Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

[tusenfem]

Can you please rephrase the question. What exactly do you want to know?

You seem to think that the core field of flux tubes is generated by charges circling around that field.

So, could you please show us how much plasma has to circulate around that field, and next to that what makes them circulate to create the field in the first time.

 

[tusenfem]

I like the part where they say:

"A major question is how the filamentary current increases. This is only possible through changes at the photospheric level. These changes can roughly be divided into:
(a) Magnetic flux variation (e.g. emerging flux);
(b) motion of field line footprints"

Even they recognize that the current increases. Probably by measuring the magnetic field.
But instead of saying that the increase is due to an increase in the flow of electrons they sat that the magnetic field must get is energy from "Magnetic flux variation (e.g. emerging flux); motion of field line footprints" (sic)which increases the the flow of electrons or plasma through the flux tube.

Not only that they use fluid terminology like tearing and turbulence instead of instabilities. And current sheets that roll themselves up into flux tubes.

You can trace faulty cause and effect MHD logic all the way back to the beginning.

Motion of the footpoints of a magnetic loop on the sun drives an EMF (read your teacher MM's quoted paper, the one that I discuss above, which actually uses that). This EMF creates a stronger current in the loop, generates electric fields, generates hard Xrays in the footpoints through bremsstrahlung by strongly accelerated electrons. All basic solar physics.

Apparently, you are not aware that MHD is magnetoHYDROdynamics, which Hannes Alfvén developed. Which means you can describe a plasma as a (or two) fluids.
Instabilities in plasmas are galore, some create semi-stationary structures (like double layers) some drive plasma waves that can have their energy cascade from large to small scales, which is turbulence. I gave you a list of 7 papers on observations of turbulence in plasma.

But I am glad you reject MDH, that will really make MM happy.

 

[tusenfem]

I want you to note that these "magnetic lines" you describe can also be described as "circuits". When they "reconnect" and they change topology like that, it's called "circuit reconnection" from the E orientation of MHD theory. That's what I want you to say.

You can make a circuit description of the start situation
You can make a circuit description of the end situation
You cannot describe the way one comes from one to another through a circuit description
You cannot model the bulk plasma acceleration (both electrons and ions) through a circuit description

So NO, it is not circuit reconnection and keeping on calling it circuit reconnection does not solve anything.

Give us a circuit description.

 

[GeeMack]

I want you to note that these "magnetic lines" you describe can also be described as "circuits". When they "reconnect" and they change topology like that, it's called "circuit reconnection" from the E orientation of MHD theory. That's what I want you to say.

So you want him to call magnetic reconnection "circuit reconnection"?

 

[The Man]

You're just making up words as you go now, without any regard to scientific labels. There's no "spring reconnection" involved in moving energy into potential energy and back to kinetic energy again! You might as well call a pendulum and example of "swing reconnection". Hoy. There is absolutely no connection between "magnetic reconnection" and your magnetic analogy. You're simply converting kinetic energy into potential energy and back again. It has nothing to do with 'reconnection". That's a purely contrived word and has no physical relevancy. There's no "reconnection" happening. You're simply storing kinetic energy as potential energy and releasing it again! Nothing is "reconnecting". That's a bunch of bull.

(Bolding added)

No "reconnection" in the fields is even taking place! You could do this whole conversion of energy thing with couple of springs. Is that "spring reconnection"?

Also

(Bolding added.)

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.

Who is “just making up words” “without any regard to scientific labels”?

Are you confusing yourself with someone else again?

Do you still assert magnets are not magnetic in order for your “"magnet" reconnection” not to be “"magnet*IC* reconnection”?


Once again you are simply focusing on the storage and release of energy (I think deliberately) not the reconnection event that changes the direction of the applied forces (particularly the force applied by that stored energy). Anytime you’re done wasting your own time dragging around your stawman we can actually discuss the reconnection (magnetic or spring).

 

[The Man]

I don't understand what you're objecting to, Michael. The field lines in TM's example do indeed reconnect. That's what "magnetic reconnection" means, and that's what they do.

Are you claiming the field lines don't reconnect?

