• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

sol invictus said:
"Magnetic rope" is not a physics term I'm familiar with. Is it synonymous with "magnetic field line"?
Click to expand...

Hi Sol!

Just in case, a magnetic rope is a flux tube, which carries a current along its core field. This current, setting up a toroidal magnetic field (as required by Maxwell) twists the field lines of the flux tube, such that instead of straight, the now resemble twisted twine, like a rope.

Now, what is seen in the laboratory is that these ropes can interact (see e.g. Intrator et al., Nature-Physics, 2009) and reconnection can occur only because the fields are wound and thus locations of opposite field are present. But sometimes nothing happens, and the tubes just bounce (which was something new, from this very interesting setup). However, it is not a "short circuit" as MM likes to claim, because both ropes have the same potential difference from anode to cathode, and a short circuit happens because another way "is easier to get to the goal." But I guess you know that.

Oh, and by the way, forget the fairy story about the plasma ball.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
No. The "current flow" is what creates your "tube" in the first place. Without the current flow your "magnetic line" would not form into a "tube". The tubular shape is directly related to the current flow inside that tube. The "flux" of the magnetic field is directly related to "current flow" inside the tube.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
It is the other way around for a magnetic flux (tube) in a coronal loop or solar flare.

The magnetic flux exists first as it is generated 1000's of kilometers away from the site of the coronal loop or solar flare by differential movement in the solar body. The magnetic flux then floats away from where it was created. The "current flows" that created it can even vanish and have no effect.

When a solar magnetic flux contains plasma it is called a coronal loop. In that case the magnetic flux can cause currents in the plasma that it contains.

ETA
tusenfem's post above also points that a magnetic flux tube that carries a current is called a magnetic rope because the current twists the magnetic field lines.
I think that the magnetic flux tube is still the dirver in this, i.e. the flux tube is not generated by the current, the current is merely carried along with it.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
They are electrons that are flowing through the plasma tube!

I am referring to them because they are a part of those macroscopic circuits you keep ignoring! The electrons flowing through the tube generate the field, not just the current flow of the tube itself as your question seemed to imply.

Did you even read that first paper on macroscopic currents or did you just skim it?
Click to expand...

AGAIN, not what I am asking! What is are "hollow beam electrons"? Is it so difficult to answer? What is hollow? The beam, the electrons, the tube, WHAT? Apperently you thought is was important as you quoted it verbatim.

I ignore NO circuits, and which paper may that be? The Alfven & Carlqvist (which I discussed a bit), or the circuit one (rehashing old stuff) I discussed thoroughly or which?

"Electrons flowing through the tube generate the field, not just the current flow of the tube itself"
What does that actually mean? You take a tube, or rather define it, and make that current starts to flow, that would in most natural plasmas be electrons moving. But but but ... What is generating the EMF to create this current, what is guiding the electrons that they, e.g. at the sun, move along this curved structure, we see sticking out of the sun? I guess from reading the sentence above, it is the electrons doing this? They start to flow, decide, we will go in a loop, and then generate not only the (expected) toroidal field, but also the velocity aligned field! Well, those darned electrons, what they can do! Who whoudda guessed!

Really Michael, you must write down this model for me, I might learn something.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Without any doubt that is an example of 'magnetic attraction/repulsion".
Click to expand...

So your "magnet reconnection" is now magnetic, but just not a reconnection now?

Michael Mozina said:
I already gave you my answer in regard to TM's claim.
Click to expand...

No, actually all you’ve done is keep changing your tune, first its "magnet" not "magnetic" reconnection and now its "magnetic" again but just not a reconnection. Quite frankly you seem to have a lot of doubts about what exactly it is that you want to be claiming other than that you simply do not like the concept of magnetic reconnection.


Sorry MM, but the south pole of magnet (or magnetic domain) “A” attracting the north pole of magnet (or magnetic domain) “B” is indeed “'magnetic attraction” and we can trace those field lines and see that the south pole of magnet (or magnetic domain) “A” is connected to the north pole of magnet (or magnetic domain) “B” by a magnetic field. If we move magnet (or magnetic domain) “A” so that it’s south pole is now attracting the north pole of magnet (or magnetic domain) “C”, but not “B”. Again that is indeed “'magnetic attraction” and we can trace those field lines and see that the south pole of magnet (or magnetic domain) “A” is now connected to the north pole of magnet (or magnetic domain) “C” by a magnetic field. However, in that we can also see that the magnetic field of the south pole of magnet (or magnetic domain) “A” has reconnected from the north pole of magnet (or magnetic domain) “B” to the north pole of magnet (or magnetic domain) “C” and that is just the specific aspect that you, for whatever reason, simply do not want to see.
 
tusenfem said:
AGAIN, not what I am asking! What is are "hollow beam electrons"? Is it so difficult to answer? What is hollow? The beam, the electrons, the tube, WHAT? Apperently you thought is was important as you quoted it verbatim.
Click to expand...

