetic energy. "Magnetic reconnection" is pure pseudoscience just like Alfven stated. That's obviously true because none of you can tell induction from "magnetic reconnection", and a change in "circuit topology" will automatically create a change in the "field topology". You're up the creek without a paddle Ben.

 

[ben m]

True, but you're *INTENTIONALLY* mislabeling a "short circuit" or "circuit reconnection" or "induction" something that it is not,

I have filed a petition with the IUPAP to have all plasma phenomena and excitations officially renamed "Mungojerry and Rumpleteaser". In the meantime, I'm calling this particular initial-conditions-and-evolution-under-Maxwell's-equation the same thing that everyone else calls it.

Magnetic lines do not and cannot "disconnect" or "reconnect" to other magnetic lines. That is physically impossible and violates the whole concept of electrical engineering!

Oh noes! I thought we had cleared this up for you, but I guess the congnitive dissonance killed it.

Sorry, MM, my sophomores are able to understand this better than you can. I make them draw these fields on their homework (Exercises 33-8 and 33-17 in Halliday, Resnick, and Crane involve such crossings). It is regrettable that you managed to devote your life to plasma crackpottery without having gotten as far as the first quarter of intro electromagnetism, but there we are. With that, I think I shall put you back on "ignore" and say goodbye.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have filed a petition with the IUPAP to have all plasma phenomena and excitations officially renamed "Mungojerry and Rumpleteaser". In the meantime, I'm calling this particular initial-conditions-and-evolution-under-Maxwell's-equation the same thing that everyone else calls it.

Alfven called it pseudoscience and he wrote MHD theory. What can I say?

Oh noes! I thought we had cleared this up for you, but I guess the congnitive dissonance killed it.

Sorry, MM, my sophomores are able to understand this better than you can. I make them draw these fields on their homework (Exercises 33-8 and 33-17 in Halliday, Resnick, and Crane involve such crossings). It is regrettable that you managed to devote your life to plasma crackpottery without having gotten as far as the first quarter of intro electromagnetism, but there we are. With that, I think I shall put you back on "ignore" and say goodbye.

Your sophomores are more gullible that I am evidently, hardly surprising since I've been around sun a lot more times and I'm not beholden on your opinions for a grade.

Plasma physics in not "plasma crackpottery". Alfven called 'magnetic reconnection' a form of "pseudoscience". He understood these concepts a lot more than your sophomores, a lot more than you do. I'm afraid none of you can explain what is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection' that cannot otherwise be described (scientifically correctly) as "induction" and/or "circuit reconnection" and/or "particle reconnection". All of these other terms of consistent with electrical engineering branches of science, particle physics branches of science and every other branch of relevant science. Only in mainstream imagination does a change in "circuit topology" get called "magnetic reconnection". No electrical engineer would ever make such a bush league mistake, and that is certainly why Alfven called the idea "pseudoscience". You all "sort of" understand the the physics, but you don't actually grasp the physics. It's all one big math formula to you folks devoid of physical meaning. Let me spell it out in actual physics for you and your sophomores.

The transfer of kinetic energy from the field to the charged particle is properly called "INDUCTION".

The "reconnection" is between two "circuits", not two magnetic lines.

The change in topology is between two "Birkeland currents", not two "magnetic lines".

 

[Reality Check]

That is equal to 0 at your null point ben. Zero energy isn't going to heat plasma and spit out high velocity particles galore. You're whistling Dixie. Even the regions directly around the zero point are going to be extremely weak in terms of the amount of energy to work with. There is no way in hell you can account for million degree plasmas and CME's with the little residual energy around a null point. You'll need "circuit energy" in massive quantities even to explain why *ONE* coronal loop reaches millions of degrees, let alone what happens when they "short circuit".

You are the one whistling Dixie, Michael Mozina.
As ben_m has already told you:
The energy density in a magnetic field is rho = 1/(2 mu0) B^2.
At the crossover point there is zero magnetic field so B = 0. Plug that into the equation to get zero energy density and so zero energy.
At distances infinitesimally away from the crossover point there is non zero magnetic field so B > 0. Plug that into the equation to get energy density > 0 and so energy > 0.
That is extremely simple. Anyone who knows the difference between zero and not zero should get it.

There is every way in hell we can account for million degree plasmas and CME's with the enormous energy in the magnetic field.

There is no "short circuit" in a coronal loop. There is magnetic reconnection.

One point you may be ignorant of: To get the energy from an energy density, rho, you need to multiply rho by the volume of the magnetic filed. Coronal loops are not small.
Google Scholar for 'energy stored in the magnetic field of a coronal loop' gives 5000 results one of which I find interesting:
Self-organized Critical Model of Energy Release in an Idealized Coronal Loop

We present and discuss a new avalanche model for solar flares, based on an idealized representation of a coronal loop as a bundle of magnetic flux strands wrapping around one another. The model is based on a two-dimensional cellular automaton with anisotropic connectivity, where linear ensembles of interconnected nodes define the individual strands collectively making up the coronal loop. The system is driven by random deformation of the strands, and a form of reconnection is assumed to take place when the angle subtended by two strands crossing at the same lattice site exceed some preset threshold. Driven in this manner, the cellular automaton produces avalanches of reconnection events characterized by scale-free size distributions that compare favorably with the corresponding size distribution of solar flares, as inferred observationally. Although lattice-based and highly idealized, the model satisfies the constraints Δ B = 0 by design and is defined in such a way as to be readily mapped back onto coronal loops with set physical dimensions. Carrying this exercise for a generic coronal loop of length 10^10 cm and diameter 10^8 cm yields flare energies ranging from 10^23 to 10^29 erg, for an instability threshold angle of 11° between contiguous magnetic flux strands. These figures square well with both observational determinations and theoretical estimates.

Another interesting pre-print:
Impulsive phase flare energy transport by large-scale Alfven waves and the electron acceleration problem

The impulsive phase of a solar flare marks the epoch of rapid conversion of energy stored in the pre-flare coronal magnetic field. Hard X-ray observations imply that a substantial fraction of flare energy released during the impulsive phase is converted to the kinetic energy of mildly relativistic electrons (10-100 keV). The liberation of the magnetic free energy can occur as the coronal magnetic field reconfigures and relaxes following reconnection. We investigate a scenario in which products of the reconfiguration - large-scale Alfven wave pulses - transport the energy and magnetic-field changes rapidly through the corona to the lower atmosphere. This offers two possibilities for electron acceleration. Firstly, in a coronal plasma with beta < m_e/m_p, the waves propagate as inertial Alfven waves. In the presence of strong spatial gradients, these generate field-aligned electric fields that can accelerate electrons to energies on the order of 10 keV and above, including by repeated interactions between electrons and wavefronts. Secondly, when they reflect and mode-convert in the chromosphere, a cascade to high wavenumbers may develop. This will also accelerate electrons by turbulence, in a medium with a locally high electron number density. This concept, which bridges MHD-based and particle-based views of a flare, provides an interpretation of the recently-observed rapid variations of the line-of-sight component of the photospheric magnetic field across the flare impulsive phase, and offers solutions to some perplexing flare problems, such as the flare "number problem" of finding and resupplying sufficient electrons to explain the impulsive-phase hard X-ray emission.

The bit that might interest MM is on page 4:

The release of stored magnetic energy requires a re-structuring of the field, for example as envisioned in large-scale magnetic reconnection, However the amount of magnetic free energy that can be dissipated within the reconnection region itself – current sheet, X-point or 3-D null – is restricted, given its small dimensions and the short flare time-scale. The more important release of free energy occurs in the large-scale ‘convulsion’ as the newly–reconnected magnetic field relaxes from its pre-flare stressed state. Where they detach from the coronal current-sheet or null structure but are still stressed, these magnetic field lines will be highly distorted from a potential configuration, with a locally high tension force.

 

[brantc]

Just to emphasis the point:
The physical assumptions behind magnetic reconnection are not wrong. Maxwell's equations allow magnetic reconnection. The observations of magnetic reconnection in experiments means that magnetic reconnection can happen in reality. The observation of actual magnetic reconnection means that it happens in reality.
But ... Like many other phenomena that the universe presents us, we do not fully ("really") understand magnetic reconnection, e.g.

Yes. The observations of magnetic reconnection happening does prove that it happens both in the lab and in space. The crucial part is looking for the replication of the lab setup at a larger scale if you think you are accurately reproducing the phenomena at a small scale..

You see 2 strand filaments. Theres a reconnection in one of the filaments. You know in that lab you need to have a certain electrode or power configuration to create the right conditions(electricity, 2 electrodes, plasma).

This is from basic electrics which was around before current astronomy, use those laws, specifically if there is a magnetic field there is a current flow, and why get hung up with the idea of visible charge separation.

You see the flux tubes. Why not model it exactly as it is in the lab with electric current being the power source? End the controversy.

Then go looking for the current source. People believe in the Big Bang.
Why is it hard to think there is a current that flows across the universe(or something like that)?

 

[brantc]

Yep. Go back to this post. It shows the physical configuration of a reconnection. This is how it happens on earth and in space.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5448630&postcount=3076

2 fluxt tubes touch and a burst of radiation comes out. Well what happens between those flux tubes to accelerate the particles?? Double layers form? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)

And the reason that plasma is flowing and for the existence of flux tubes is that there is an electric potential across 2 points. A magnetic field does not do nearly as good a job accelerating particles.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes. The observations of magnetic reconnection happening does prove that it happens both in the lab and in space. The crucial part is looking for the replication of the lab setup at a larger scale if you think you are accurately reproducing the phenomena at a small scale..

You see 2 strand filaments. Theres a reconnection in one of the filaments. You know in that lab you need to have a certain electrode or power configuration to create the right conditions(electricity, 2 electrodes, plasma).

This is from basic electrics which was around before current astronomy, use those laws, specifically if there is a magnetic field there is a current flow, and why get hung up with the idea of visible charge separation.

You see the flux tubes. Why not model it exactly as it is in the lab with electric current being the power source? End the controversy.

Well put brantc.

Then go looking for the current source. People believe in the Big Bang.
Why is it hard to think there is a current that flows across the universe(or something like that)?

Where did you get this idea of a current that flows across the universe?

The non-science that is plasma cosmology has galaxy sized Birkeland currents. You can read all about why these are improbable (and that is being charitable) here: Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation.
Basically:

• There is no source for the currents.
• They should be easy to detect.
• They are unstable.

 

[tusenfem]

No, just stubbornly and willfully ignorant by choice. Did you ever bother reading Cosmic Plasma or are you just winging it as it relates to applying MHD theory to objects in space?

Let me guess? You never read it?

I have read enough of Alfvén, including Cosmic Plasma (even got a 1st edition here on my desk). Alfvén was a great man, but he has also made error, also in science. It is okay, his circuit notation of MHD is to be commended, it makes lots of things much easier, the development of MHD is excellent, who would want to live without that?

However, he is a child of his time, unfortunately, and in his later years only busied himself with fringe science (about alleged resonances in Saturn's rings, of which he had some enormous plot on the wall in the halls of the Royal Institute of Technology. I still remember him leading me along it, and trying to get me to work on that. However, I was going to do experiments on his other "child," i.e. double layers.)

Now, the thing is that for Alfvén in the end there was only MHD and his view that peeps were misapplying it, and in the beginning they were, e.g. with respect to the frozen in condition which used to be applied withouth thinking (nobody does that anymore) which led him to reject also reconnection. as that cannot happen in MHD (why not??).

However, I am sure that, if Alfvén would be in his best days in today's plasma physics laboratory, he would work wonders also on reconnection.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have read enough of Alfvén, including Cosmic Plasma (even got a 1st edition here on my desk). Alfvén was a great man, but he has also made error, also in science. It is okay, his circuit notation of MHD is to be commended, it makes lots of things much easier, the development of MHD is excellent, who would want to live without that?

Evidently you intend to live without it. Why? Why in the hell would you ignore the E field orientation of MHD theory like that? The particle/circuit orientation of MHD theory is just as viable, just as important and just as critical as the B field orientation. You've never demonstrated he was wrong, in fact all the empirically oriented papers demonstrate that "circuits" are involved in this "reconnection" process.

However, he is a child of his time, unfortunately, and in his later years only busied himself with fringe science (about alleged resonances in Saturn's rings, of which he had some enormous plot on the wall in the halls of the Royal Institute of Technology. I still remember him leading me along it, and trying to get me to work on that. However, I was going to do experiments on his other "child," i.e. double layers.)

Double layers are not "children", they are physically real things that show up in physical experiments. I guess you were just "too smart" to listen to anything the Nobel prize winning scientists had to teach you eh?

Now, the thing is that for Alfvén in the end there was only MHD and his view that peeps were misapplying it, and in the beginning they were, e.g. with respect to the frozen in condition which used to be applied withouth thinking (nobody does that anymore) which led him to reject also reconnection. as that cannot happen in MHD (why not??).

Because magnetic fields form as a full continuum, without beginning, without end and without the ability to "disconnect" or "reconnect" to any other magnetic line. Only "circuits" reconnect and "circuit topology changes" are not "magnetic reconnection" and "induction' is also not "magnetic reconnection".

However, I am sure that, if Alfvén would be in his best days in today's plasma physics laboratory, he would work wonders also on reconnection.

If so, he'd be calling it "circuit reconnection", not "magnetic reconnection" because he was an electrical engineer by trade. He would never make such a bush league mistake when it comes to the difference between a "circuit topology change" and "magnetic reconnection".

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are the one whistling Dixie, Michael Mozina.
As ben_m has already told you:
The energy density in a magnetic field is rho = 1/(2 mu0) B^2.
At the crossover point there is zero magnetic field so B = 0. Plug that into the equation to get zero energy density and so zero energy.

Exactly. 0+0 = 0. In your case you're trying to add zero and zero and get a new energy source that heats plasma to millions of degrees! Get a grip.