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

[W.D.Clinger]

I think I need a sanity break from this place today. I can only handle so much pure denial in a single week, and you three are WAY over the limit.

Sounds like a plan.

Speaking of break, you might want to read the operating instructions for those new meters.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Induction Physics in a Plasma

Which formulas did these authors use to explain the energy transfer process Tim, induction formulas, or the ones you claimed were specifically related to "magnetic reconnection"?

Well, let's see ...

Although the center plate is connected to a dc supply the plate voltage can greatly differ from V_adc due to inductive effects, i.e., V_a(t) = V_adc - L dI_a/dt, where L is the circuit inductance

OK, "circuit inductance". Check.

The double layer plays an important role in the energy transfer mechanism. Magnetic field energy 1/2 L I_a² stored in the current path is converted at the double layer to particle kinetic energy, 1/2 m v².

OK, looks like "circuit inductance" again; same formula, anyway. Check.

The particle energization by inductive electric fields leads to energy levels far in excess of those given by the steady-state potential differences along the sheet.

OK, "inductive electric fields". Check.

Big deal.

Look up "inductor", look up "Faraday's Law of Inductance", then go back to my magnum-opus, Magnetic Reconnection Redux V (30 Dec 2009). Compare the "induction" equations in Stenzel, Gekelman & Wild, 1982 and in the webpages listed, with the induction equation in my post. Now, you are the one who asked the key question, "Which formulas did those authors use ...?", so ...

You tell me if the equations from Stenzel, Gekelman & Wild, 1982 look like the equations in my post.
You tell me if you think their equations and my equations address the same physical processes.
You tell me if you think their "induction" and my "induction" are the same thing, physically (not the same word, but the same thing physically).

How you answer these questions will determine the details of my further responses.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Dungey & Discharges

Sure, I'll let you call it "reconnection" as long as you agree with Dungey that such events are also called "electrical discharges".

As I recall, Dungey did not call such events "electrical discharges", he called them "discharges"; feel free to correct me if my memory is in error. Naturally, I have no problem agreeing that Dungey said what he actually said, if that makes you feel better. However, since you have such confidence in Dungey's authority in plasma physics, I expect you in return to agree with his explicit description of the reconnection of magnetic field lines (see Electric Sun and Magnetic Reconnection VIII, 13 Jan 2011).

 

[Tim Thompson]

Query: Monopoles & Magnetic Reconnection?

My "introduction" to MR theory in debate started over at space.com. It's a pity they took down the boards, or I'd cite the conversation for you. The very first paper that I was handed to evaluate on the topic of MR theory just so happened to be a paper written by Priest that was ENTIRELY oriented around the B orientation of Maxwell's equations. From a mathematical orientation, it was actually pretty simple. There weren't very many equations to translate. I thought it might be interesting to see if I could personally translate the formulas to an E orientation. I got to a specific equation however and found out that the energy transfer mechanism Priest was using was a "monopole", something that literally violates the laws of physics, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism. I cried fowl over the whole notion of "magnetic flux transfer" using such a device. Everyone went ballistic and tried to defend the concept even though it clearly violated the laws of physics.

DISCLAIMER: In *FAIRNESS TO PRIEST*, it wasn't his best paper on this topic. I've read MUCH better materials from him since that date and time.

I was then handed a new paper to evaluate from an author called "Birn". It was a MUCH better paper in the sense that it clearly described the "current' that flowed along the magnetic line that created and sustained the "magnetic field" along that so called "line". That "line" however turns out not to be a simple "line", is a "field aligned current". The total "energy flux" through that line is directly related to the flow of current through that field aligned current "line".

I understand the difference on *PAPER* Clinger, but when I wrote that line you decided to build a federal case over, I was specifically thinking of that first paper by Priest that attempted to 'dumb down' an entire current carrying event to a "magnetic flux' event. That's all I meant by that particular sentence. If you can't accept that rather LENGTHY explanation, I really don't know what else to offer you. You go right ahead and harp on that one sentence all you like, but you'll need to come clean on one of my two issues as well.

This is an interesting story that invokes several questions.

Can you identify the paper by Priest that you falsified?
Can you show us the "monopole" equation you wound up with and its derivation?
Can you identify the paper by Birn?
Can you identify specific points, in the paper by birn, where you can demonstrate where his "magnetic field line" is in reality a "field aligned current"?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo II

See my post Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo where I outline the clear evidence that magnetic field lines, and not field aligned currents, topologically reconnect to change the energy state of the Magnetic field. To reinforce my demonstration, I now also suggest Magnets in Motion, where you can access animated gif images of the magnetic field lines reconnecting as magnets move. The magnetic fields are derived from solutions of Maxwell's equations. The author of the page, Rick Hoadley, has a Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering from Cornell University, so it is fair to assert that he is an authority on electricity and magnetism.

