Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

[Michael Mozina]

Magnetic reconnection requires oppositely directed magnetic fields. Parallel magnetic fields cannot reconnect.

These aren't sterile magnetic lines. These are two current carrying filaments moving in opposite directions. When/if they touch, the 'circuits' can change topology, but that change is circuit topology has nothing to with "magnetic lines" disconnecting or reconnecting to any other magnetic lines. It's a short circuit between two current carrying 'circuits' of energy.

The only thing "disconnecting" and "reconnecting" are the two "circuits". You have particle collisions at the point where the two filaments twist together, and no doubt some induction between circuits. There's nothing mysterious going on in the plasma, you're just using the wrong boundary condition from the start, using the wrong orientation B vs. E and confusing terms in the process.

That first paper is really well written Tim. You really need to sit down and read it. Alfven was somewhat terse in his examples and short on satellite image verification. That paper ties the observational data to the circuit oriented approach and does so quite elegantly. I think you really need to think about what a 'magnetic rope" actually is. It's nothing more than a current carrying plasma filament, a scaled up cousin of the same sort of plasma filament inside an ordinary plasma ball. The "circuit energy" does the work and creates the "magnetic lines/circuits" that "reconnect". Electricity is driving the parade Tim, even in mainstream theory since even mainstream theory attributes the power source of the field to electrical currents under the photosphere.

The whole thing is an "ELECTROmagnetic" process, not some sterile "magnetic" process. There are charged particles in the form of electrons flowing through both circuits. When the ropes "reconnect", all hell breaks loose for awhile until the electron streams reorient themselves and find a path of less resistance through the plasma and form a new topology of filament channels in the process.

You're evidently in denial of the validity of the E field orientation here Tim, but Alfven was right, and you were wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Again "magnetic attraction/repulsion" is not referred to as magnetic reconnection by anyone but you.

Your example is simply an example of magnetic attraction and repulsion between magnetic fields, nothing more.

In fact I have specifically stated that the "magnetic attraction/repulsion" in the examples I have given.......

So it *IS* magnetic attraction at work in your examples?

.......is not the magnetic reconnections of those examples.

Huh? Which is it? Is it magnetic attraction/repulsion or magnetic reconnection in your examples?

So anytime that you are done wasting your own time dragging around you strawmen, we can actually discuss the reconnections.

I have no idea how to even respond to you on this topic at this point. From my perspective you keep vacillating back and forth on where you stand and what strawmen you think I've created related to your position. Your sentences seem to to self conflicted so I'm thoroughly confused about what you're trying to say now.

Your example has nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection" in plasma. It's simply an example of magnetic attraction and magnetic repulsion between solid magnets. Unless the magnets themselves "reconnect", nothing reconnects. The term "reconnection" on your part is purely arbitrary and has nothing at all to do with the process you described involving magnetic attraction and repulsion and the storage and release of energy via that process. No "reconnection" ever occurs since we can measure the field both before and afterwords and they are exactly the same, and no worse for wear due to any sort of "reconnection" to anything.

 

[CaveDave]

On this particular topic I don't deny the math or the physical process has merit, I simply doubt that it's any different than an ordinary "circuit" processes in plasma or different from ordinary induction. The other side seems to be the one in denial that these events could even be related to "circuits".

1) ISTR that several others have explicitly stated that there are some cases where transforming between Magnetic and Electric P.O.V. is possible and can yield equivalent results, but that there are often more difficulties in solvinv the Electric form. Tim Thompson posted in #390 in this thread the problems with boundary conditions of circuits in Alfven's book. You might read it again. As I read others' responses, induction induction can only account for some of the energy transfer: if there is no/insufficient plasma current, the field still can transfer energy as it reconfigures.*

You mean like how you criticize a "circuit" approach even though Alfven himself did it, and Birkeland physically and empirically demonstrated it in a lab with spheres in a vacuum?

