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

[Reality Check]

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

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?

ETA: I am not laughing at anyone.
I am laughing at the level of ignorance displayed in your posts.
I am laughing at an inability to understand that electrical discharges (Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge ) cannot happen in a plasma.
I am laughing at the quote mining of Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge that does not fool anyone who can read.
I am laughing at an obsession with a few decades old papers (e.g. Dungey) that use the term 'electrical discharge' to describe a high current density in magnetic reconnection.
I am laughing at an inability to cite any current textbooks that have explicitly define and discuss 'electrical discharges in plasma'.
I am laughing at an inability to cite any current scientific papers explicitly on 'electrical discharges in plasma'.

You are lying:
Dungey never claims that electrical discharges (as in lightning) happen in plasma.
Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge is about lightning and other discharges in solids and gases, not plasma.
But don't take my word for it:

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

This delusion about Peratt's book is easly seen from your inability to answer these simple questions:
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
First asked 3rd February 2011

Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?

P.S. Where are Alfven's "HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as it applied to plasma?

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".

That is gibberish. The only thing I can see there is an abysmal display of ignorance.

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.

Start with Figure 1 - the experimental arrangement.

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.

(emphasis added)

They then create an enhanced current in the center of the current sheet which leads to the current disruption (Fig 1b). And guess what - they apply a DC voltage to do this (electric fields !)

Originally Posted by Stenzel, Gekelman and Wild, 1982, page 1, top right column
The supply voltage is increased (V_adc > 0) the current to the center plate I_a rises until a critical value is reached at which is disrupt spontaneously

After they do this they then see potential double layers (Fig 4). The sequence of events is simple to understand:

1. Creation of a current sheet in a plasma via reconnection.
2. Increasing the current density at the center of the sheet until ....
3. Current disruption happens .
4. Then formation of potential double layers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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 have NEVER produced a PUBLISHED paper describing this process as "magnetic reconnection". Do you think I'm the only one that noticed that Clinger? Where's the published paper that claims this is an example of "magnetic reconnection"????????????????!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

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.

I'm also waiting for you to produce that published paper by Alfven that supports MR theory too by the way. I'm not holding my breath for you to produce either one!

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.

Well, I've read his work, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for you. The fact you're in hard core denial of the fact that Alfven *REJECTED* your precious theory as "pseudoscience" is a direct result of your self imposed ignorance. When did you intend to rectify that situation Clinger?

 

[Michael Mozina]

ETA: I am not laughing at anyone.

Good, you have no reason to laugh at anyone or anything. "Discharge in plasma? What discharge"? Oy Vey!

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

FYI, the "experiments" that I'm referring to were the ones listed in this thread that were actually labeled "reconnection" experiments, not the handwaving experiment on MAGNETIC ATTRACTION/REPULSION, that you're talking about. Only you personally seem to believe that your experiment is actually an example of "magnetic reconnection" rather than attraction/repulsion, but you can't produce ONE SINGLE PAPER that actually makes that claim. Why is that Clinger?

In the actual "reconnection" experiments, they simply "reconnected" a couple of "field aligned currents'. There were no "magnetic lines" that actually 'reconnected'.

 

[Reality Check]

Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection

Good, you have no reason to laugh at anyone or anything. "Discharge in plasma? What discharge"? Oy Vey!

I am laughing at an ignorance of basic science: Electrical discharges (as in Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge) can never happen in plasma.
I am laughing at an inability to read a decades old scientific paper and understand that Dungey uses the term 'electrical discharge' to mean a high current density.

I am definitely not laughing at your continued to understand simple English. For the umpteenth time:

The outdated term used for high current densities in magnetic connection was electrical discharge (see Dungey). This is a different usage of the term electrical discharge from Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge:

Originally Posted by D'rok
Originally Posted by Dungey (1953 paper)
A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.

1. There is no 'sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy' which you are so fond of quote mining from Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.
2. There is no breakdown of a dielectric medium.

13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different
​

That Peratt means electrical discharges in actual plasma is obviously wrong:

• Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
  First asked 7 December 2010
• Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
  First asked 3rd February 2011
• Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?

An honest person would try to back up their assertion from the original source:

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

P.S. Where are Alfven's "HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as it applied to plasma?

 

[Reality Check]

Only you personally seem to believe that your experiment is actually an example of "magnetic reconnection" rather than attraction/repulsion, but you can't produce ONE SINGLE PAPER that actually makes that claim. Why is that Clinger?