There is no arguing with the physics, that this definitely represents the breaking & reconnecting of magnetic field lines, no current of any kind involved. This is not found in textbooks & published papers for the simple reason that is is both obvious & trivial. Contrary to the ill-informed opinion of some, it is actually not true that literally everything is found within the covers of a book or on the pages of a scholarly paper. These are the same people who think that every question has an answer in the "solutions manual", if you can find it; thinking not required, just look it all up. It is just one more example of appeal too authority rather than an independent examination of the actual physics involved.

 

[tusenfem]

How you answer these questions will determine the details of my further responses.

One thing that should not be forgotten in this whole shebang is that the current sheet is between the regions of oppositely directed magnetic field (as it should by Maxwell, say magnetic field in the + and - X direction) and the direction of the current is perpendicular to the magnetic field direction (also Maxwell, say in the + Y direction). And thus the magnetic field has a "Harris current sheet" shape in the Z-direction (Bx ~ tanh(z/L)).

Now the double layers created in the current sheet will have their electric field along the current, and will thus energise particles in the direction of the current, which is in the Y direction

However, it should not be forgotten that in magentic reconnection the bulk acceleration is in the X-direction, which obviously cannot be produced by the double layers in the Y-direction.

The double layers may (or may not) facilitate a faster reconnection rate through an increase of the tearing mode.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As I recall, Dungey did not call such events "electrical discharges", he called them "discharges"; feel free to correct me if my memory is in error.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6..135D/0000135.000.html

Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical systems

I'm afraid that your memory is in error my friend.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786440708521050

He specifically uses the term "electrical" in the title and cites Giovanelli's earlier work in the area.

I don't think I'm going to get to all the posts this morning, but I am curious now. Clinger's first equation is Ampere's Circuital Law and the rest of his equations clearly use/evoke permeability in the equations. You are also quite comfortable using circuit equations too. Just EXACTLY how do you two figure that "permeability" in plasma is "different" from "permeability" in other states (such as solids), that somehow isn't "induction"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)

Permeability is the inductance per unit length. In SI units, permeability is measured in henries per metre (H·m−1 = J/(A2·m) = N A−2).

I really cannot understand how the two of you can be so proficient at math, yet ignore the fact that Maxwell's equations can be solved for E or B. It's amazing. How is the state of plasma somehow unique in terms of permeability?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

BS. They were lies. I've informed you now that I HAVE in fact read freshman oriented EM textbooks, not one of which I EVER recall mentioning "magnetic reconnection". Your textbooks don't mention reconnection either, so my memory serves me quite well as it relates to "reconnection" evidently, even if I can't name the author(s) 30 years later.

Great! You've read a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism, so you've seen and understood all of the equations needed to understand the simple experiment I've been recommending for lo these many months.

It's been thirty years, so you may have forgotten a few of the details, but they'll come back to you when you make a sincere effort to understand those equations. Just tell us which part you don't understand. There are always plenty of friendly folks here who stand ready to help amateurs who are making a genuine effort to learn physics.

I don't think I'm going to get to all the posts this morning, but I am curious now. Clinger's first equation is Ampere's Circuital Law and the rest of his equations clearly use/evoke permeability in the equations. You are also quite comfortable using circuit equations too. Just EXACTLY how do you two figure that "permeability" in plasma is "different" from "permeability" in other states (such as solids), that somehow isn't "induction"?

Don't make the mistake of thinking those equations apply only to circuits. Ampere's Law describes the magnetic field induced by current. One of the other equations specializes Ampere's Law to the specific magnetic field that's induced by the specific current that Reality Check (bless his heart) has been asking you about.

To make progress in restoring your memory of the most basic facts about electromagnetism, you should stop trying so hard to ignore Reality Check's questions.

Don't get hung up on permeability either. In the simple experiment I've been recommending for lo these many months, air is the only dielectric, so the permeability constant is that of air. The only reason it's in the equations is to make the SI units and values come out right. You can understand the basic concepts perfectly well by ignoring that constant.

By the way, that experiment doesn't involve plasma, so dragging plasma into the conversation will only confuse you. We're trying to help you to understand magnetic reconnection in the absence of plasma.

Once you understand magnetic reconnection in the absence of plasma, you'll be far better prepared to understand the vastly more complex phenomena that can occur when plasma interacts with magnetic reconnection. Don't try to flip somersaults before you've learned to crawl.