See 1) above

Did you guys even do any lab work that didn't use current carrying filaments to "reconnect"?

2) I don't know, ask the ones who work is the field, who have been arguing with you.

Like the Geemack, DRD, liar, liar pant's on fire approach to science from your side of the aisle? Please! You don't even have a leg to stand on. I can't even get DRD to read Alfven's work after what now, 4 years of playing pseudoskeptic?

3) I don't know about Geemack, but I suspect that DRD probably has at least a working knowledge of it.

Does Geemack even post without an hominem or personal attack?

4) His post #388 above seems to be mostly on point, though the checkbook crack was unnecessary.

Your behavior and attitude since you first showed up has worn many members' patience thin; you brought it on yourself.

I could speak volumes here about he anti-EU crowd's approach to science, but why bother. This thread is full of many such examples.

5) From the first time I saw you posting here, you have been ridiculing and denigrating mainstream science and it's practitioners; pots and kettles, I think.

You mean how you never demonstrated "magnetic reconnection" could occur naturally in the absence "electrical discharges"? I don't think there was a single "experiment" on Tim's entire list of papers that didn't involve "current flow" through plasma filaments that "reconnect", with no regard to the electrical current involved in the process.

6) That is far above my pay grade, but, ISTR others having said that currents may be present, but insufficient to account for the energy released.*

Well, alright. We're probably all guilty of that one depending on which side of the aisle you happen to be on.

7) Possibly.

Well, I did provide that list of papers related to modern satellite evidence so you really have nothing to bitch about, particularly in this thread.

8) Perhaps not, in this thread.

Define "empirical evidence". We have empirical evidence that discharges in the Earth's atmosphere produce gamma rays and x-rays from plasma in the Earth's atmosphere. We point Rhessi and Fermi at such events and observe such emissions. We then point the same exact gear at the solar atmosphere, observe the same gamma rays, and your side claims the most "plausible" explanation is "magnetic reconnection"? What empirical evidence supports that assertion?

9) Above my pay grade, again. Try asking the others.

I never actually "dismissed" the process, I simply dismissed a piss poor labeling system to describe that process.

10) Seems to me that you and a small handful of fellow travelers want the entire Physics and Astronomy community to change their nomenclature to suit you; it might be simpler for you to do the changing.

That doesn't seem to apply here since both sides seem to believe their claims are testable, and even I would say there has to be a physical way to settle this debate. I can't think of how to do that yet since none of you seem to be able to describe what is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection" compared to something more ordinary, like particle collisions in current carrying plasma and induction.

11) Perhaps. Maybe it is yet another case of incompatible terminology. Ask the others.

Again, I'm not sure that applies well to this argument.

12) Maybe not in this case. Remember, I didn't create the list.

Please. I can't tell you have many times you folks stand on an appeal to authority fallacy. I'm probably guilty of that one by mentioning Alfven's stand on this topic however, so sue me.

13) Don't forget your other demigods, e.g., Birkeland.

I guess as you get older you don't quite see "truth" in quite the same way as you did as a child. There are some things however that can be empirically demonstrated, and some that cannot.

14) True.

Define "reputable journal". I've provided plenty of published material to support my case.

15) Published is one thing, widely read and/or cited by those in the trade/community is another.

Inapplicable from my perspective since I'm not dependent upon the outcome of this conversation in any monetary way. I don't know who here might fall into such a category.

You can't blame me for that one, though I thing that criticism about using too many quotes had some validity.

16) I specifically excluded you from those two:

All of which (except maybe the last two) have been abundantly evident in MM's posts from the first time I saw him here; ...

-------------

* -- @ TT, RC, Tusenfem, SI, or others: Please correct me if I misstated any of that.

Cheers,

Dave

 

[Michael Mozina]

1) ISTR that several others have explicitly stated that there are some cases where transforming between Magnetic and Electric P.O.V. is possible and can yield equivalent results, but that there are often more difficulties in solvinv the Electric form.

