Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

[GeeMack]

Michael...

Birkeland did not model the sun with the loops you are so fond of, but the Kronian rings.
Solar loops are NOT discharges, but evidently you don't understand how discharges work.

Again, Birkeland did not predict that the coronal loops of the Sun were electrical discharges. And even if he had, as you continue to insist, that would mean he was completely, totally, 100%, and without any doubt in the mind of every professional physicist on the planet, WRONG.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let's go through the list and look at the facts:

A) The temperatures associated with these events.
B) The speed of propagation of the event which Bruce demonstrated in the 50's.
C) The "looping nature" of the discharges themselves as Birkeland actually *predicted* (real empirical predictions too, not your fudge factor, after the fact stuff) over 100 years ago.
D) produce x-rays galore
E) produce gamma rays "naturally" in our own atmosphere.

Nothing on this list of key solar atmospheric observations has ever been produced, nor will it ever be produced in a real lab on Earth via "magnetic reconnection". Even the physical claims of producing "magnetic reconnection' in the lab require the presence of "current flow" as two different "circuits". The whole process is completely dependent upon "current flow" through plasma. No current flow, no "magnetic reconnection".

Nothing, not one thing on this list can be empirically linked to 'magnetic reconnection', whereas every single item on that list has been empirically linked (cause/effect) to "electrical discharges".

That's the ugly fact that none of you want to face.

 

[Tubbythin]

You're just being difficult because you can't demonstrate your case in a real science experiment. When did "magnetic reconnection' ever heat plasma to a million degrees in a controlled experiments. Since you won't answer the question directly, let me do it for you. The correct answer is 'NEVER'. It's never been demonstrated.

How would you know? You have no idea what a controlled experiment is. You said the dark matter detectors, some of the most finely controlled experiments in history, had no control mechanisms.

Likewise you skipped that step of empirically linking (cause/effect) "magnetic reconnection' and x-ray emissions. You can't demonstrate that wild claim either.

You can't demonstrate you understand what the word "empirical" means.

 

[Tubbythin]

That's the ugly fact that none of you want to face.

The ugly fact that you do not want to face is that the lab bares little resemblance to the Sun. Get over it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How would you know? You have no idea what a controlled experiment is. You said the dark matter detectors, some of the most finely controlled experiments in history, had no control mechanisms.

In neutrino experiments, not only could we tinker with shielding processes and removing false hits, we could turn on and off a known/theorized source of neutrinos to verify that the detection rate changed accordingly. How did you intend to do that with 'dark matter'? How did you intend to turn on and off a known/theorized" quantity of "dark matter" to verify that your detections are actually due to "dark matter' or something else? Without any control mechanisms, how can we ever be sure if the detection "hit" was related to "dark matter" or something else? Without a control mechanism, how is your whole experiment not a "argument of the gaps" circular feedback loop?

You can't demonstrate you understand what the word "empirical" means.

You're just whiny because you can't demonstrate your case with real control mechanisms.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The ugly fact that you do not want to face is that the lab bares little resemblance to the Sun. Get over it.

You just don't want to face the ugly fact that we can an do create situations in the lab that do occur in the sun's atmosphere. The whole point of fusion research on Earth is to harness a solar process.

 

[GeeMack]

You are the single least ethical individual I've ever met GR. You're nothing but a two bit verbal abuser with no desire at all to find 'truth". All you care about is playing the roll of personal (verbal) attack troll.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I predicted a tantrum. You threw one. Again. You do that when you can't answer the question. You've been doing it for years. Now how about you finally admit Birkeland didn't predict that coronal loops are electrical discharges.

I don't think you even make a post about me (even when I'm not part of discussion in fact) without using that term. You're like a parrot at this point.

Your notions are crackpot notions.

You mean you you twitched and flinched and never admitted that discharges are empirically linked to million degree plasmas?

No, I mean when asked to explain, quite nicely, as you said you could, how the "circuit/resistor" approach explains heating a coronal loop to millions of degrees, you bitched and threw a tantrum. You flinched and twitched. You pointed to some material that has nothing to do with coronal loop heating. You're a liar. You have never explained it. You can't.

You have empirical physics standing on it's head. Birkeland *EMPIRICALLY* predicted the arrangement, location, and pattern of these loops and explain the controlling factors for the different configurations that came from his experiments.

No, he did not. And not one single professional physicist on Earth agrees with you. You are wrong.