I really cannot understand how the two of you can be so proficient at math, yet ignore the fact that Maxwell's equations can be solved for E or B. It's amazing. How is the state of plasma somehow unique in terms of permeability?

Plasma is irrelevant to the experiment you should be trying to understand, and permeability is just a units-dependent constant. Instead of trying to befuddle yourself further by dragging in irrelevant details, you should focus on the task at hand: Calculating both E and B as functions of the current.

Thirty years ago, when you read that freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism, you learned how to do those calculations. You've forgotten, apparently, but you can remember if you try. All the math you need is in those five equations I gave you. For easy reference, I'll repeat them (in a slightly different order):

[latex]
\[
\begin{align*}
\nabla \times \hbox{{\bf H}} - \frac{\partial \hbox{{\bf D}}}{\partial t} &= \hbox{{\bf J}} \\
\hbox{{\bf H}} &= \mu^\prime \hbox{{\bf B}}
= \frac{\hbox{{\bf B}}}{\mu} \\
\oint_C \hbox{{\bf B}} \cdot d \hbox{{\bf l}} &=
\mu_0 \int_S \hbox{{\bf J}} \cdot \hbox{{\bf n}} \; da \\
| \hbox{{\bf B}} | &= \frac{\mu_0}{4 \pi} I R
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{dl}{(R^2+l^2)^{3/2}}
= \frac{\mu_0}{2 \pi} \frac{I}{R} \\
H_\alpha &= \sum_{\beta} \mu_{\alpha \beta}^\prime B_\beta
\end{align*}
\]
[/latex]​

 

[Michael Mozina]

Don't get hung up on permeability either.

Ya right. Pay no attention to that induction man behind the curtain eh?

In the simple experiment I've been recommending for lo these many months, air is the only dielectric, so the permeability constant is that of air.

It's permeability factor is still measured in the same units (inductance per unit length) as any other material, no?

The only reason it's in the equations is to make the SI units and values come out right. You can understand the basic concepts perfectly well by ignoring that constant.

Ya, more "Pay no attention to the induction man behind the empirical curtain, it's actually the magnetic reconnection wizard of oz doing all the magic." Sure.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Great! You've read a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism, so you've seen and understood all of the equations needed to understand the simple experiment I've been recommending for lo these many months.

Your experiment demonstrates NOTHING like "magnetic reconnection" Clinger. No freshman text book makes such claims or talk about "magnetic reconnetion'. No freshman physics book is typically without a statement such as this one however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#B-field_lines_never_end

B-field lines never end
Main article: Gauss's law for magnetism

Field lines are a useful way to represent any vector field and often reveal sophisticated properties of fields quite simply. One important property of the B-field revealed this way is that magnetic B field lines neither start nor end (mathematically, B is a solenoidal vector field); a field line either extends to infinity or wraps around to form a closed curve.[nb 8] To date no exception to this rule has been found. (See magnetic monopole below.)

If they don't start or end, they can't disconnect or reconnect either.

Notice the mention of monopoles? Priests "slight of hand" was no accident. I think he realized that if in fact "magnetic reconnection" is actually a unique energy transfer mechanism, you need something other than particle acceleration via induction to explain it. There isn't such a thing unfortunately, which is what leaves you high dry as and in need of those permeability factors that are measured in inductance per measured unit.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In the simple experiment I've been recommending for lo these many months, air is the only dielectric, so the permeability constant is that of air.

It's permeability factor is still measured in the same units (inductance per unit length) as any other material, no?

Sure, but the permeability of air is almost exactly the same as the permeability of a vacuum, and I didn't think you'd notice the factor of 1.00000037.

I don't know why you're letting that factor of 1.00000037 befuddle you, but you can get rid of it by performing the entire experiment within a vacuum.

Come to think of it, you must have forgotten that μ₀ is the permeability of a vacuum.

(You really ought to take another look at that EM textbook you last read 30 years ago. If you've lost, sold, or donated it, I recommend Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism.)

The only reason it's in the equations is to make the SI units and values come out right. You can understand the basic concepts perfectly well by ignoring that constant.

Ya, more "Pay no attention to the induction man behind the empirical curtain, it's actually the magnetic reconnection wizard of oz doing all the magic." Sure.

As I said above, you can conduct the entire experiment in a vacuum instead of air, using the vacuum permeability μ₀ for all of the permeabilities that appear within the equations I posted.

Your experiment demonstrates NOTHING like "magnetic reconnection" Clinger. No freshman text book makes such claims or talk about "magnetic reconnetion'.

