Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

[Michael Mozina]

All forms of magnetic reconnection that Michael can't describe as "circuit reonnection" (whatever that is) are not magnetic reconnection, they're something else.

No, all forms of "magnetic attraction", "magnetic repulsion" and "induction" already have proper scientific names.

All forms of magnetic reconnection that Michael can describe as "circuit reconnection" aren't magnetic reconnection, they're "circuit reconnection".

Of course. Why would I intentionally use a label that was inconsistent with electrical engineering?

Never mind the fact that magnetic fields are reconnecting in all these examples, and he's even admitted that.

The frig magnet has nothing to do with "reconnection", just attraction/repulsion. Circuit reconnect. Magnetic lines just come along for the ride. They always form as a full continuum, without beginning, without end, without the ability to disconnect or reconnect. They just attract and repulse and induce "currents" in other "circuits".

 

[sol invictus]

No, all forms of "magnetic attraction", "magnetic repulsion" and "induction" already have proper scientific names.

The frig magnet has nothing to do with "reconnection", just attraction/repulsion. Circuit reconnect. Magnetic lines just come along for the ride. They always form as a full continuum, without beginning, without end, without the ability to disconnect or reconnect. They just attract and repulse and induce "currents" in other "circuits".

You're contradicting yourself. You already admitted magnetic field lines reconnect. Par for the course.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're contradicting yourself. You already admitted magnetic field lines reconnect. Par for the course.

Quote me. You seem to be ignoring the fact that "field lines" you're talking about are actually "current flows" in plasma. The only thing that "reconnects" are the "circuits" that formed the magnetic ropes in the first place.

 

[sol invictus]

Quote me.

It's a simulation of magnetic fields in plasma. The color is density, and the white lines are magnetic field lines. As you can see, the magnetic field lines are reconnecting.

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

In the movie? Sure. Nobody doubts that the topology of the magnetic ropes change over time.

---

You seem to be ignoring the fact that "field lines" you're talking about are actually "current flows" in plasma. The only thing that "reconnects" are the "circuits" that formed the magnetic ropes in the first place.

Wrong. Those lines are NOT current flows, they are magnetic field lines, and there is little or no current flowing along them. But you knew that (because I told you), and yet you agreed that the lines reconnect.

This is idiotic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

---


Wrong. Those lines are NOT current flows, they are magnetic field lines, and there is little or no current flowing along them. But you knew that (because I told you), and yet you agreed that the lines reconnect.

This is idiotic.

How many times have I complained about the fact that you folks can't tell a computer "simulation" from a real 'experiment" with actual control mechanisms? I said the magnetic field *TOPOLOGY* changes over time. That's nothing but a 2D simulation of a 3D process.

 

[sol invictus]

How many times have I complained about the fact that you folks can't tell a computer "simulation" from a real 'experiment" with actual control mechanisms? I said the magnetic field *TOPOLOGY* changes over time. That's nothing but a 2D simulation of a 3D process.

You're not qualified to comment.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're not qualified to comment.

I'm not qualified to comment on the difference between 2D and 3D?

 

[sol invictus]

I'm not qualified to comment on the difference between 2D and 3D?

No, certainly not (it's actually not at all a simple question, not that it matters for this). You're not qualified to comment on any topic in science as far as I can tell, least of all physics. And I don't mean in terms of diplomas or paper qualifications, I mean in terms of basic knowledge and comprehension.

You also don't behave like a normal person. Normal people don't troll internet message boards for years pretending to understand things they don't even have the most basic background knowledge of. That's why I advised you to seek help - I meant that sincerely. I think you're addicted to this, and I think it's probably very bad for you personally.

 

[Reality Check]

It's just that they publish stuff you don't like and won't read, and won't consider, is that it?

No.
I think the point is *NOT* that scientists distrust the papers published in IEEE.
I like the papers they publish and agree with many of them (or at least the abstracts since I do not have a subscription). I do not read them because this is a jorinal of electrical engeneerig and I am not an electrical engineer.

EU theories are typically "better" suited to be reviewed by someone that understand circuit theory. Astronomers seem to be oblivious to the concept.