What he is objecting to Sol is that the discussion of just magnets in magnetic reconnection removes all the extraneous BS, the highly conductive plasma, the eddy currents and the acceleration of particles to very high speeds as well as his “circuit reconnection” assertions. Also it shows magnetic reconnection as something one can experience and experiment with in thier own home. So intense is this deep seated objection to just the words “magnetic reconnection” that he has gone so far and apparently continues to call it "magnet reconnection" which can only mean that for MM magnets simply aren’t magnetic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No it is not, YOUR model uses field lines as electrical wires.

It's not "my model", it's "Alfven's/Bruce's/Birkeland's" model.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

In Alfven's paper, he's turning that "flux tube" into a part of a "circuit" and when the "circuit" is disrupted, that "magnetic energy" is released. It's a z-pinch that ultimately creates the current disruption process.

In "my" model the ions and electrons decouple from the field (observed!) and move perpendicular to the field lines.

The particles in the tube "fly off" away from the tornado like filament due to the current disruption. The release of energy is directly related to the current flow and the disruption of that current flow through the "magnetic rope". Alfven is most certainly using that "rope' as the conductive equivalent of a "wire". When the current flow creates a z-pinch in the tube, the whole thing "explodes".

And I have no idea how to convert a formula to an E "orientation"

Use Maxwell's formulas to convert all your B's into E's.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What he is objecting to Sol is that the discussion of just magnets in magnetic reconnection removes all the extraneous BS,

No, it *IS* extraneous BS because the fields themselves never physically "reconnect" unless the physical magnets "reconnect". If we never allow them to reconnect, we pull them apart, we check their fields, they are exactly the same as before, and nothing is lost due to the interaction process.

None of this has anything to do with solar physics. No "reconnection" between the fields ever actually occurs if you never touch the magnets together, and we can measure the field after the process and field each of them is exactly the same as before the energy conversion process. It's just like the spring analogy and it has nothing to do with solar physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you want him to call magnetic reconnection "circuit reconnection"?

Yep. They are exactly the same process. The only things that is different about them is the "terminology", which is directly related to the B/E orientation of the MHD formulas themselves.

 

[The Man]

Yes.



No, they simply release energy again. No "reconnection" is involved. The only thing that might and could "reconnect" are the physical magnets themselves, but that is "magnet reconnection" and has nothing to do with this topic.

Again you are focusing only on the storage and release of energy not the reconnection. Again Anytime you’re done wasting your own time dragging around your strawman we can actually discuss the reconnection (magnetic or spring).

Quit hijacking the thread!

Quit deliberately avoiding the topic of this thread, “magnetic reconnection and physical processes”. Not just “solar physics” and not just the storage and release of energy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You can make a circuit description of the start situation
You can make a circuit description of the end situation
You cannot describe the way one comes from one to another through a circuit description
You cannot model the bulk plasma acceleration (both electrons and ions) through a circuit description

So NO, it is not circuit reconnection and keeping on calling it circuit reconnection does not solve anything.

Give us a circuit description.

Read Alfven's paper!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Again you are focusing only on the storage and release of energy not the reconnection.

Nothing "reconnects"! You're making that up! The only thing that could "reconnect" are the magnets themselves. If we measure the fields of each magnet both before and after the interaction process, each field is exactly the same as before, so nothing "reconnected" to the other magnet through the magnetic field. The only thing that's happening in your analogy is the magnetic field stores and releases energy. Nothing "reconnects"!

 

[The Man]

No, it *IS* extraneous BS because the fields themselves never physically "reconnect" unless the physical magnets "reconnect". If we never allow them to reconnect, we pull them apart, we check their fields, they are exactly the same as before, and nothing is lost due to the interaction process.

So now your "magnet reconnection" is magnetic reconnection?

None of this has anything to do with solar physics. No "reconnection" between the fields ever actually occurs if you never touch the magnets together, and we can measure the field after the process and field each of them is exactly the same as before the energy conversion process. It's just like the spring analogy and it has nothing to do with solar physics.

Wait so now the fields can reconnect, but only if you “touch the magnets together”, in the case of the refrigerator magnets example they do touch together. So I guess for you magnets are only magnetic when they are touching?