IMO, the mathematical difficulty is irrelevant. That paper I cited earlier demonstrates that it can be done, and it can be done with relevant satellite data. A "magnetic rope" is nothing more than a current carrying plasma filament.

Tim Thompson posted in #390 in this thread the problems with boundary conditions of circuits in Alfven's book. You might read it again.

You might read my response again too. Alfven specifically talked about boundary conditions and intentionally chose to use an E field orientation in all current carrying, plasma. He spends most of the first part of his book explaining the various reasons why that makes sense.

The sun spews high velocity charged particles at over a million miles per hour. Nowhere in the solar atmosphere is Curl B = 0, and therefore the environment itself violates Alfven's conditional requirement.

As I read others' responses, induction induction can only account for some of the energy transfer: if there is no/insufficient plasma current, the field still can transfer energy as it reconfigures.*

Induction really doesn't have to account for hardly any of the actual energy transfer. Most of that energy release is directly related to the short circuit process between the two circuits. Any transfer of energy from the field to the charged particles themselves is properly called "induction".

See 1) above

See my response to Tim.

2) I don't know, ask the ones who work is the field, who have been arguing with you.

Okey, dokey, fair enough.

3) I don't know about Geemack, but I suspect that DRD probably has at least a working knowledge of it.

Both of them engage in personal attack rather than focusing on the issues/ideas being presented.

4) His post #388 above seems to be mostly on point, though the checkbook crack was unnecessary.

If you review a couple dozen of his posts, you'll find he almost always stuffs in the term "crackpot' or something aimed at the individual rather than the ideas being debated. The anti-EU crowd is nasty and they don't debate fairly.

Your behavior and attitude since you first showed up has worn many members' patience thin; you brought it on yourself.

No, not the personal attacks. I'm certainly guilty of using loaded language at times to attack an "IDEA", but I don't run around as a rule attacking people the way DRD does, and way GM does. I can appreciate the fact I've worn people's patience thin, but only because they're attached to their own belief system, and ideas that are hard to empirically justify. Is that really my fault?

5) From the first time I saw you posting here, you have been ridiculing and denigrating mainstream science and it's practitioners; pots and kettles, I think.

I've been mostly ridiculing the *IDEAS* that the mainstream put's forth, not generally the people themselves. I do however have a bad habit of taking broad swings at times, but I have tried to attack idea rather than individuals.

6) That is far above my pay grade, but, ISTR others having said that currents may be present, but insufficient to account for the energy released.*

But this paper demonstrates that it can and does account for the energy. That belief of yours/theirs is simply false and has been demonstrated to be false.

10) Seems to me that you and a small handful of fellow travelers want the entire Physics and Astronomy community to change their nomenclature to suit you; it might be simpler for you to do the changing.

Their nomenclature is completely incompatible with other branches of science. Why would someone intentionally chose a nomenclature that creates an oxymoron of a term like "magnetic reconnection"? Magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum. They cannot and do not disconnect from other magnetic lines. Alfven clearly explained that "circuits" provide a more natural and scientifically compatible (with other branches of science) way of looking at the energy transfer process. We can call it "circuit reconnection" and be congruent with electrical engineering principles, or we can call it something it's not, specifically "magnetic line reconnection".

These are not simple magnetic lines. These are current carrying filaments in plasma. The current flow streams change their topology over time. The magnetic fields come along for the ride, but that topology change has nothing to do with individual field lines "reconnecting". There are charged particles inside the plasma that "reconnect". There are circuits that "Reconnect". The magnetic lines do not 'reconnect". Their nomenclature is both irrational and misleading.

Since their verbiage is inconsistent with other whole branches of physics, it makes more sense for them to change rather than the whole field of electrical engineering.

16) I specifically excluded you from those two:

Thanks.

 

[brantc]

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.

You dont get it. Why does there have to be cathode ray tubes on the sun to express a physical principle??? That is a straw man.

An electron beam is the result of electric field acceleration. Yes or no?

Do you know of any other way to create an ELECTRON BEAM??

So now taking this information, if I see an electron beam I say "Hey, there must be an electric field"!

That is called pure science because you are not letting your preconceived notions of the sun color your knowledge of laboratory physics.

There is no doubt that magnetic fields accelerate electrons. But they certainty dont do it as efficiently as electric fields, i.e. they dont produce BEAMS of electrons, or relativistic electrons..

Not only that, you can tell its a magnetic field doing the work because of the gyro motion of the electrons.

I will answer the other questions this weekend.

 

[tusenfem]

Not only that, you can tell its a magnetic field doing the work because of the gyro motion of the electrons.

Ofcourse, the magnetic field does NO work, as the Lorentz force is perpendicular to the direction of motion of the electron, and thus, per definition no work is done, just like gravity from the sun does no work on the planets.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Like the Geemack, DRD, liar, liar pant's on fire approach to science from your side of the aisle? Please! You don't even have a leg to stand on. I can't even get DRD to read Alfven's work after what now, 4 years of playing pseudoskeptic?

3) I don't know about Geemack, but I suspect that DRD probably has at least a working knowledge of it.

[...]

What I, DRD, have a working knowledge of - or what I don't have a working knowledge of - is utterly irrelevant.

MM has demonstrated - over several years, many thousand posts, in several different internet discussion fora - an almost total inability to discuss any aspect of physics, cosmology, or astronomy, where such discussion requires an acceptance of the quantitative nature of these fields^.

That by itself doesn't warrant putting him on permanent ignore, however.

That MM has a highly idiosyncratic, internally inconsistent, and - ultimately - non-scientific - approach to discussions of physics, cosmology, and astronomy is abundantly clear^^. This approach makes any discussion with him incredibly difficult ... but it is his point-blank refusal to even try to work on a common basis for meaningful communication that, IMHO, makes exchanging posts with him a total waste of time.

Recently sol wrote this (speaking to MM): "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."

I think that's a good summary.

^ there is an over-abundance of evidence to support this; some examples: posts on the Casimir effect, the nature of the solar wind and the relevance of Birkeland's terrella experiments to understanding it, and the history of experimental tests of Newton's law of universal gravitation
^^ just two examples (there are many): "empirical", and his use of double quotes

 

[DazzaD]

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

One might turn that on its head and say theories of the universe and cosmology might be better understood by astronomers than electrical engineers.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

You're a rare bird Z, a real scream.

Do you remember, several pages ago in this thread, that you stated "Thanks tim, but if you could answer each of the questions in the OP I think that would resolve any issues far quicker than your long posts summarizing the theory"?

And do you recall that I replied to this, as follows: "Funny, I thought that the questions in the OP were each answered! Which questions do you feel have not been answered, Z? What parts of the answers given by various folk (tusenfem, sol, Zig, ...) did you not understand?"

And you responded, before now, exactly how, Z?

Now, let me try this: would you please repeat "the last few questions", the ones you feel have "certainly not" been answered?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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

One might turn that on its head and say theories of the universe and cosmology might be better understood by astronomers than electrical engineers.

This is an excellent example of the idiosyncratic nature of MM's approach to physics, cosmology, and astronomy, that I referred to in an earlier post.

What are "EU theories"?

Attempts by many people, over many years, in many fora, to get a clear answer to that question have largely failed.

In MM's case, what these actually are seems to vary quite a lot ... and in any case, there seems to be no consistent, scientific, basis for classifying them as scientific.

Finally, irrespective of whether any body of work can be better appreciated "by someone that understand circuit theory", that set of people does not include MM (who manifestly does not understand circuit theory beyond the word-picture level).

 

[The Man]

Your example is simply an example of magnetic attraction and repulsion between magnetic fields, nothing more.