EU theories are typically better reviewed by someone that has a knowledge of what the universe tells us about itself. That way they can catch basic mistakes like an plasma physicist thinking that spiral galaxies are actually spirals !

Astronomers seem to know a lot about something called electromagnetism.


Most EU theories are easily shown to be wrong by anyone with a little knowledge of physics, e.g. see

• Electric universe theories here where you will see a through debunking of the EU Iron Sun theory, craters are electrical discharge effects, etc.
• The Electric Comet theory where the EC proponents display their inability to understand that a measured density of ~0.6 g/cc for comets is less than a measured density of ~1.3 g/cc for asteroids.
• Plasma Cosmology Woo or Not where plasma cosmology turns out not to be woo but just non-science. PC turns out to be a collection of often mutually contradictory theories collected according to some undefined criteria.

There may be an EU theory out there that I have not seen and has actual science and evidence supporting it. If you know of one then a post in the Electric universe theories here thread would be nice. Try not to duplicate the EU theories already mentioned there.

 

[brantc]

I have no hostility toward IEEE (I wish I could afford a subscription), but it is, IMHO, in a different world from pure physics.

Cheers,

Dave

Sorry. I didnt understand the question.

I would have to agree with you whole heartedly~!!!

 

[Zeuzzz]

ok so Nereid/DRD said that all the questions in the OP were answered, I dont think they have been. Maybe the first few, certainly not the last few questions.

If anyone thinks otherwise linking me to all the answers, or answering the questions yourself, would be much appreciated.

 

[brantc]

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
I think there is some confusion between 2 different effects.

There are the cathode ray pencil straight beams that are the effects of electric field acceleration. Mostly electrons. Nothing to do with magnetic fields.
These have been noticed in the upper solar latitudes.

Then there are flux tubes which are flows of plasma which are the result of potential differences between areas in a plasma that is denser like at the solar equator. These generally are a twisted pair like the flux tube that lives on the day line in the magnetopause.

And the electric field comes from ...

Squirrels on a treadmill?? Why does it matter!?

The fact of the matter is that in a terrestrial laboratory(and your TV), a cathode ray beam or AKA electron beams, are formed by electric field acceleration.

They are accounted for experimentally, and now have been observed on the sun... Why would you say solar electron beams are not the result of an electric field?

Title: Solar Electron Beams Detected in Hard X-Rays and Radio Waves
Authors: Aschwanden, M. J., Benz, A. O., Dennis, B. R., & Schwartz, R. A.
Journal: Astrophysical Journal v.455, p.347
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1995ApJ...455..347A/0000347.000.html

If you are going to say they are not the result of electric fields then you need to come up with some other experimental mechanism.

Flux tubes may contain plasma flows. A flux tube is just a bundle of magnetic field lines B, nothing more nothing less, defined in such a way that a surface perpendicular to the field, which moves along the field lines, shrinks or stretches with the field lines, in such a way that the product BS remains constant. That is a flux tube, which may or may not contain plasma.

You can define it any way you want. To match reality it must be defined a certain way.

A flux tube contains no plasma when it is a mathematical equation on a computer.

The mathematical description of an existing "flux tube"(plasma column with attendant magnetic field) should always account for the plasma in a flux tube. Since the flux tube is formed by the energy of the particles(current makes magnetic field) flowing through it, whether it is dominated by the parallel component or the perpendicular component of the magnetic field.

You are giving a 'top down' description not a 'cause up' description.

 

[Reality Check]

ok so Nereid/DRD said that all the questions in the OP were answered, I dont think they have been. Maybe the first few, certainly not the last few questions.

If anyone thinks otherwise linking me to all the answers, or answering the questions yourself, would be much appreciated.

A)-E) and G) seem to have been answered. I cannot answer J).

F) Whether current disruption is a viable and less problematic alternative to magnetic reconnection in all situations. If not, why not, and under what circumstances.

No because the energy from current disruption is not comparable to the energy release seen in magnetic reconnection.

H) Which quantity (time-varying electric current or moving magnetic “lines”) causes energy release from the plasma.

None. The energy in magnetic reconenciton is released from the magnetic field.

I) Whether the Ej approach has any advantages over the Bu approach, and the differences between them in explaining the phenomenon called magnetic reconnection (current disruption in the former, and magnetic reconnection in the latter). Also which is primary of the two approaches may be a good idea, as this seems to be in dispute as well, but I'm fairly sure it has been shown that they are not equivalent in all respects, despite being derived from equivalent versions of maxwells equations. Which can be somewhat confusing.

I cannot answer this for magnetic reconneciton but in general a Ej aproach is much more complicated than a Bu approach as tusenfem stated.

The Ej approach is not current disruption AFAIK. The physical, observed situation is still magnetic reconnection - the math just changes.

 

[Reality Check]

Source for flux tube is formed by the energy of the particles flowing through it

The fact of the matter is that in a terrestrial laboratory(and your TV), a cathode ray beam or AKA electron beams, are formed by electric field acceleration.

The fact of the matter is that there are no cathode ray tubes on the Sun!
The fact of the matter is that electrons can be accelerated by magnetic fields as well as electric fields.

They are accounted for experimentally, and now have been observed on the sun... Why would you say solar electron beams are not the result of an electric field?

Title: Solar Electron Beams Detected in Hard X-Rays and Radio Waves
Authors: Aschwanden, M. J., Benz, A. O., Dennis, B. R., & Schwartz, R. A.
Journal: Astrophysical Journal v.455, p.347
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1995ApJ...455..347A/0000347.000.html

If you are going to say they are not the result of electric fields then you need to come up with some other experimental mechanism.

Firstly this is a 1995 paper (not "now") and they are not announcing the discovery of electron beams. Thus the observation was common then.

The other experimental mechanism is magnetic reconnection. I cannot find very many papers by searching on 'magnetic reconnection electron beam' in ADS (800 results) and ArXiv (8 results) but:
Solar flare electron acceleration: comparing theories and observations (2003)

You can define it any way you want. To match reality it must be defined a certain way.

To match reality a flux tube is defined as a tube of magnetic flux. It may or may not contain plasma. In solar physics a flux tube that contains plasma is called a coronal loop.

A flux tube contains no plasma when it is a mathematical equation on a computer.

And a flux tube contains plasma when it is a mathematical equation on a computer simulating a flux tube containing plasma.

The mathematical description of an existing "flux tube"(plasma column with attendant magnetic field) should always account for the plasma in a flux tube. Since the flux tube is formed by the energy of the particles(current makes magnetic field) flowing through it, whether it is dominated by the parallel component or the perpendicular component of the magnetic field.

You are giving a 'top down' description not a 'cause up' description.

The 'cause up' description starts with the generation of magnetic flux in the Sun's inner body as already described.

First asked 4 February 2010
My impression was that a magetic flux tube cannot be generated by an current flowing through it.
brantc,
Please cite your source (the textbook you found this in would be good) for "the flux tube is formed by the energy of the particles (current makes magnetic field) flowing through it"

First asked 4 February 2010
brantc,
Please cite your source for your assertion that all flux tubes contain plasma.

N.B. Coronal loop

A closed fieldline does not constitute a coronal loop however, closed flux must be filled with plasma before it can be called a coronal loop. With this in mind it becomes clear that coronal loops are a rarity on the solar surface as the majority of closed flux structures are empty.

No citation though.

 

[Tubbythin]

If you are going to say they are not the result of electric fields then you need to come up with some other experimental mechanism.

Regardless of whether anyone can come up an alternative or not, the above is just wrong. In order to disprove one theory for a given phenomenon, there is absolutely no requirement that an alternative be provided. The only requirement is that the predictions of the original theory are shown to be inconsistent with the data. Obviously an alternative theory would be nice, but a scientific theory stands or falls on its own merits, not on the existence or otherwise of other theories.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, certainly not (it's actually not at all a simple question, not that it matters for this). You're not qualified to comment on any topic in science as far as I can tell, least of all physics. And I don't mean in terms of diplomas or paper qualifications, I mean in terms of basic knowledge and comprehension.

You also don't behave like a normal person. Normal people don't troll internet message boards for years pretending to understand things they don't even have the most basic background knowledge of. That's why I advised you to seek help - I meant that sincerely. I think you're addicted to this, and I think it's probably very bad for you personally.

