Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[W.D.Clinger]

At this point, my best guess is that you saw a discussion of magnetic reconnection on page 1 of the paper followed by extensive references to induction within the same experiment, and misinterpreted that proximity as confirmation of your belief that magnetic reconnection and induction are the same thing.

Looks like I guessed right.

Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I said in the last post. You folks have a habit of defecting the conversation from the issue (my question) by attacking the individual. The EU haters cult is fixated on attacking individuals to the COMPLETE EXCLUSION of physics.

Let me explain why it's a "show busting" question for you. Those three authors understood that "reconnection" is "discharge" process caused by "INDUCTION". They even mention Dungey's work, including his ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE paper. They even mention AND USE Alfven's work on double layer induction processes in the double layer.

False. True. True.

Worse yet for you folks, they DEMONSTRATE that the actual CAUSE of particle acceleration is INDUCTION. You folks just blew your own case.

They demonstrated acceleration of charged particles that were moving with respect to the magnetic field created by induction the inductance of their circuit. That's high school or freshman-level electromagnetism. For you to say that contradicts what Tim Thompson was saying demonstrates profound ignorance of what Tim Thompson was saying.

There is nothing "special" about "magnetic reconnection", or "magnetic flux".

True.

These are euphemistic terms for "induction driven discharge" and "field aligned currents".

False.

The magnetic flux through a surface S is ∫_SB∙dS. That magnetic flux can be (and often is) nonzero even when no current is flowing through S.

FYI, you'd already know all this too if you actually bothered to educate yourself and read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma instead of arguing from ignorance for YEARS ON END!

You read Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma without understanding the math.

I read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism, understanding most of the math.

That may explain why you don't understand the difference between "magnetic flux" and "field aligned currents", whereas I do.

It may also explain the difficulty you're having with the difference between induction and magnetic reconnection.

 

[Reality Check]

Worse yet for you folks, they DEMONSTRATE that the actual CAUSE of particle acceleration is INDUCTION.

Worse yet for you, you remain ignorant: INDUCTION is mentioned in Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment (1982) PDF by Stenzel, Gekelma and Wild.

Abstract
When the current density in that center of a neutral sheet is increased to a critical value spontaneous current disruptions are observed. The release of stored magnetic field energy results in a large inductive voltage pulse which drops off inside the plasma in the form of a potential double layer. Particles are energized, microstabilities are generated, the plasma is thinned and the current flow is redirected. These laboratory observations qualitatively support recent models of magnetic substorms and solar flares.

It is a paper on DOUBLE LAYERS accelerating particles. The inductive voltage pulse that the current disruption creates is the voltage drop across the double layer. It is that voltage drop that accelerates ("energizes") the particles.
They DEMONSTRATE NOTHING ABOUT the actual CAUSE of particle acceleration in DL's because they know that it is standard high school EM (electric fields accelerating charged particles).

 

[Reality Check]

Sure, I'll let you call it "reconnection" as long as you agree with Dungey that such events are also called "electrical discharges". I've already offered to meet you in the middle Tim. What else can I do?

There is no 'meeting in the middle' here, MM.
The simple fact is that this text exists in the paper

Originally Posted by Stenzel, Gekelman and Wild, 1982, page 1, top right column
Using magnetic probes with a digital data acquisition system the transverse magnetic field topology is mapped point by point by repeating the experiment (trep ≈ 2 sec). Figure 1a shows that during the current rise (t ≤ 80 µsec) the self-consistent reconnection of magnetic field lines in a plasma [Dungey, 1958] establishes a neutral line (B ≈ 0 for -25 ≤ x ≤ 20 cm; z ≈ 0). [...] This configuration models the relevant reconnection geometry in the magnetotail and forms the basis of our current disruption experiment.

This is the authors (not Tim). So if you understood the paper your answers to

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
So, do you or do you not agree with the explicit statement by the authors that (a) magnetic reconnection happened in their experiment, and (b) magnetic reconnection happens in Earth's magnetotail plasma?

would be:
a) Yes
b) Yes.