As Tim Thompson wrote:

This is not found in textbooks & published papers for the simple reason that is is both obvious & trivial. Contrary to the ill-informed opinion of some, it is actually not true that literally everything is found within the covers of a book or on the pages of a scholarly paper. These are the same people who think that every question has an answer in the "solutions manual", if you can find it; thinking not required, just look it all up. It is just one more example of appeal too authority rather than an independent examination of the actual physics involved.

To be fair, the ill-informed people who think all answers are found within some holy text insist upon appeals to authority because they just aren't capable of conducting an independent examination of the actual physics involved.

Michael Mozina isn't that guy, because he read a freshman-level textbook on electromagnetism some thirty years ago. Although he can't remember anything about its title, author, or electromagnetism, I'm sure it will all come back to him after he's worked out a few trivial exercises, such as the one I've been suggesting to him for almost a year.

No freshman physics book is typically without a statement such as this one however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#B-field_lines_never_end

If they don't start or end, they can't disconnect or reconnect either.

Oh, I see. You're taking a statement about the instantaneous state of the magnetic field and misinterpreting it to mean the magnetic field can't change over time.

In magnetic reconnection, the word "reconnection" has to do with topological changes over time. That's entirely consistent with Maxwell's equations. In fact, it's implied by Maxwell's equations (as you would discover by taking just a couple of minutes to work out the consequences of the five equations I posted).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sure, but the permeability of air is almost exactly the same as the permeability of a vacuum, and I didn't think you'd notice the factor of 1.00000037.

IMO you're missing the point. Suppose we substitute your vacuum for various types of materials? Will the INDUCTANCE change with the material too?

I don't know why you're letting that factor of 1.00000037 befuddle you, but you can get rid of it by performing the entire experiment within a vacuum.

Again, you're missing the point IMO. The 'vacuum' is also known to have an INDUCTANCE factor.

Come to think of it, you must have forgotten that μ₀ is the permeability of a vacuum.

Ya, measured in *INDUCTANCE PER DISTANCE UNIT*!

(You really ought to take another look at that EM textbook you last read 30 years ago. If you've lost, sold, or donated it, I recommend Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism.)
......
Oh, I see. You're taking a statement about the instantaneous state of the magnetic field and misinterpreting it to mean the magnetic field can't change over time.

There is a certain irony here in the sense that you've evidently FORGOTTEN that magnetic lines do not have a beginning or an end. You've evidently FORGOTTEN that they are physically incapable of "disconnecting" from, or "reconnecting to" any other "magnetic line". That is a PRIME DIRECTIVE of Gauss's law of magnetism. Did you forget?

In magnetic reconnection, the word "reconnection" has to do with topological changes over time.

Then you should have no trouble calling it "current reconnection", or "circuit reconnection", but you do. Why? We know from your formulas that every single one of them involves INDUCTANCE per distance unit.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#B-field_lines_never_end

B-field lines never end
Main article: Gauss's law for magnetism

Field lines are a useful way to represent any vector field and often reveal sophisticated properties of fields quite simply. One important property of the B-field revealed this way is that magnetic B field lines neither start nor end (mathematically, B is a solenoidal vector field); a field line either extends to infinity or wraps around to form a closed curve.[nb 8] To date no exception to this rule has been found. (See magnetic monopole below.)

Magnetic field lines exit a magnet near its north pole and enter near its south pole, but inside the magnet B-field lines continue through the magnet from the south pole back to the north.[nb 9] If a B-field line enters a magnet somewhere it has to leave somewhere else; it is not allowed to have an end point. Magnetic poles, therefore, always come in N and S pairs. Cutting a magnet in half results in two separate magnets each with both a north and a south pole.

More formally, since all the magnetic field lines that enter any given region must also leave that region, subtracting the 'number'[nb 10] of field lines that enter the region from the number that exit gives identically zero. Mathematically this is equivalent to:

where the integral is a surface integral over the closed surface S (a closed surface is one that completely surrounds a region with no holes to let any field lines escape). Since dA points outward, the dot product in the integral is positive for B-field pointing out and negative for B-field pointing in.

There is also a corresponding differential form of this equation covered in Maxwell's equations below.

Did you forget?

 

[Michael Mozina]

How you answer these questions will determine the details of my further responses.

I think the only relevant question at this point in time is whether or not you are willing to meet me in the middle and call it "current reconnection", or "circuit reconnection" yet? If not, why not?

 

[Reality Check]

Let's look at the WHOLE sentence you picked out:
First of all, he is bluntly rejecting the concept above the photosphere.
Secondly, the "concept" he's "ok-ing" in your highlighted part isn't "reconnection" theory, it's the "frozen in" idea that "might be valid" in dense plasmas not reconnection theory.

Yes - you have finally got it after these many months of people pointing out the obvious : Alfvén strongly stresses the danger of using the frozen-in concept (not MR)

This 30 year old opinion has been shown to be incorrect as far as the less dense photospheric region is concerned (see Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003).

More importantly, Alfven sees and writes about the ENTIRE UNIVERSE as a "current carrying" environment...

More importantly, this has nothing to so with his opinion (as stated in the speech) that the frozen-in concept needs to be used carefully (Alfvén strongly stresses the danger of using the frozen-in concept (not MR)).

More importantly, you remain ignorant that Alfvén's theory (Plasma Cosmology) about the "ENTIRE UNIVERSE as a "current carrying" environment" was shown to be incorrect by 1993

In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized the cosmology of Klein (1971), and Alfvén's 1966 book, Worlds-Antiworlds, writing that "there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds".[12]

Plasma Cosmology is even more wrong today. In 1993 all that was known about the CMB was its temperature. The FIRAS measurements from COBE published in 1994 (and possibly available to Pebbles in 1993) first showed that the CMB was basically a perfect blackbody spectrum. We have even more data today from WMAP that Plasma Cosmology cannot match.

 

[Reality Check]

P.S. MM - You are still ignoring the first step in understanding W.D.Clinger's simple experiment:

MM - in case you have still not read my post, W.D.Clinger is referring to the application of electromagnetism to a single rod:

MM: What is the magnetic field around a single current carrying rod
first asked 18th October 2011.
(use this link - the previous link was to the wrong post)
​

I am not even asking you to 'bark math'!
I am asking you to apply what undergraduate students (and probably high school students) know about the magnetic field generated by a current.

 

[sol invictus]

If they don't start or end, they can't disconnect or reconnect either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#B-field_lines_never_end

Did you forget?

Michael, we've discussed this issue many times before. It's true that B-field lines cannot start or end. Nevertheless, they can reconnect, so long as they do so at a point where the magnitude of the B field is zero. This does not violate Maxwell's equations, and it does not require magnetic monopoles. In fact we've several times given you explicit examples of magnetic fields that solve Maxwell's equations and reconnect.

Years ago I gave you the example of contour lines on a map. Those can't begin or end either - but they can reconnect, for instance at a saddle point (a pass between two hills) during an earthquake (i.e. as the topography changes with time).

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Do you agree that that MR happens in solar flares (Dungey says so!)

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6..135D/0000135.000.html

Dear me - still wrong again, MM!

The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism (a presentation at a Proceedings from IAU Symposium no. 6, 1953)

The suggestion that a solar flare results from an electrical discharge situated in the neighborhood of a neutral point of the magnetic field was made by Giovanelly[2].
...
The defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density.

The context in this case is magnetic reconnection (the neutral point & magnetic field is a hint, MM).

Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical systems
is Dungey's 1953 paper which I think Cowling is criticizing.

In any case, this is not an electrical discharge (see Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge ). It is the outdated term used 60 years ago for the high current density in magnetic reconnection.

Michael Mozina
Do you agree that that magnetic reconnection happens in solar flares (Dungey says so!)?
If no then his 'electrical discharge' cannot happen.
If yes then his 'electrical discharge' does happen and we will have to call it what it is been called for many decades - a high current density.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: What is the magnetic field around a single current carrying rod

I've informed you now that I HAVE in fact read freshman oriented EM textbooks, not one of which I EVER recall mentioning "magnetic reconnection".

Well big deal : No one (including me now) expects freshman oriented EM textbooks to mention magnetic reconnection.
Magnetic reconnection is not freshman material. I do not recall covering it myself in my undergraduate courses (but that was many years ago).

The point that W.D. Clinger and I are trying to make is that the EM covered in freshman oriented EM textbooks (you know in the one you read and hopefully understand), is enough to allow anyone to comprehend the simple fact that magnetic reconnection happens. The basic undergraduate experiment that W.D. Clinger suggested on 28 December 2010 seems to be too complex for you to understand otherwise you would go through it and show how MR does not happen in it.
So I suggested that we go through it in smaller, simpler steps:

MM: What is the magnetic field around a single current carrying rod
first asked 18th October 2011.
​

and you seem incapable of answering this high school science problem, yet. But it has only been a week .

 

[Reality Check]

The idiocy of calling magnetic reconnection, current or circuit reconnection

I think the only relevant question at this point in time is whether or not you are willing to meet me in the middle and call it "current reconnection", or "circuit reconnection" yet? If not, why not?

The answer is totally obvious, MM:

• It already has a perfectly good name that decribes what happens: Magnetic reconnection.
• Currents do not reconnect in MR so "current reconnection" is a stupid name.
• There are no circuits in MR so "circuit reconnection" is a stupid name.