FYI, MM. You are wrong (yet again ).
Anyone who has read a EM textbook on knows that W.D. Clinger's experiment is a valid experiment on magnetic reconnection.
Countinuous whining about 'attraction/repulsion' is merely a demonstration of ignorance. Magnetic fields define the attaction/repulsion, for example Non-uniform magnetic field causes like poles to repel and opposites to attract.

Your question is yet another display of ignorance since it implies that you have no idea what scientific papers are. Scientific papers are to present original research. Not one expects there to be ANY SINGLE PAPER on such a trivial thing as a demonstration that magnetic reconnection occurs without a plasma.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

FYI, the "experiments" that I'm referring to were the ones listed in this thread that were actually labeled "reconnection" experiments, not the handwaving experiment on MAGNETIC ATTRACTION/REPULSION, that you're talking about.

I haven't been talking about any handwaving experiments. I've been talking about a very simple, concrete experiment that freshmen and even high school students are capable of performing.

Only you personally seem to believe that your experiment is actually an example of "magnetic reconnection" rather than attraction/repulsion, but you can't produce ONE SINGLE PAPER that actually makes that claim. Why is that Clinger?

Because the experimental results are obvious to anyone with a freshman-level understanding of electromagnetism. Scientific journals are not in the business of publishing trivial results.

In the actual "reconnection" experiments, they simply "reconnected" a couple of "field aligned currents'. There were no "magnetic lines" that actually 'reconnected'.

It is extraordinarily hypocritical of you to insist I cite a published paper for the freshman-level experiment I've been suggesting when you are so doggedly ignoring the many published papers we (and you!) have cited that report on magnetic reconnection.

Last May, for example, I quoted from the introduction to an excellent survey paper tusenfem had recommended:

Masaaki Yamada, Russell Kulsrud, and Hantao Ji. Magnetic reconnection. Reviews of Modern Physics, Volume 82, January-March 2010, pages 603-664.​

....Understanding magnetic reconnection, a topological rearrangement of magnetic field lines, provides a key to these questions....

....Magnetic reconnection involves a topology change of a set of field lines....

....Through soft-x-ray pictures, which are considered to represent magnetic field-line configurations, we can visualize examples of global topology change of plasma configurations (Masuda et al., 1994; Tsuneta, 1996; Gabriel et al., 1997; Golub et al., 1999; Lin et al., 2003). As shown in transition region and coronal explorer (TRACE) satellite data (Golub et al., 199) (Fig. 1), the topologies of soft-x-ray images are seen to change within a time scale of minutes or hours in the solar atmosphere....

....Dungey (1953) showed that such a current sheet can indeed be formed by the collapse of the magnetic field near an X-type neutral point as shown in Fig. 3 and suggested that lines of force can be broken and rejoined in the current sheet....When the field lines are reconnected, the topology of magnetic configuration changes and j×B forces result in the conversion of magnetic energy to kinetic energy....

For you to claim that

There were no "magnetic lines" that actually 'reconnected'.

demonstrates the same kind of dogged ignorance you demonstrated earlier when you said magnetic flux was a euphemism for field-aligned currents.

Well, I've read his work, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for you.

I, however, have read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism. As a result, I know the difference between magnetic flux and field-aligned currents. You don't.

By the way, you called me a liar for pointing out that you have not read Purcell's textbook. If you are unwilling to explain your accusation, then I will conclude you were lying when you accused me of lying.

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.

 

[Reality Check]

Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment (1982) PDF by Stenzel, Gekelma and Wild.

Start with Figure 1 - the experimental arrangement.

(emphasis added)

They then create an enhanced current in the center of the current sheet which leads to the current disruption (Fig 1b). And guess what - they apply a DC voltage to do this (electric fields !)


After they do this they then see potential double layers (Fig 4). The sequence of events is simple to understand:

1. Creation of a current sheet in a plasma via reconnection.
2. Increasing the current density at the center of the sheet until ....
3. Current disruption happens .
4. Then formation of potential double layers.

Also see Figure 9 in Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986
The reconnection happens and then the disruption. But you may not be able to understand the diagram so I will attempt to explain it to you.
Look at the top of the figure and locate the word Reconnection. It marks the Reconnection event. Note that it is beside an arrow pointing to a time on the time axis.
Now look at the top of the figure again and locate the word Disruption. It marks the Disruption event. Note that it is beside an arrow pointing to a time on the time axis.

Now look at where the arrows are. The Reconnection arrow is before the Disruption arrow. On a time axis a time that is before another time means that the event happened before the other event. So the Reconnection event happened before the Disruption event.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because the experimental results are obvious to anyone with a freshman-level understanding of electromagnetism. Scientific journals are not in the business of publishing trivial results.