Your ignorance about Dungey's paper continue. He uses the term electrical discharge in the context of high curent density:
Posted on 10th December 2010

The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism, J.W. Dungey, 1958
Electromagnetic Phenomena in Cosmical Physics, Proceedings from IAU Symposium no. 6. Edited by Bo Lehnert. International Astronomical Union. Symposium no. 6, Cambridge University Press, p.135

Dungey's "electrical discharge" is in the context of the existence of a large current density (page 136). It is not an actual electrical discharge because by definition that requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium. It is a discharge of current.
Read the bottom of page 136 onward for the explanation for the large current density (from ""Consider a neutral point")

 

[Michael Mozina]

That may explain why you don't understand the difference between "magnetic flux" and "field aligned currents", whereas I do.

You're "reconnecting" two field aligned currents in SEVERAL of our OWN experiments! You're priceless.

It may also explain the difficulty you're having with the difference between induction and magnetic reconnection.

The only difference between us Clinger is that I have actually read (AND UNDERSTOOD) Alfven's work, whereas you have not. If you did, you'd understand that inside of a double layer, Alfven's double layer paper applies. There NO NEED for MR theory. Alfven made it UNNECESSARY inside of ALL CURRENT CARRYING PLASMAS. He ruled it out in fact. He called it pseudoscience and talked about putting nails in it's coffin. He never wrote a positively slanted paper in support of the idea Clinger. Why not? According to you folks it's the hottest thing in plasma physics!

If you really understood the difference between MAGNETIC ATTRACTION/REPULSION/INDUCTION and "magnetic reconnection", you would have supplied a published paper by now that supported your horse pucky claims about your so called "experiment" being an example of "magnetic reconnection". Waiting........

 

[Michael Mozina]

Worse yet for you, you remain ignorant: INDUCTION is mentioned in Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment (1982) PDF by Stenzel, Gekelma and Wild.

It is a paper on DOUBLE LAYERS accelerating particles. The inductive voltage pulse that the current disruption creates is the voltage drop across the double layer. It is that voltage drop that accelerates ("energizes") the particles.
They DEMONSTRATE NOTHING ABOUT the actual CAUSE of particle acceleration in DL's because they know that it is standard high school EM (electric fields accelerating charged particles).

Ding ding ding. MR theory is UNNECESSARY! Induction has a proper name. Circuits reconnect all the time. Magnetic fields form as a complete continuum, without beginning and without end and without the ability to "disconnect" or "reconnect" to any other "line".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dungey clearly understood that what you're calling a 'reconnection' event was also an 'electrical discharge' process. He (like Alfven) understood that standard circuit theories apply. This generation of "haters" (I'm sure there are real "scientists" that actually 'get it') really are clueless when it comes to relating the physics back to the "E" orientation of Maxwell's equations. Alfven used that orientation to make MR theory *UNNECESSARY* in any and all current carrying environments. Now I've been willing to go the extra mile here and acknowledge that the B orientation is also 'useful' when properly understood, but it's darn clear that not single one of the actual 'haters' understands it at all from the E orientation. What a pity. Wake up and smell the coffee. Dungey related the two events over 50 years ago, before I was even born in fact!

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is no 'meeting in the middle' here, MM.
The simple fact is that this text exists in the paper

Dungey specifically does meet me in the middle RC. He describes the 'reconnection' process as an 'electrical discharge' event. You're just in hard core denial of historical fact, and you're intent on blaming me for your own denial process.

If there is no such thing as "meeting in the middle", then you're guilty of false advertizing, specifically bait and switch advertizing. In each and every single "experiment" you begin with either a BLATANT E field, or with directed currents. Then you hand me dumbed down math formulas that HIDE THE E! Alfven's work makes MR theory OBSOLETE inside of a current carrying environment. He also dissed the concept in light plasmas in general.