I'm damn tired of your "looks-like-an-invisible-math-bunny" brand of "virtual/pseudo science".

Michael, everyone is damned tired of your looks-like-a-bunny science. It's the stuff of grade school children. This is the real world where real physicists talk physics in the language of science, that being real numbers, quantitative explanations, supported by math.

It want to see your claims demonstrated in lab like Los Alamos demonstrated that discharges can heat plasma to millions of degrees. None of your silly "looks like a pretty math formula science" is going to cut it. Show me.

You're just going to ignore that whole list. You're going to ignore that I demonstrated that discharges heat plasma to millions of degrees and you're going to post more personal attack nonsense.

You're lying. You have never once demonstrated your claim that electrical discharges heat coronal loops to millions of degrees.

Oh, and get off the persecution kick, will you? I'm attacking your whacked out crackpot ideas. You just happen to be the container they reside in. Unlucky you.

You never did answer me about where that attitude of yours has gotten you in life, whether you were a petty tyrannical dictator in a dysfunctional organization, or whether you're perpetually unemployed? I tend to believe it's the latter.

And one more time, instead of taking the opportunity to explain your crackpot conjectures in real terms like a real scientist, you go off on a tear about being asked to support your crazy claims, and attack me personally. But I'm sure you feel better now that you've gotten all that hollering and whining out of your system.

And here's a thought. Instead of you continuing your off topic rants and tantrums about those crackpot solar conjectures (this is the magnetic reconnection thread, after all), how about you start a separate thread on that solid surface Sun crap? You can babble about it all you want and people can ridicule your crazy ideas there without derailing this thread for that purpose?

 

[Reality Check]

Do you understand that Birkeland's Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

Yet again with the pretty picture that reveals your inability to understand Birkeland's book as already pointed out to you for 8 months now in another thread (Is Saturn the Sun?).
This deserves to be a formal question in this thread too to make it easier to reply to this obsession with this picture

First asked 14 July 2009 (expanded on 9 March 2010)
Michael Mozina,
Do you understand that Birkeland's Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings?


Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun.

• The first image is Birkeland's attempt for an analogy of Saturn (fig. 247a). It is in visible light.
• The second image is a soft X-ray (not visible light) image of the Sun.

Birkeland obviously confuses Michael Mozina by starting section 128 (page 661) with a discussion of Saturn's rings so that Birkeland can then speculate about the Sun having the same ring-like structures.

We have already several times had occasion to give various particulars regarding the manner in \\ ch these experiments were carried out. It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe trt the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and di'uptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 2473 (which happens to be a unipolar di'harge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe
[Figures 247a and b]
be -educed (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly Hi; 247 b). It has been possible for the ring to develope in such a manner that it could easily be deincstrated by radiation on the most distant wall of my large vacuum-tube (see fig. 217). The correspondin; ring would then have a diameter of 70 cm., while the diameter of the globe was 8 cm.
It is a corresponding primary ring of radiant matter about the sun that in my opinion can give an efficient explanation of the various zodiacal light-phenomena. In the above-mentioned experiments, it seen how the rays from the polar regions bend down in a simple curve about the equatorial plane of ic globe, to continue their course outwards from the globe in the vicinity of this plane. An aureole is ^reby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly resnbling pictures of the sun's corona.

The absense of evidence for such a ring is one of the failed predictions in Birkeland's book. The fact that Saturn's rings have nothing at all to do with his experiments is another failed prediction. Basically the things Birkeland got right in his book were

• His theory for the Earth's aurora.
• His expectation that the solar wind would be electrons and ions.
• Observations about electrical discharges from metallic spheres in various magnetic fields created from electromagnets inside the spheres.

 

[Reality Check]

Boloney. Show me. Show me one physical demonstration where MR produced x-rays in a lab.

Ooo I can answer this!
There is a little thng called Google Michael Mozina. A few minutes gives this paper from the Department of Energy:
Observation of Suprathermal Electrons during Magnetic Reconection at the Sawtooth Instability in DIII-D Tokamak
The paper is about the association of bursts of x-rays with suprathermal electrons generated during reconnection of magnetic fields.

Of course your answer will be something like: It is not MR because MR cannot produce x-rays because MR does not exist because Michael Mozina says so.