Pure horse manure. We've looked at LOTS of published papers on "magnetic reconnection". Not one of them involved the experiment you suggested. Why? Because your experiment demonstrates magnetic ATTRACTION/REPULSION, not "magnetic reconnection" like you claimed. Rather than admitting your BUSH LEAGUE mistake, you continue to MISREPRESENT the experiment! Talk about intellectually DISHONEST behaviors.

By the way, you called me a liar for pointing out that you have not read Purcell's textbook. If you are unwilling to explain your accusation, then I will conclude you were lying when you accused me of lying.

Unlike you I can admit my mistakes when I make them. I misread what you typed. My mistake. Your turn.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, MM. You are wrong (yet again ).
Anyone who has read a EM textbook on knows that W.D. Clinger's experiment is a valid experiment on magnetic reconnection.

Then one of you can surely produce ONE published paper, demonstrating this claim, right? Holy cow! I just want ONE published paper that claims this experiment demonstrates what you claim it does, specifically "magnetic reconnection". Waiting.....

Countinuous whining about 'attraction/repulsion' is merely a demonstration of ignorance.

No, that is EXACTLY what Clinger's experiment actually demonstrates which is why not one of you can show me a published paper claiming that it's an example of "magnetic reconnection"! This denial-go-round never ends with you does it?

 

[Reality Check]

Then one of you can surely produce ONE published paper, demonstrating this claim, right? Holy cow!

Holy Cow! - you really are determined to demonstrate your ignorance and inability to read .

Your question is yet another display of ignorance since it implies that you have no idea what scientific papers are. Scientific papers are to present original research. Not one expects there to be ANY SINGLE PAPER on such a trivial thing as a demonstration that magnetic reconnection occurs without a plasma.

Because the experimental results are obvious to anyone with a freshman-level understanding of electromagnetism. Scientific journals are not in the business of publishing trivial results.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Holy Cow! - you really are determined to demonstrate your ignorance and inability to read .

That is THE most PATHETIC excuse I've ever seen. Produce a FRESHMAN TEXTBOOK then that makes such a claim ("magnetic reconnection)! Surely SOMEONE has produced something in print to corroborate your claims?

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Magnetic field around a single current carrying rod

That is THE most PATHETIC excuse I've ever seen.

That is that most PATHETIC display of ignorance that I have seen:

• Scientific papers are to present original research.
• Scientific journals are not in the business of publishing trivial results.

Produce a FRESHMAN TEXTBOOK then that makes such a claim ("magnetic reconnection)!

I would expect that Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism has a section on magnetic reconnection.
There are also all of the textbooks actually on magnetic reconnection.

The science that you are remain ignorant of (and seem to be taking pride in that ignorance since you are not making any attempt to fix it) is that magnetic reconnection is a basic consequence of Maxwell's equations and can be easily demonstrated, e.g.

My guess is that you want a FRESHMAN TEXTBOOK that has W.D. Clinger's exact experiment in it. That is also ignorant. This is his very simple, concrete experiment that freshmen and even high school students are capable of performing. He does not claim that there is a textbook with that exact experiment in it.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger
On 28 December 2010, I suggested a simple experiment that would have helped you to understand that Dungey's paper is about magnetic reconnection. Everyone who's taken a freshman-level course in electromagnetism knows what the magnetic field around a current-carrying rod looks like. If you have two such rods in parallel, carrying equal currents, and measure the magnetic field in a plane perpendicular to the rods, you get Dungey's figure 2. If you take another pair of parallel rods and run the current in the opposite direction, you get Dungey's figure 2 with the arrows reversed. If you take those two pairs of parallel conducting rods and place them so the null points of their magnetic fields coincide, with the planes running through the two pairs positioned at almost but not quite a right angle, then you get Dungey's figure 1.

This is basic EM which you should know and agree with.
Lets start with a single current carrying rod.
What do you think the magnetic field around it is, MM?

My answer: A circular field coaxial with the rod (right hand grip rule).
Your answer?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

By the way, you called me a liar for pointing out that you have not read Purcell's textbook. If you are unwilling to explain your accusation, then I will conclude you were lying when you accused me of lying.

Unlike you I can admit my mistakes when I make them. I misread what you typed. My mistake. Your turn.

Thank you. Before we turn to my mistakes, here are just a few of your mistakes that we're still waiting for you to admit:

• You have been saying magnetic flux is a euphemism for field-aligned currents.
• You have been denying that magnetic reconnection involves any reconnection of magnetic field lines.
• You have been saying we can't cite papers that talk about the reconnection of magnetic field lines during magnetic reconnection.