Nope, they all involve magnetic reconnection

So it *IS* magnetic attraction at work in your examples?

I have always asserted “magnetic attraction at work in” my examples, I have also specifically explained that magnetic reconnection is also involved in those examples and is not “magnetic attraction at work”.

Huh? Which is it? Is it magnetic attraction/repulsion or magnetic reconnection in your examples?

See above and also my previous posts.

I have no idea how to even respond to you on this topic at this point. From my perspective you keep vacillating back and forth on where you stand and what strawmen you think I've created related to your position. Your sentences seem to to self conflicted so I'm thoroughly confused about what you're trying to say now.

No MM you’re the only one who keeps vacillating and is “self conflicted“. Are you confusing yourself with someone else again? First it was “magnet reconnection”, but not magnetic reconnection, so apparently you do not consider magnets to be magnetic. Then you claimed the fields could reconnect, but only if the magnets touch, so magnets are back to being magnetic, but apparently only when touching. Now your positing the strawman that magnetic reconnection is just “magnetic attraction/repulsion” which it specifically is not.

Your example has nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection" in plasma. It's simply an example of magnetic attraction and magnetic repulsion between solid magnets. Unless the magnets themselves "reconnect", nothing reconnects. The term "reconnection" on your part is purely arbitrary and has nothing at all to do with the process you described involving magnetic attraction and repulsion and the storage and release of energy via that process. No "reconnection" ever occurs since we can measure the field both before and afterwords and they are exactly the same, and no worse for wear due to any sort of "reconnection" to anything.

They certainly have a lot to do with magnetic reconnection in plasma, as they are specifically about magnetic reconnection. In the magnet (magnetic domain) A, B and C example, the initial condition was that the field of A is connected to the field of B but not C. While in the finial condition the field of A is connected to the field of C but not B. So as expressed in that example we can measure and map those initial and final fields and see that they are indeed different as A has reconnected from B to C. You can do these or similar experiments in your own home with some magnets and iron fillings to see that reconnection.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is an excellent example of the idiosyncratic nature of MM's approach to physics, cosmology, and astronomy, that I referred to in an earlier post.

What are "EU theories"?

They are theories that combine GR and/or MHD theory to objects in space without being limited to a B only orientation. Here's one such example:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

Concise enough for you? Care to comment on the paper?

 

[Michael Mozina]

One might turn that on its head and say theories of the universe and cosmology might be better understood by astronomers than electrical engineers.

You could say that, but then they're still baffled by something as simple as solar wind acceleration, something Birkeland both predicted *and simulated* in a lab over 100 years ago. I think an electrical engineer is in order.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're a rare bird Z, a real scream.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read Cosmic Plasma yet?

 

[GeeMack]

You could say that, but then they're still baffled by something as simple as solar wind acceleration, something Birkeland both predicted *and simulated* in a lab over 100 years ago. I think an electrical engineer is in order.

And you're still wrong to blame Birkeland for your gross misunderstanding of solar physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And you're still wrong to blame Birkeland for your gross misunderstanding of solar physics.

How did you even address my point? You're pathetic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope, they all involve magnetic reconnection

No, they don't "reconnect". Your simply tossing around the word "reconnect" haphazardly. Noting actually "reconnects". You're improperly using the term. The only thing happening is magnetic attraction and magnetic repulsion.

I have always asserted “magnetic attraction at work in” my examples, I have also specifically explained that magnetic reconnection is also involved in those examples and is not “magnetic attraction at work”.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The attraction is real. The "reconnection" is not real. If we pull the magnets back apart the field is exactly as it was before.

They certainly have a lot to do with magnetic reconnection in plasma, as they are specifically about magnetic reconnection. In the magnet (magnetic domain) A, B and C example, the initial condition was that the field of A is connected to the field of B but not C.

It's "attracted" to B, but not to C. You then physically moved the magnetic and changed the conditions and the attractions. It's not magnetic reconnection, it's magnetic attraction.