ETA
Just for fun: Million degree plasma (almost) from magnetic reconnection!
D Reconnection and Flow Dynamics in the Ssx Experiment

Several new experimental results are reported from plasma merging studies at the Swarthmore Spheromak Experiment (SSX) with relevance to collisionless three-dimensional magnetic reconnection in laboratory and space plasmas. First, recent high-resolution velocity measurements of impurity ions using ion Doppler spectroscopy (IDS) show bi-directional outflow jets at 40 km/s (nearly the Alfven speed). The SSX IDS instrument measures with 1 μs or better time resolution the width and Doppler shift of the CIII impurity (H plasma) 229.7 nm line to determine the temperature and line-averaged flow velocity during spheromak merging events. High flow speeds are corroborated using an in situ Mach probe. Second, ion heating to nearly 10⁶ K is observed after reconnection events in a low-density kinetic regime.
...

 

[CaveDave]

You'll have to get Z to tell you what he meant by 'BAC tactics'.

If s/he would chime in, it might prove interesting.

Thank you for answering in the mean time.

You can, of course, search on that handle/user names, and you'll find lots of posts by this JREF member. Reading a random selection might give you an idea of what Z may have meant.

I have yet to have more than marginal luck with the forum search feature. Even looking for threads I posted in, I often get "No Matches" back.

Maybe I don't hold my mouth quite right.

For me, BAC provided an opportunity to have a discussion on the quantitative nature of Arp's claims concerning the improbability of alignment of quasars wrt galaxies*. Of course, this was BAC's own understanding, not Arp's, but at least he was willing to engage in a rational, quantitative, evidence-based discussion of this topic/question; in my experience this is exceedingly rare in internet discussion fora (not just about this particular thing, but non-standard aspects of contemporary astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology in general^). The result was, well, you get no prize for guessing correctly.

So, s/he was not spring-loaded to the "aggressively stupid" position like some I have observed.

* if you're interested, I could give you a link to the thread.

Please do.

^ the subset to do with fiercely defending or advocating such, not merely asking questions about; the latter are common, and almost always quite enjoyable

Cheers'

Dave

 

[Tubbythin]

In neutrino experiments, not only could we tinker with shielding processes and removing false hits, we could turn on and off a known/theorized source of neutrinos to verify that the detection rate changed accordingly. How did you intend to do that with 'dark matter'?

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about with respect to neutrinos... but "I" have no intention to turn on or off my source of dark matter. As I've explained before, control mechanisms take a number of forms. They include ways of removing or accounting for spurious counts in the data from signals that could potentially mimic those that you're trying to find. This is where dark matter searches are some of the most advanced in the world.

How did you intend to turn on and off a known/theorized" quantity of "dark matter" to verify that your detections are actually due to "dark matter' or something else?

I don't. Its not necessarily necessary.

Without any control mechanisms, how can we ever be sure if the detection "hit" was related to "dark matter" or something else?

We don't. That's why its a good job they are some of the most stringently controlled experiments in the world.

Without a control mechanism, how is your whole experiment not a "argument of the gaps" circular feedback loop?

There are loads of control mechanisms (some of which are pretty extreme). How many times do I have to repeat this? You are just highlighting time and again that you do not understand what a control mechanism is.

You're just whiny because you can't demonstrate your case with real control mechanisms.

This is hilarious. In this post I am responding to you have demonstrated that you do not understand what a control mechanism is. Multiple times.

 

[Tubbythin]

You just don't want to face the ugly fact that we can an do create situations in the lab that do occur in the sun's atmosphere. The whole point of fusion research on Earth is to harness a solar process.

What an excellent illustration of how flawed your argument is. Fusion on Earth is (in almost all cases) trying to fuse deuterium and tritium in a single step to make helium-4 plus a neutron.
Fusion in the Sun is based around the p-p chain, a multi-step process that converts four protons to a helium-4 nucleus. Now, helium four has two-protons and two neutrons. So unlike fusion on Earth this requires conversion of protons to neutrons. Two protons fuse to make deuterium (one proton, one neutron). This means it is a weak process. This means the cross section is absolutely tiny. Many orders of magnitude smaller than d-t reactions. Its known as the deuterium bottleneck because its this really small reaction rate which governs the time scale of the p-p chain. We will never be able to reproduce the p-p chain on Earth to produce energy.
So what does this tell us? Well it tells us what we can do in the lab bears little resemblance to what happens in the Sun.