Pure horse manure. We've looked at LOTS of published papers on "magnetic reconnection". Not one of them involved the experiment you suggested. Why? Because your experiment demonstrates magnetic ATTRACTION/REPULSION, not "magnetic reconnection" like you claimed. Rather than admitting your BUSH LEAGUE mistake, you continue to MISREPRESENT the experiment! Talk about intellectually DISHONEST behaviors.

Get a grip.

I am genuinely sorry that you are having so much trouble with basic principles of first-year electromagnetism. I understand how that could make it even more difficult for you to convince professional astrophysicists that modern solar physics is a pile of horse manure.

On the other hand, I am not responsible for your inability to deal with first-year mathematics and physics. Instead of venting your frustration on me, I suggest you read Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I would expect that Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism has a section on magnetic reconnection.

No, it does not. (At any rate, my copy of the first edition doesn't mention magnetic reconnection.) Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics (third edition) doesn't seem to mention it either.

There are also all of the textbooks actually on magnetic reconnection.

True. Both tusenfem and Tim Thompson have quoted from Priest&Forbes, and many of us have quoted the survey paper by Yamada et al..

The science that you are remain ignorant of (and seem to be taking pride in that ignorance since you are not making any attempt to fix it) is that magnetic reconnection is a basic consequence of Maxwell's equations and can be easily demonstrated

Yes, but Michael Mozina is having trouble with the concept of magnetic flux. He thinks it's a euphemism for field-aligned currents.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, it does not. (At any rate, my copy of the first edition doesn't mention magnetic reconnection.) Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics (third edition) doesn't seem to mention it either.

LOL! I'll bet they mention ATTRACTION and REPULSION. Try that.

True. Both tusenfem and Tim Thompson have quoted from Priest&Forbes, and many of us have quoted the survey paper by Yamada et al..

Priest was the one that tried to do magic tricks with "monopoles" as I recall.

Yes, but Michael Mozina is having trouble with the concept of magnetic flux. He thinks it's a euphemism for field-aligned currents.

On PAPER it's quite clear to me. When we get to the actual "experiments" (not your handwavy thing), they all get REALLY MURKY. In fact they all start out by violating two of Alfven's prime directives. They typically start out in CURRENT CARRYING plasma (big no no according to Alfven) and LIGHT (not dense) plasma, another fail. I'm finding the UCLA references to be the most useful references actually. They however directly discuss the electron flux specifically and seem to have an EXCELLENT handle on the process from both the E and B orientations.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Get a grip.

I am genuinely sorry that you are having so much trouble with basic principles of first-year electromagnetism.

Nope, that's your problem, not mine. I understand ATTRACTION and REPULSION. That's clearly further than you got. If you can't find a paper that corroborates your claim about your so called "experiment" being an example of "magnetic reconnection", then your claim *IS A LIE*. I'll stand by that claim when I call you a liar.

 

[Reality Check]

In fact they all start out by violating two of Alfven's prime directives.
...usual rant snipped....

You are wrong. The empirical observation of magnetic reconnection in reconnection experiments means that no 'prime directives' are violated.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thank you. Before we turn to my mistakes, here are just a few of your mistakes that we're still waiting for you to admit:
-You have been saying magnetic flux is a euphemism for field-aligned currents.

In terms of many of the papers, particularly Priest's monopole paper, that's EXACTLY what he meant. Unfortunately he tried to violate the laws of physics by evoking MONOPOLES to do the energy transfer process. I don't have any problem on paper. It's only when we look at the lab "experiments" where you turn on CURRENT, reconnect two field aligned currents and then claim "magnetic lines reconnected".

You have been denying that magnetic reconnection involves any reconnection of magnetic field lines.

Yep. Just PARTICLES and CIRCUITS can "reconnect". Magnetic fields form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without ending and without the ability to "disconnect" or "reconnect". Only circuits and particles do that trick.

You have been saying we can't cite papers that talk about the reconnection of magnetic field lines during magnetic reconnection.

Er, no, that would be your own strawman. They all "talk" about it, but not one such experiment actually has any control mechanism to demonstrate it. FYI the UCLA papers are really worth a read. The last site from RC really lays out both the E and B orientations quite clearly, not that any of you will understand it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are wrong. The empirical observation of magnetic reconnection in reconnection experiments means that no 'prime directives' are violated.

Nope. That last "lessons" paper you cite from the same UCLA group begins in current carrying plasma, where Alfven explicitly ruled it out. Even worse for you however, it correctly notes and describes the double layers that form, nailing the coffin shut on your pseudoscience in Alfven's mind. His double layer paper already explains the energy transfer process of a double layer *WITHOUT* MR theory.