Look MM you can dig this hole as deep for yourself as you like, but you’re still just going to end up burying yourself at the bottom of it.

 

[The Man]

Nothing "reconnects"! You're making that up! The only thing that could "reconnect" are the magnets themselves. If we measure the fields of each magnet both before and after the interaction process, each field is exactly the same as before, so nothing "reconnected" to the other magnet through the magnetic field. The only thing that's happening in your analogy is the magnetic field stores and releases energy. Nothing "reconnects"!

Nope the field of one stripe reconnects to the field of another stripe on the other refrigerator magnet, otherwise the magnets would just snap back instead of moving forward. Try it, nothing in this is made up.


ETA:

In the compass example the needle is indicating the direction of the field it is connected to. As that direction changes from connecting to the magnet’s field to connecting to the Earth’s magnetic field and back again we can see that change in the direction of the field and thus a change in field configuration around the needle by the needle.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So now your "magnet reconnection" is magnetic reconnection?

No, it's always "magnet reconnection". Stop hijacking this thread!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Again you are focusing only on the storage and release of energy not the reconnection.

There is nothing "reconnecting" in your example with the possible exception of the magnets themselves (depending your mood evidently). You're making up the idea that the magnetic fields reconnect, just like you made up the term "spring reconnection" in my spring example. Nothing is "reconnecting". You're just storing energy in the field and releasing it! Nothing RECONNECTS!

 

[GeeMack]

So everyone agrees that magnetic reconnection occurs as a physical process, correct?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So everyone agrees that magnetic reconnection occurs as a physical process, correct?

No, but everyone agrees that that is it possible for two current carrying magnetic ropes to "reconfigure" themselves. We can't agree on what that process should be called. As Alfven explained, not a single magnetic line disconnects or reconnects to any other magnetic line, so it is irrational to call it "magnetic reconnection".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Alfven from Cosmic Plasma:

There is no need for `frozen-in' field lines moving with the plasma, still less for `field-line reconnection' or `magnetic merging' . The magnetic field always remains static and not a single field line is `disconnected' or `reconnected'. The energy of a charged particle is given by Equation (6) . There is no 'field-line reconnection' that can transfer energy to the particles or release energy in any other way. Other arguments against reconnection models are forewarded by Heikkila (1978).

 

[Michael Mozina]

No it is not, YOUR model uses field lines as electrical wires.

Alfven again from Cosmic Plasma:

II .7 . Field-Aligned Currents as `Cables'

The discovery of `inverted V events' by L . A . Frank has shown that electric currents in space often flow in ` cables ' . See Figure II . 22. From the observed inverted V events, we know that cable formation is frequent in the lower magnetosphere (up to at least one R®) . They are not so often observed higher up, but this decrease may be observational . Direct measurements of strong electric fields have been made by Mozer et al. (1977) . Besides electric fields parallel to the magnetic field, they fmd very strong fields perpendicular to the magnetic field . The shape of the equipotential surfaces is depicted in Figure II .22 . Other measurements of strongelectric fields have been made both with satellite (Maynard, 1978 ; Smiddy et al., 1977) and rocket (Marklund et al., 1979).

Accelerating regions of the type that we have described have been observed with barium cloud experiments at altitudes of about one Earth-radius (Haerendel et al., 1978; Wescott et al ., 1976 ; Shawhan et al., 1978). If the current-carrying field tube has the same voltage as the environment below the double layer, there must be a lateral voltage gradient above the layer . This produces a rotational motion of the plasma (but should not be depicted as a motion of magnetic field lines!) around the current-carrying flux tube . In this way, the filamentary current is electrically insulated from the surroundings in a way similar to a current in an electric cable located in the ocean and carrying current through a low resistance metal wire . The wire is insulated from the conducting water surrounding it by a plastic cylinder in which the electric field is similar to the radial electric field surrounding the field aligned current in the magnetosphere. In the same way as two high power transmission cables connect a generator and a `consumer', a pair of plasma cables may connect a generator and a `consumer '. The generator often consists of a plasma moving with a velocity component perpendicular to the magnetic field B and hence generating an e .m.f. where the integral is taken between the ends of the two cables.