 

[brantc]

Grand Archive of Flare and CME Cartoons

Here we go......... The state of solar flare model. Can somebody figure out which one is right???

Grand Archive of Flare and CME Cartoons
Why an archive? Why a cartoon?
Cartoons play an important role in discussions of how solar flares and CMEs work. These discussion may take place in august forums, or in pubs at any point around the solar world (see bar bets ). In place of a self-consistent theory, a cartoon is often the only way to guess how different features of an event might be related. At the bottom of this page we have a random selection from each of three categories of cartoons. To scroll through the Archive randomly, simply use the "refresh" button on the browser. To view it systematically, click on the names below or look at the (chronological) overview or the matrix-style displays of thumbnail images. These are large pages and require broadband access to load properly. Each cartoon page has some (often loose) information about its origin and a link to the published paper. Here are links to the gaudiest cartoon and to my favorite.

http://solarmuri.ssl.berkeley.edu/~hhudson/cartoons/

 

[Reality Check]

Here we go......... The state of solar flare model. Can somebody figure out which one is right???

Easy - they are cartoons so they are all right as far as pretty pictures go, usless as science and nothing to do with the state of the solar flare model.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III

Please demonstrate where "magnetic reconnection" has been empirically linked here on Earth to any of the following solar processes:
A) The temperatures associated with these events.

What "events"?

So let me get this straight, the million degree temperatures are due to current flow and resistance to that current flow in plasma?

Do you mean "A) Million degree temperatures"? If that's what you meant, why isn't it what you said?

Mass-Dependent Ion Heating during Magnetic Reconnection in a Laboratory Plasma
Noncollisional ion heating in laboratory and astrophysical plasmas and the mechanism of conversion of magnetic energy to ion thermal energy are not well understood. In the Madison Symmetric Torus reversed-field pinch experiment, ions are heated rapidly during impulsive reconnection, attaining temperatures exceeding hundreds of eV, often well in excess of the electron temperature. The energy budget of the ion heating and its mass scaling in hydrogen, deuterium, and helium plasmas were determined by measuring the fraction of the released magnetic energy converted to ion thermal energy. The fraction ranges from about 10%–30% and increases approximately as the square root of the ion mass. A simple model based on stochastic ion heating is proposed that is consistent with the experimental data.
​

One electron Volt (eV) of energy translates into 11,605 Kelvins of temperature. Obviously, 100 eV is therefore 1,160,500 Kelvins. So, when the abstract says "hundreds of eV" that translates into "millions of degrees" (Kelvin). See also 3D Reconnection and Flow Dynamics in the Ssx Experiment, as pointed out by Reality Check, which also specifies million degree plasma resulting from magnetic reconnection in a laboratory experiment. And see Energetic particle studies in a laboratory plasma experiment, which specifies maximum energy in excess of 200 eV (that's in excess of 2 million Kelvins).

D) produce x-rays galore

What's "galore"? What's not "galore"? Since any accelerated charged particle will emit X-rays (unless you are ready to simply deny the validity of physics altogether), then all of the experiments I have already cited obviously produced X-rays (maybe even "galore"), whether the abstract specifically says so or not. But see Partial and complete spheromak merging at SSX: 3D studies of reconnection and FRC formation, which specifically references soft X-rays correlated with magnetic reconnection.

B) The speed of propagation of the event which Bruce demonstrated in the 50's.
C) The "looping nature" of the discharges themselves as Birkeland actually *predicted* (real empirical predictions too, not your fudge factor, after the fact stuff) over 100 years ago.
E) produce gamma rays "naturally" in our own atmosphere.

Nobody claims that magnetic reconnection has anything to do with any of these, so what's the point in asking?

Unlike MR theory, "discharges" work in a real lab in real empirical tests of concept and produce all the things on this list.

The fact that discharges produce everything on your list is not relevant. The comment about "unlike MR theory ..." is, on the other hand, blatantly stupid. I already pointed out to you, over a year ago, that magnetic reconnection had long since been copiously verified in real, controlled, laboratory experiments (Comments on Magnetic Reconnection). You never once even looked at any of the experiments, but immediately dismissed them as "circuit reconnection". I predict you will do the same now, immediately deny that any of these experiments are actually measuring magnetic reconnection, and then you will once again insist that nobody has ever demonstrated magnetic reconnection in a laboratory. You won't actually think about it, nor will you ever actually look at any of the experiments.