I presume it's a "typo" meant to read "a hollow beam *OF* electrons*. I quoted it because it describes the current flow *through* the plasma tube. Your question was phrased as though there are no electrons flowing through the plasma.
 
Reality Check said:
ETA
tusenfem's post above also points that a magnetic flux tube that carries a current is called a magnetic rope because the current twists the magnetic field lines.
Click to expand...

Ya, you guys really need to start putting up a consistent story here about 'magnetic reconnection'. It looks like "null points be damned" with this crowd.

I think that the magnetic flux tube is still the dirver in this, i.e. the flux tube is not generated by the current, the current is merely carried along with it.
Click to expand...

You have the magnetic cart before the electric horse. An electric car doesn't run on magnetism, it runs on electricity. It surely generates a magnetic field while the electrical current is flowing. By your logic it's a "magnetic reconnection" process too I presume?

The current *FORMS* the tube because the current creates the magnetic field! You act like the magnetic field is simply hanging there in space in dense, non-moving plasma. That's not the case at all! The "current flow" (of the tube, and through the tube) generate the magnetic fields. The magnetic and electric fields wind around in a Birkeland current. It's not a 'magnetically driven' process, it's an "discharge" process as Bruce noted 60 years ago. You guys won't even touch Bruce's material.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
 
tusenfem said:
Hi Sol!

Just in case, a magnetic rope is a flux tube, which carries a current along its core field. This current, setting up a toroidal magnetic field (as required by Maxwell) twists the field lines of the flux tube, such that instead of straight, the now resemble twisted twine, like a rope.

Now, what is seen in the laboratory is that these ropes can interact (see e.g. Intrator et al., Nature-Physics, 2009) and reconnection can occur only because the fields are wound and thus locations of opposite field are present. But sometimes nothing happens, and the tubes just bounce (which was something new, from this very interesting setup).
Click to expand...

It's nothing "new", they magnetically "repel" each other for goodness sake. Sometimes they generate "induction" in the other "circuit" too. Sometimes they "short circuit" and their topology changes over time.

However, it is not a "short circuit" as MM likes to claim, because both ropes have the same potential difference from anode to cathode, and a short circuit happens because another way "is easier to get to the goal." But I guess you know that.
Click to expand...

I guess you also know that electrical current follows the path of least resistance.

Oh, and by the way, forget the fairy story about the plasma ball.
Click to expand...

There only "fairy story" is the notion that magnetism is the driving force of any of these process. We point Rhessi and Fermi at Earth and we see gamma rays from "discharges" in the Earth's atmosphere. We point exactly the same equipment at the solar atmosphere and you claim "magnetic reconnection did it". Baloney. That's the fairy story of the century. Discharges did it, which is why none of you *EVER* touch Bruce's material. It evidently scares the hell out of you.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I don't know what that movie is showing me because I don't have a clue how it was developed or what it's supposed to represent. What are the arrows, field orientations?
Click to expand...

Are the while lines in that movie reconnecting? Yes or no?

Until you answer that (with a simple yes or a no) we're at an impasse. There's no point at all in continuing if you won't acknowledge even the most basic facts about what's in front of your face.
 
tusenfem said:
Hi Sol!

Just in case, a magnetic rope is a flux tube, which carries a current along its core field. This current, setting up a toroidal magnetic field (as required by Maxwell) twists the field lines of the flux tube, such that instead of straight, the now resemble twisted twine, like a rope.

Now, what is seen in the laboratory is that these ropes can interact (see e.g. Intrator et al., Nature-Physics, 2009) and reconnection can occur only because the fields are wound and thus locations of opposite field are present. But sometimes nothing happens, and the tubes just bounce (which was something new, from this very interesting setup). However, it is not a "short circuit" as MM likes to claim, because both ropes have the same potential difference from anode to cathode, and a short circuit happens because another way "is easier to get to the goal." But I guess you know that.

Oh, and by the way, forget the fairy story about the plasma ball.
Click to expand...

Thanks Tus!
 
sol invictus said:
Are the while lines in that movie reconnecting? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

In the movie? Sure. Nobody doubts that the topology of the magnetic ropes change over time. The fact you simulate something in software is not the same as "testing" your theory in a lab. In the lab, nothing interacts in 2D, and "currents" flow through those current carrying tubes.

Can those same formulas be converted to an E orientation of MHD theory (if not by me, by someone), yes or no? In your opinion, why did Alfven prefer to use the E orientation in all "current carrying" plasma interactions? How is this physical process any different than a short circuit and topology change of two "circuits"?
 
Michael Mozina said:
In the movie? Sure. Nobody doubts that the topology of the magnetic ropes change over time. The fact you simulate something in software is not the same as "testing" your theory in a lab. In the lab, nothing interacts in 2D, and "currents" flow through those current carrying tubes.
Click to expand...
You arre really ignorant, Michael Mozina, or just a liar since we have seen you state this nonsense before
.
Magnetic reconnection is measured in laboratory experiments.
The simulations are tested in the laboratory experiments.
The Magnetic Reconnection Experiment
The Swarthmore Spheromak Experiment
etc.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's nothing "new", they magnetically "repel" each other for goodness sake. Sometimes they generate "induction" in the other "circuit" too. Sometimes they "short circuit" and their topology changes over time.
Click to expand...