While in the finial condition the field of A is connected to the field of C but not B. So as expressed in that example we can measure and map those initial and final fields and see that they are indeed different as A has reconnected from B to C. You can do these or similar experiments in your own home with some magnets and iron fillings to see that reconnection.

All the filings demonstrate is the "magnetic attraction" or repulsion between the two fields. There will still be two distinct field sets observed in the filing pattern since your magnets never touch.

 

[GeeMack]

How did you even address my point? You're pathetic.

I addressed your point. You're wrong about your understanding of solar physics, and you're wrong about how Kristian Birkeland's work applies to your misunderstanding.

 

[The Man]

No, they don't "reconnect". Your simply tossing around the word "reconnect" haphazardly. Noting actually "reconnects". You're improperly using the term. The only thing happening is magnetic attraction and magnetic repulsion.

No you just keep tossing it around haphazardly, exemplified by your claim of a “magnet reconnection” that to you just isn’t magnetic. Are you confusing yourself with someone else again?

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The attraction is real. The "reconnection" is not real.

Magnetic attraction and magnetic reconnection are not mutually exclusive, you seem to be the only one with that misconception (quite deliberately I think).

If we pull the magnets back apart the field is exactly as it was before.

Are you now claiming that the fields reconfigure back to “exactly as it was before” “If we pull the magnets back apart”? How is that configuration different when the magnets are closer together?

It's "attracted" to B, but not to C. You then physically moved the magnetic and changed the conditions and the attractions. It's not magnetic reconnection, it's magnetic attraction.

Changing the conditions and the attractions as a result of the reconfiguring of the magnetic fields such that A was connected to B but not C and is now connected to C but not B, that is magnetic reconnection. In case you keep missing it the key part is, in your own words, “changed the conditions and the attractions” thus changing field configurations. In this case specifically involving field lines of A’s field disconnecting from B’s field and reconnecting to C’s field.

All the filings demonstrate is the "magnetic attraction" or repulsion between the two fields. There will still be two distinct field sets observed in the filing pattern since your magnets never touch.

No the fillings show the field configurations. A force between the magnets pulling them together demonstrates attraction, while a force between the magnets pushing them apart demonstrates repulsion. You can use the fillings to look at how the field configuration of attraction (the fields of the magnets being connected to each other) specifically differs from that of repulsion (the “two distinct field sets” you seem to remark to above). In the A, B, C example there is a distinct field set before and a distinctly different field set after A reconnects from B to C. Try it some time. Even if the magnets never touch they are still connected by the magnetic field (that is how you get the attraction). Are you now claiming that field lines from magnet (or magnetic domain) A do not connect to magnet (or magnetic domain) B or C when they are attracting, particularly at a distance? Is your claim that the magnets must touch in order for the field lines of one magnet to connect to another magnet particularly when they are attracting at a distance? Are you sure you actually understand magnets and magnetic fields?

 

[Zeuzzz]

I'd like to know from this publication where the energy was localized;

http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/adminstuff/webpubs/2007_np_236.pdf

The evidence for
crossing the ion diffusion region is the Hall magnetic and electric
fields. These results, combined with the fact that the reconnecting
current sheet is found in the turbulent terrestrial magnetosheath,
show, for the first time, in situ evidence of magnetic reconnection
in a turbulent plasma. We clearly show that reconnection acts
as an electromagnetic energy conversion mechanism as E ·j > 0,
in particular we prove that electromagnetic energy is dissipated
into heating of the turbulent plasma because the thermal energy
of the electrons is increased. We also show that magnetic
reconnection in turbulent plasma is fast. Our findings have
important implications for laboratory and astrophysical plasmas,
where magnetic reconnection and turbulence are ubiquitous and
turbulent reconnection should be common.

I wonder if they could detect all the surrounding hall currents that developed? I'd say the particles are getting accelerated close to the neutral point by a time varying electric current from the Hall current system.