I don't need MR theory in current carrying plasmas, so you lose if there's no middle ground. I'm willing to at least admit that your maths are useful in some applications. I'm just asking you to give it a logical title that is congruent with OTHER BRANCHES OF PHYSICS!

 

[Michael Mozina]

The really sad part is this:

If you DID call it "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection", then you yourselves wouldn't be so damned confused in the first place! Dungey got it. You don't get it. This demonstrates that the NAME IS IMPORTANT. It's confused the hell out of you, that's for sure!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The only difference between us Clinger is that I have actually read (AND UNDERSTOOD) Alfven's work, whereas you have not.

No, that's not the only difference between us. It wouldn't be the only difference between us even if your shouting were true.

I, for example, have actually read a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism. You haven't:

There is nothing "special" about "magnetic reconnection", or "magnetic flux". These are euphemistic terms for "induction driven discharge" and "field aligned currents".

False.

The magnetic flux through a surface S is ∫_SB∙dS. That magnetic flux can be (and often is) nonzero even when no current is flowing through S.


You read Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma without understanding the math.

I read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism, understanding most of the math.

That may explain why you don't understand the difference between "magnetic flux" and "field aligned currents", whereas I do.

I don't know how you managed to convince yourself that reading Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma and thinking you understood it puts you ahead of non-physicists such as myself, let alone professional astrophysicists, but you've been making that argument for almost a year in this thread alone, starting with its very first page:

Without so much as *READING* Alfven's material you reject his CIRCUIT approach to solar physics events. My position is congruent with Alfven's position and I've read his materials myself. Somehow based on clairvoyance and a "faith" in your superior math skills, you've not only set yourself up as the authority figure, you deny any and all other opinions on the topic, including the Nobel Prize winning physicist that WROTE MHD theory. Notice any flaw in your notion of self proclaimed 'expertise' when you haven't even read Alfven's materials for yourself?

It turns out you haven't even read Alfven's work, and therefore you have no idea what a "current carrying" plasma might be, or how to model it mathematically....When you've read the material, let me know. Until then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you haven't studied the material in question

I'm tired of being called a liar by someone that hasn't even read Alfven's work for themselves. You have no idea what you're talking about and you can't even make up your mind!

Since you haven't read his book, you haven't pointed out a specific chapter or verse from any relevant paper or book on this topic, what else can it be except "clairvoyance"?

As much as you complain about attacking the individual instead of addressing the science, you divide the world into

• those who have read Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma and understood it (which includes Michael Mozina and no one else, because you often forget that others here have read it, and even when you remember that others have read it you think you're the only one who's understood it) and
• those who haven't

so you can argue about individuals and their qualifications.

It's pretty funny when you tell us magnetic flux is the same thing as field-aligned currents, and it's especially funny when you ignore our corrections and strut your "I've read Alfvén" credential as though that proves you're right. So long as it's all for laughs, I'll continue to point out that for all your reading of Alfvén, you'd have done better by learning basic freshman physics.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Did Stenzel, Gekelman and Wild say that reconnection happened in their experiment

Dungey specifically does meet me in the middle RC. He describes the 'reconnection' process as an 'electrical discharge' event.

You are still deluded. Dungey describes the high current density caused by magnetic reconnection as an electrical discharge.
That still has nothing to do with the actual question:

Originally Posted by Stenzel, Gekelman and Wild, 1982, page 1, top right column
Using magnetic probes with a digital data acquisition system the transverse magnetic field topology is mapped point by point by repeating the experiment (trep ≈ 2 sec). Figure 1a shows that during the current rise (t ≤ 80 µsec) the self-consistent reconnection of magnetic field lines in a plasma [Dungey, 1958] establishes a neutral line (B ≈ 0 for -25 ≤ x ≤ 20 cm; z ≈ 0). [...] This configuration models the relevant reconnection geometry in the magnetotail and forms the basis of our current disruption experiment.