NO, apparently you don't read the paper. The currents in both ropes are parallel, so the naturally attract. Or did Alfven get this wrong in his books?


Discharges did it, which is why none of you *EVER* touch Bruce's material. It evidently scares the hell out of you.
Click to expand...

Who the frak is bruce? Batman?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, you guys really need to start putting up a consistent story here about 'magnetic reconnection'. It looks like "null points be damned" with this crowd.
Click to expand...

Dude, you don't even understand the basics of plasma physics, flux tubes, flux ropes etc. In this case I don't even bother with reconnection anymore. I first need to see you show how your magic electrons can create the field that they are flowing along. Not that I will hold my breath, because by the time you really answer a question I'd have suffocated a dozen times at least.

The current *FORMS* the tube because the current creates the magnetic field! You act like the magnetic field is simply hanging there in space in dense, non-moving plasma. That's not the case at all! The "current flow" (of the tube, and through the tube) generate the magnetic fields. The magnetic and electric fields wind around in a Birkeland current. It's not a 'magnetically driven' process, it's an "discharge" process as Bruce noted 60 years ago. You guys won't even touch Bruce's material.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
Click to expand...

No, the current *CANNOT* form the tube. The magnetic flux tube *IS THERE ALREADY* like this paper that you seem to like so much where they clearly state that only when the footpoints of the loop move an electric field is generated that creates current flow along the loop. I discussed that paper here in post 257 explained on page 5 of that paper. However, you did not bother to read my summary of that paper, you lots interest after my first paragraph. Not that I care, actually.

Ah that website with "bruce". First of all I notice that there is no mention of flux tube or magnetic loop at all on that page. And of course his observations stem from ~1948, when they had exquisite observational tools. Let's keep that page out for now, when I find the time I might comment on it, but I am sure someone already has.

So please show me where Alfven shows in his books or papers that these electrons that suddenly start to flow create the guide field of the flux tube that they are flowing along. *IT IS AGAINST MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS*.
 
Michael Mozina said:
In the movie? Sure. Nobody doubts that the topology of the magnetic ropes change over time.
Click to expand...

Those are not magnetic ropes, those are magnetic field lines.

So you agree that in simulations of Maxwell's equations in plasma, magnetic reconnection occurs (and by the way, the same happens in 3D, as for example the explicit analytic solution I quoted shows).

What's next? You don't think the simulation or the solution is correct? You don't think Maxwell's equations are the correct description of EM phenomena?
 
Tim Thompson said:
See my post dated June 2009: Bruce, discharge, gamma rays, solar electric & magnetic fields. Bruce thought that the energy in the photosphere was generated by dust grains colliding, which also generated large static charge separation. It was then, and is now, a really stupid idea.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Tim, I was sure someone had written something about that page.
I printed "the bruce page" out, that is easier to read than a screen, maybe I will make some comments later, not that I think MM will do anything with those possible comments.
 
Last edited:
Sweet-Parker reconnection

Michael Mozina said:
Ya, you guys really need to start putting up a consistent story here about 'magnetic reconnection'. It looks like "null points be damned" with this crowd.
Click to expand...
Your ignorance is showing again. You insist that magnetic reconnection cannot be possible, yet you do not even know what it is. Worse, you don't even care that you don't know. Like I said before, read the book: Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications; Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

OK, we already know you won't read it. But if you were to read it, you would find that null point reconnection is only one of many different ways that magnetic fields reconnect. For instance, the Sweet-Parker mechanism is one of the most common modes of reconnection in plasma physics, and it involves no null points. It is also verified in controlled laboratory experiments (i.e., Hantao, et al., 1998; Sun, et al., 2008; Intrator, et al., 2008). The Sweet-Parker mechanism is also consistent with observations of the solar chromosphere (i.e., Litvinenko & Chae, 2009). Sweet-Parker reconnection is what happens when magnetic fields of opposite direction come together in a non-turbulent regime, on opposite sides of a current sheet.

Of course, you will reject all of the laboratory experiments, and all of the astronomical observations, without ever reading or considering any of them. After all, the conclusions disagree with your own personal prejudice, so they are obviously quite impossible, even when they actually happen. But you never know, this kind of information might be interesting to somebody out there.
 
Tim Thompson said:
Your ignorance is showing again. You insist that magnetic reconnection cannot be possible,
Click to expand...

No, that is not my position Tim. My position is that you are "short circuiting" two "circuits" in plasma and calling it "magnetic reconnection" only because you converted all the E's to B's! The process occurs in nature Tim, it's just a "circuit topology change" from the E orientation of MHD theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom