Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

[Michael Mozina]

Ok, Tim and The Man, let's discuss "physics" today.

Let's start by dealing with The Man's claim in the other thread. What the The Man described in the other thread is not "magnet*IC* reconnection, it is "magnet" reconnection. The physical magnets "reconnected" at the level of physics. The magnetic lines did not 'reconnect". The physical magnets reconnected.

Now Tim, I want to hear you clearly explain the "physics" behind "magnetic reconnection". Let's start with the physical items we have to work with. There are "photons" which pass kinetic energy to charged particle through "induction". There are charged particles in plasma, like electrons ions, and even "dust". We'll of course add neutrinos, and all the other subatomic particles from *STANDARD* particle physics theory. We'll toss in all the elements on the periodic table, and any molecules you'd like to create from those elements. These are the physical items we have to work with inside of plasma.

Did you wish to add any other physical items to that list?

I want to hear you explain in plain English what is physically unique about the transfer of energy called "magnetic reconnection' that is physically distinguishable from induction and ordinary particle collisions inside a current carrying double layer.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In the magnetic reconnection experiments in labs, from the electric currents running through the magnets.

That's translated to "current flow" and "circuit enery" from Alfven's E oriented perspective, the guy that labeled magnetic reconnection "pseudoscience".

 

[GeeMack]

Ok, Tim and The Man, let's discuss "physics" today.

Since your word "physics" is in quote marks, and since your general approach to the science of physics is completely different than that taken by the other folks in this conversation, it might be helpful if you would start by defining what you mean by "physics". Obviously it doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to the real scientists here.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Since your word "physics" is in quote marks, and since your general approach to the science of physics is completely different than that taken by the other folks in this conversation, it might be helpful if you would start by defining what you mean by "physics". Obviously it doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to the real scientists here.

I put all the known physical objects in the universe on the table for you to work with. Was there any other physical "thing" I neglected to mention?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I didn't explicitly mention antimatter, but I'll include that as well.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'd have said it more like:
Magnetic reconnection is nothing more complicated than a geometric change in the topology of the lines we use to represent magnetic fields, from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. The energy lost is transferred, probably by magnetosonic waves, to the plasma.

That sure sounds like photons passing energy from the magnetic field to charged particles. That already has a proper scientific name. It's called "INDUCTION".

 

[Tubbythin]

I put all the known physical objects in the universe on the table for you to work with. Was there any other physical "thing" I neglected to mention?

The laws of physics.
Basic logic.

 

[Tubbythin]

Magnetic reconnection = The process = Metaphysical
Geometric change = (unspecified) = Metaphysical
Topology of the lines = (unspecified, around a neutral point?) = Metaphysical
Magnetic fields = Metaphysical (as a secondary effect they can interact with material things)
Magnetic field lines = Metaphysical
High Energy State = Metaphysical
Low Energy State = Metaphysical

Erm...er... what??

 

[The Man]

Ok, Tim and The Man, let's discuss "physics" today.

Let's start by dealing with The Man's claim in the other thread. What the The Man described in the other thread is not "magnet*IC* reconnection, it is "magnet" reconnection. The physical magnets "reconnected" at the level of physics. The magnetic lines did not 'reconnect". The physical magnets reconnected.

What, so you think trying to change the wording (“not "magnet*IC* reconnection, it is "magnet" reconnection”) changes the “"physics"“? Your assertion is simply garbage MM, put a piece of paper between the magnets, the only physical connection between the magnets is, well, magnetic. Sorry MM you do not have a leg to stand and I think you realize that as your assertion above seems ridiculously desperate.

 

[Reality Check]

That sure sounds like photons passing energy from the magnetic field to charged particles. That already has a proper scientific name. It's called "INDUCTION".

Your ingmorance is sHowing still MM
That sure sounds like energy passing from the magnetic field to charged particles. That already has a proper scientific name. It's called "ENERGY TRANSFER".

"INDUCTION" is

Electromagnetic induction is the production of voltage across a conductor situated in a changing magnetic field or a conductor moving through a stationary magnetic field

The emf then creates currents.