This is the authors, not Tim who asked:

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
So, do you or do you not agree with the explicit statement by the authors that (a) magnetic reconnection happened in their experiment, and (b) magnetic reconnection happens in Earth's magnetotail plasma?

 

[Reality Check]

Ding ding ding. MR theory is UNNECESSARY! Induction has a proper name. Circuits reconnect all the time. Magnetic fields form as a complete continuum, without beginning and without end and without the ability to "disconnect" or "reconnect" to any other "line".

Ding ding ding. MR theory is NECESSARY to explain thing such as solar flares!
Induction has a proper name and properties that you refuse to understand: Magnetic Reconnection Redux V on 31st December 2009

There are no circuits happening naturally. Circut models never 'reconnect'.
Electric currents reconnect all the time. Pity that this cannot explain the energy produced in MR in the plasmas we generally observe.

Your continued display of ignorance about how magnetic reconnection works is no excuse for not bothering to try to even learn basic physics.

 

[Reality Check]

He (like Alfven) understood that standard circuit theories apply.
...snipped rant...

You finally get something almost right : Dungey (like any one with a good knowledge of physics) very probably understood that you can apply a circuit model to pysical processes such as solar flares.
Dungey used MHD (Alfven's work!) so that he could describe the details of magnetic reconnection.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Ask Peratt whether your 'electrical discharges in plasma' assertion is correct

You seem to have forgotten: MM: Ask Peratt whether your 'electrical discharges in plasma' assertion is correct!
Posted on 12th October 2011
Be sure to ask him for a list of textbooks that discuss these 'electrical discharges in plasma' (or at least the list of the recent scientific papers that you seem unable to find).
You need to do this because one person's personal opinion means little in science. It is the theory backed up empirical evidence that really matters.

P.S. Where are Alfvén's "HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as it applied to plasma?
Or is this just ignorance of Alfvén's body of work?
Or an inability to admit you were wrong and it is just a couple of papers (and maybe only to do with solar flares not plasma in general).

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, that's not the only difference between us. It wouldn't be the only difference between us even if your shouting were true.

I, for example, have actually read a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism. You haven't:

That's a lie. I really wonder if you folks are proud of yourselves for this clearly CULT-like behavior? Oy Vey. It's like you folks have nothing to say if you didn't attack the individual. Why? Let's see....

I don't know how you managed to convince yourself that reading Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma and thinking you understood it puts you ahead of non-physicists such as myself,

That's obvious. Conceptually speaking, you're pretty much clueless as to Alfven's actual opinions on MR theory. He LOATHED the idea. I'm actually a LOT more liberal about the practical uses for it, whereas he blew it of completely, particularly inside current carrying plasmas, like in that last experiment.

let alone professional astrophysicists,

Such as? Alfven wasn't an astrophysicist?

It's pretty funny when you tell us magnetic flux is the same thing as field-aligned currents,

That's because in the lab, that's exactly what you're ACTUALLY doing. You're "reconnecting" a couple of field aligned currents and calling it "magnetic reconnection". When you're talking about the "magnetic flux" along the "magnetic line", you're actually talking about the particle kinetic energy contained in CURRENT! I've read through your experiments.

and it's especially funny when you ignore our corrections and strut your "I've read Alfvén" credential as though that proves you're right.

It proves that Alfven's double layer paper works EQUALLY well to explain the process, WITHOUT magnetic reconnection. What do I need it for?

So long as it's all for laughs, I'll continue to point out that for all your reading of Alfvén, you'd have done better by learning basic freshman physics.

I hate to break it to you Clinger, but this isn't freshman physics. This is advanced stuff, written by Alfven himself. It's a pity that for over a year you have yet to rectify the problem and educate yourself to his work. Did you intend to FOREVER remain ignorant of his work?