The only thing I'm "addicted" to is empirical physics sol. The only reason you're getting so huffy and puffy is because you can't empirically justify your belief system so you're taking it out on me.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No.
I think the point is *NOT* that scientists distrust the papers published in IEEE.
I like the papers they publish and agree with many of them (or at least the abstracts since I do not have a subscription). I do not read them because this is a jorinal of electrical engeneerig and I am not an electrical engineer.

Ya, and that's the basic problem RC. You're trying to figure out the physical processes of an electric universe without the qualifications necessary to figure it out, and with the attitude that whatever the cause, it absolutely can't be electricity. It is any wonder the EU crowd prefers to publish their work with someone that actually understands the material?

EU theories are typically better reviewed by someone that has a knowledge of what the universe tells us about itself. That way they can catch basic mistakes like an plasma physicist thinking that spiral galaxies are actually spirals !

If your industry didn't make up so many irrational, self serving labels, it wouldn't be such a pain in the butt understanding what you're talking about. If you used terms like "circuits" as Alfven did, electrical engineers might have a clue what your talking about. When you use terms like 'magnetic reconnection', you make every electrical engineer on the planet go "huh"? "Belching black holes?" Really? Is it any wonder that other scientists don't have a clue what you're talking about?

Astronomers seem to know a lot about something called electromagnetism.

Not as far as I can tell. You folks seem to know something about 'magnetism", but what little you seem to know about magnetism you use like a sledgehammer to attempt to explain everything in space with simple 'magnetism". You don't seem to have any clue about ELECTROmagnetism, and current carrying plasmas, in fact you seem to have significant chip on your shoulder to even entertaining the notion of "current flows" in space plasmas. You point Rhessi and Fermi and Earth and see gamma rays from "discharges' in the Earth's atmosphere. You point the same equipment at the solar atmosphere, observe the same gamma ray signatures in the solar atmosphere and call it "magnetic reconnection". Hoy. And you wonder why the EU crowd prefers to deal with people that actually understand ELECTROmagnetism?

Most EU theories are easily shown to be wrong by anyone with a little knowledge of physics, e.g. see

Only in your dreams....

Show me even a half dozen *CURRENT FLOW* (electric field) oriented papers published in any mainstream publication in the 21st century? You don't have any knowledge about "physics" because you never publish anything related to physics. In fact you folks do not even do "empirical physics" You play with metaphysical fudge factors stuffed into a GR theory and fancy yourselves as "experts" on physics. You're clueless about empirical physics IMO. I don't blame anyone at all in the EU field for preferring to deal with a IEEE publication.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No because the energy from current disruption is not comparable to the energy release seen in magnetic reconnection.

Pure denial.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy.

None. The energy in magnetic reconenciton is released from the magnetic field.

That's called induction. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection".

I cannot answer this for magnetic reconneciton but in general a Ej aproach is much more complicated than a Bu approach

So what? The E (particle/circuit) orientation of MHD theory is still just as valid as the B orientation. The problem with you guys is you only do one orientation, so everything seems "magnetic" to you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

They are accounted for experimentally, and now have been observed on the sun... Why would you say solar electron beams are not the result of an electric field?

Title: Solar Electron Beams Detected in Hard X-Rays and Radio Waves
Authors: Aschwanden, M. J., Benz, A. O., Dennis, B. R., & Schwartz, R. A.
Journal: Astrophysical Journal v.455, p.347
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1995ApJ...455..347A/0000347.000.html

It doesn't matter how many empirical experiments you perform, or how many observations support the idea. The only thing that is important to this crowd is denying the viability of *ANY* EU oriented theory, so forget the empirical experimental facts and observational data, they aren't even interested in them.

 

[CaveDave]

Sorry. I didnt understand the question.

I would have to agree with you whole heartedly~!!!

Looking back at my first post, perhaps I made the statement harsher than I should have (having just read several pages of bickering over terminology and viewpoint distinctions). In a less peevish mood I might have been gentler.

There are hundreds if not thousands of journals, and no busy researcher can afford to keep up with more than a precious few. The handful they choose to follow tend to be ones sharply focused on their field and have editorial policies they can trust without question.

Cheers,

Dave