And you are ignoring of not understanding (as usual)

Why not induction?

Now, Mozina insists that what we are really seeing is induction. Is this a reasonable assertion? At the level of real physics it appears to be unrealistic. We know that induction is invariably constrained (or unconstrained) by the characteristic diffusion time for the magnetic field in a given environment. Remember that in the process of induction, the magnetic field move with respect to the charged particles, and it is that relative motion between field & particle that determines the transfer of energy from the magnetic field to the particles. Let me quote once again from Priest & Forbes, this time from section 1.1 ("The Origins of Reconnection Theory"), pages 6-7: "For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 10⁵ km is of the order of 10⁶ yrs. Typically, phenomena like the solar flare and the substorm require a significant fraction of the stored magnetic energy to be converted within a few Alfven time-scales. Such rapid time-scales are easily achieved in ideal MHD processes, but not in non-ideal ones. Although ideal MHD processes can release energy quickly, they rarely release a significant amount because of the topological constraints which exist in the absence of dissipation. In contrast, magnetic reconnection is not topologically constrained, and therefore it can release much greater amounts of energy (Kivelson and Russell, 1995)."

And in another thread

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Yet you won't personally explain what's unique about magnetic reconnection, so what can I say Tim?

That's not true, and you know it. It's no wonder that people keep calling you a liar. Are you trying to add me to the list? I have already done that many times. I said it was a change in the topology of the magnetic field, and that certainly is not induction by any stretch of the imagination. Besides, induction is strictly limited by the diffusion timescale of the plasma, whereas reconnection is impulsive. The two processes are distinctly different both in theory and in practice. Impulsive energy release, such as a solar flare, is quite impossible for any induction process.

Had you bothered to read any of the source material you have been directed to (for instance the book Magnetic Reconnection by Priest & Forbes) you would already know this, since it is spelled out in detail (I would be more specific but I am 1000 miles from home and the book at the moment). That's why I say I don't believe you when you say you are really interested in learning. Anyone truly interested in learning would naturally consult the books & papers they are referred to. I see no indication that you do that. As it stands, you appear to implicitly assert that you know more about physics than everyone else, and simply ignore everything else. It should come as no great surprise that few people have confidence in your alleged expertise in this field.

As you can see Tim Thompson fulfilled his promise above.

 

[tusenfem]

Let's talk physics. When you say "flux tube", are you talking about an ordinary plasma filament like we find in a ordinary plasma ball, simply scaled to some larger size?

What PHYSICAL PARTICLES are inside that "flux tube"?

Per definition a magnetic flux tube is a "bundle of magnetic field lines."

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with your plasma ball thingy, because those are (continuos) electrical discharges and not magnetic flux tubes (althohg the tiny current will, naturally cause a circular field around the discharges). Whatever gives you the idea that those discharges are flux tubes?

In the flux tube (mine that is, not in a plasma ball) is plasma, flowing along the field, twisting the magnetic field from straight to a more rope like structure.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Reconnecting Magnets

What the The Man described in the other thread is not "magnet*IC* reconnection, it is "magnet" reconnection. The physical magnets "reconnected" at the level of physics.

Wow, that's "real physics", huh? You gotta stop playing football without a helmet, or switch to decaf, or something. So, teach us the real physics, dude: How do two magnets physically reconnect at the level of real physics with several inches of real empty space between them?

 

[tusenfem]

If I move 2 bar magnets away from laying next to eachother and I look at what the field lines are doing (which is basically looking at what the magnetic field strength and direction is doing) I will find that first there are connections between the two in the first part and different connections between the two in the second part. Somehow these new connections were made, which is magnetic field line reconnection.

Naturally, because the magnetic field is a derivative, it would be better to look at reconnection in the vector potential, maybe michael can show us wrong in that view.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

If I move 2 bar magnets away from laying next to eachother and I look at what the field lines are doing (which is basically looking at what the magnetic field strength and direction is doing) I will find that first there are connections between the two in the first part and different connections between the two in the second part. Somehow these new connections were made, which is magnetic field line reconnection.

Naturally, because the magnetic field is a derivative, it would be better to look at reconnection in the vector potential, maybe michael can show us wrong in that view.

(emphasis added)

[MM mode]

But dude, derivatives and vector potentials are metaphysical fairies, nothing more than math magic you guys "invented", and "stuffed" into your models, along with "inflation", "dark energy", and "dark matter".

Can I buy a pound of "derivatives" and "vector potentials" at WalMart? Well, can I?

Instead of dreaming up "invisible deities", why don't you read Birkeland, or Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma; you sure won't find any metaphysical "derivatives" or "vector potentials" in the terrella experiments Birkeland did "in the lab"!

[/MM mode]

 

[Michael Mozina]

What, so you think trying to change the wording (“not "magnet*IC* reconnection, it is "magnet" reconnection”) changes the “"physics"“?

Which "physics", what "physics"? How does the movement together of two solid magnets due to magnetic attraction of their fields have anything to do with "magnetic reconnection" in plasma? Does anyone else even agree with you that what you're describing between two magnets coming together is actually a form of "magnetic reconnection"? Quick show of hands?

 

[Michael Mozina]

(emphasis added)

[MM mode]

But dude, derivatives and vector potentials are metaphysical fairies, nothing more than math magic you guys "invented", and "stuffed" into your models, along with "inflation", "dark energy", and "dark matter".

Can I buy a pound of "derivatives" and "vector potentials" at WalMart? Well, can I?

Instead of dreaming up "invisible deities", why don't you read Birkeland, or Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma; you sure won't find any metaphysical "derivatives" or "vector potentials" in the terrella experiments Birkeland did "in the lab"!

[/MM mode]

Hey, that was actually quite funny.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Per definition a magnetic flux tube is a "bundle of magnetic field lines."

What causes magnetic lines to "bundle" themselves into "tubes"? Are these tubes composed of something other than the carrier particles of the EM field?

In the flux tube (mine that is, not in a plasma ball) is plasma, flowing along the field, twisting the magnetic field from straight to a more rope like structure.

That plasma flowing along the field line is called "current flow" and it is part of a larger "circuit" of energy. The "bundling" into a "tube" is directly related to that "current flow" process. It generates a magnetic field around itself and that magnetic field acts to constrict the flow of those moving charged particles into "tubes". It's called a "Birkeland Current".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

 

[Reality Check]

What is your physics lesson about induction/circuit reconnection

First asked 25 January 2010
In another thread you stated

The "physics" lesson I am going to teach you personally is related to "induction/circuit reconnection" which you keep describing as "magnetic reconnection" Tim. Let's see you respond to Alfven's first paper please. Notice that part where he describes the amount of current flow in terms of Curl H(B)?

which should be continued in this thread as I requested:

Please present your physics lesson that magnetic reconnection is something called "induction/circuit reconnection" in the Magnetic reconnection and physical processes thread.


P.S.

1. Alfven's outdated (1966) paper ("Currents in the solar atmosphere and a theory of solar flares") oddly enough is about currents in the solar atmosphere and a theory of solar flares. It never states that magnetic reconnection does not exist.
2. The current density (i) in terms of Curl H is Maxwell's first equation which is Alfven's equation (1).

Michael Mozina,
What is your physics lesson about induction/circuit reconnection?

Start by stating the mathematical model for "induction/circuit reconnection". Then you can go onto showing that this model gives the same results as magnetic reconnection.

 

[GeeMack]

That plasma flowing along the field line is called "current flow" and it is part of a larger "circuit" of energy. The "bundling" into a "tube" is directly related to that "current flow" process. It generates a magnetic field around itself and that magnetic field acts to constrict the flow of those moving charged particles into "tubes". It's called a "Birkeland Current".

Only if you redefine Birkeland Current. Oh, wait, you put it in quote marks. You are redefining it.

 

[Tubbythin]

But dude, derivatives and vector potentials are metaphysical fairies, nothing more than math magic you guys "invented", and "stuffed" into your models, along with "Godflation", "dark evil energies", and "dark matter myths".

Fixed that for you.