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI Clinger, the longer you drag out admitting that you BLEW it when you claimed your experiment was an example of "magnetic reconnection", the less credibility you have in my book. When did you intent to present a paper to support your *OUTRAGEOUS* claim, or when did you intend to admit that mistake?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are still deluded. Dungey describes the high current density caused by magnetic reconnection as an electrical discharge.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Are you ready to meet me in the middle yet Tim?

 

[Reality Check]

The fact that you still cannot understand that Dungey describes the high current density caused by magnetic reconnection as an electrical discharge is becoming laughable so:

 

[Michael Mozina]

The fact that you still cannot understand that Dungey describes the high current density caused by magnetic reconnection as an electrical discharge is becoming laughable so:

Who are you laughing at RC? You claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in a plasma. Dungey claims otherwise. Peratt claims otherwise. Whom shall I believe?

The other really ironic part is that you never read, nor ever grasped the significance of that last paper on circuit disruptions. It's the CURRENT that does the work RC, not the "magnetic line". The whole experiment is driven with an E field, and the "reconnection" is an "induction" driven event inside of a "double layer". Alfven made your theory utterly obsolete in such conditions.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

No, that's not the only difference between us. It wouldn't be the only difference between us even if your shouting were true.

I, for example, have actually read a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism. You haven't:

That's a lie.

How is that a lie? Are you saying you've read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism (the freshman-level textbook to which I was referring, and cited explicitly following the colon that ends the excerpt you quoted)?

Or are you claiming to have read (and understood) some other freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism? If so, please name that textbook and explain how it led you to conclude that magnetic flux is the same thing as field-aligned currents.

It's pretty funny when you tell us magnetic flux is the same thing as field-aligned currents,

That's because in the lab, that's exactly what you're ACTUALLY doing.

Impossible. In the simple experiment I've been suggesting, the currents are confined to rods and wires, so there are no currents at all within the regions that undergo magnetic reconnection.

You're "reconnecting" a couple of field aligned currents and calling it "magnetic reconnection". When you're talking about the "magnetic flux" along the "magnetic line", you're actually talking about the particle kinetic energy contained in CURRENT! I've read through your experiments.

Your ability to read without understanding continues to amaze. The experiment I've been suggesting produces no field-aligned currents at all, but it does produce considerable magnetic flux as it reproduces both of Dungey's two figures as well as Wikipedia's animation of magnetic reconnection.

So long as it's all for laughs, I'll continue to point out that for all your reading of Alfvén, you'd have done better by learning basic freshman physics.

I hate to break it to you Clinger, but this isn't freshman physics. This is advanced stuff, written by Alfven himself. It's a pity that for over a year you have yet to rectify the problem and educate yourself to his work. Did you intend to FOREVER remain ignorant of his work?

No, Michael, this is not advanced stuff, nor were your posts written by Alfvén himself. You are failing physics at the freshman level, while telling us your personal opinion of what you think Alfvén said.

If you had even a D-level understanding of freshman physics, you'd have known better than to tell us that magnetic flux is a euphemism for field-aligned currents.

FYI Clinger, the longer you drag out admitting that you BLEW it when you claimed your experiment was an example of "magnetic reconnection", the less credibility you have in my book. When did you intent to present a paper to support your *OUTRAGEOUS* claim, or when did you intend to admit that mistake?

Anyone who understands electromagnetism at the freshman level can run the experiment I've been suggesting and see the magnetic reconnection for themselves.

Even without running the experiment, anyone who understands electromagnetism at the freshman level can visualize the superposition of the magnetic fields to see how they reproduce Dungey's two figures and Wikipedia's animation of magnetic reconnection.

You can't, because you refuse to perform even simple experiments. As is evident from your posts quoted above, you also lack the knowledge of freshman mathematics and physics that would allow you to visualize the magnetic fields whose superpositions yield Dungey's two figures and Wikipedia's animation of magnetic reconnection.

Yet you continue to think you're the expert here, because you think Alfvén was the world's greatest authority on electromagnetism, and because you think you have read Alfvén with understanding.