 

[brantc]

Easy - they are cartoons so they are all right as far as pretty pictures go, usless as science and nothing to do with the state of the solar flare model.

So those pictures dont represent the models that are put forth by these authors?

Liu-Alexander, 2009
McKenzie-Savage, 2009
Tsiklauri, 2009
Tsurutani, 2009
Tovmassian, 2009
Schrijver, 2009
Chollet, 2009
Van Ballegooijen & Cranmer, 2009

And why would they include these pictures in their papers if it is "usless as science"?
McKenzie-Savage, 2009 ; for instance http://solar.physics.montana.edu/mckenzie/Pubs/SolarBproceedings.pdf

Is 2009 current enough for the state of solar flare models?
Are you saying any cartoon is "usless as science"?

How else would you show somebody the physical layout of a flare besides a photograph? Or pass on a concept without a page full of text?
Text doesnt make it any more scientific.

The equations are just as wrong as the picture, if they are not the correct model.

Its how you perform the science, not the notes you take or the diagrams you draw.
My lab notebook is full of drawings.
Do you think my boss says " Hey, thats not science?" No.
Those drawings are required when we apply for a patent or publish a paper.
My notebook is admissible in court.

So then which of these authors has the most correct flare model?

 

[Reality Check]

brantc, Please provide a list of the solar flare models that you want to discuss

And why would they include these pictures in their papers if it is "usless as science"?

The pictures are illustrations. They can be derived from the actual science, but are not the science. They are useless as science. They are useful as a tool for discussing the science and in education (ETA and as inspiration for further research). The language of science is mathematics not pretty pictures.

http://solarmuri.ssl.berkeley.edu/~hhudson/cartoons/

Grand Archive of Flare and CME Cartoons
Why an archive? Why a cartoon?
Cartoons play an important role in discussions of how solar flares and CMEs work. These discussion may take place in august forums, or in pubs at any point around the solar world (see bar bets ). In place of a self-consistent theory, a cartoon is often the only way to guess how different features of an event might be related. At the bottom of this page we have a random selection from each of three categories of cartoons. To scroll through the Archive randomly, simply use the "refresh" button on the browser. To view it systematically, click on the names below or look at the (chronological) overview or the matrix-style displays of thumbnail images. These are large pages and require broadband access to load properly. Each cartoon page has some (often loose) information about its origin and a link to the published paper. Here are links to the gaudiest cartoon and to my favorite.

Of course the real idiocy in your post is that this is an archive of the various cartoons used in any papers about solar flares. You seem to have the idea that each cartoon is a different solar flare model. In reality there are a small number of solar flare models (I do not know the exact number). So ...
First asked 11 March 2010
brantc, you seem to want to discuss the various solar flare models.
Please provide a list of the solar flare models that you want to discuss.

ETA

On second thoughts the number of models depends on what your definition of a solar flare model is.

• You could count any tiny difference between models as a different model. In that case there are are 1000's of them (one per published paper?).
• You could count any model of a specific solar flare as a different model. In that case there are as many models as studied solar flares.
• You could count a coronal loop + magnetic reconnection as one model with hundreds of papers on it. Another model would be a pair of twisted coronal loops + magnetic reconnection, etc.

 

[Reality Check]

Here we go......... The state of solar flare model. Can somebody figure out which one is right???

Another point I missed in your original post about cartoons used to illustrate papers about features of solar flares.

• Why do you think that there is one correct solar flare model?

This implies that every solar flare is identical and can be described by the same model. This is obviously not the case. They differ structually. Each structure meeds a different model.

 

[brantc]

Another point I missed in your original post about cartoons used to illustrate papers about features of solar flares.

• Why do you think that there is one correct solar flare model?

This implies that every solar flare is identical and can be described by the same model. This is obviously not the case. They differ structually. Each structure meeds a different model.

All dogs/humans/chickens look different but they are born the same way. Well maybe not chickens....

Same with flares.
They may look different but the process to birth them is the same.

Electric fields at the footprints drive the flare.
Everything else should come from this basic assumption.

They have several different flux tube configurations.
The helical magnetic field comes from the right hand rule. Current.
They all may have reconnection.
Some have high energy photons up to gammas.
Reconnection is responsible for the high energy impulsive events.

 

[GeeMack]

Electric fields at the footprints drive the flare.
Everything else should come from this basic assumption.

Why should everything else come from that assumption?