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!

I will give you another chance to check with Anthony Peratt whether your assertion is correct (using your words) :

MM: Ask Peratt whether your 'electrical discharges in plasma' assertion is correct!
First asked 12th October 2011 (13 days and counting)
​

Otherwise I will contact him stating your assertion in my words, e.g.

Dear Anthony Peratt,
Can you clarify a point that has been raised about your book in the JREF forum thread Electric Sun Theory (mostly about the claim that solar flares are electrical discharges in plasma).
The originator of the thread has cited section 1.5 of your book which has a title of 'Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma' and has the first sentence of "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.".
This is interpreted by them as that the section is about electrical discharges that happen within plasmas.

However I have the interpretation that this is the standard definition of electrical discharge that excludes it from happening in plasma.
I have pointed out that the section continues with "This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.". Also the examples of electrical discharges in that section are for solids or gases (e.g. lightning). And there is no discussion of electrical discharges that happen within plasma in that section or elsewhere in your book. I also cannot find any textbooks or papers which explain electrical discharges within plasma.

Which interpretation of your section is correct?

If electrical discharges can happen within plasmas then could you point us to current textbooks or papers that explain this process in further detail?

Regards,
...
​

 

[Almo]

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.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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?

Instead of obsessing about the difference in permeability between vacuum and air (less than one part in a million, far less than your likely experimental error), you should run the experiment I've been suggesting, or at least use your alleged 30-year-old knowledge of freshman electromagnetism to calculate its magnetic fields.

You'd learn a great deal about connections between permeability and various notions of inductance by answering Tim Thompson's questions.

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?

You've asked that before. Please pay attention this time:

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.

(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?

No, but you forgot. Please pay attention this time:

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.

I'll give Michael Mozina yet another hint: You (Michael) can use your 30-year-old knowledge of freshman electromagnetism and calculus to prove that the magnetic field near the center of a long conducting rod is almost the same as the magnetic field of an infinitely long conducting rod. The five equations I posted tell you everything you need to calculate that magnetic field.

When you calculate its divergence, you will find that Gauss's Law for Magnetism is satisfied. If you vary the current slowly throughout the experiment, the time derivative will be negligible. By superposition, you may then conclude that Gauss's Law is satisfied throughout the experiment I've been suggesting. Since that freshman-level exercise also demonstrates (slow!) magnetic reconnection, you will have proved to yourself that magnetic reconnection is consistent with Maxwell's equations.

If you have trouble calculating the divergence, I suggest you use cylindrical coordinates (with the rod at r=0) and consider

[latex]
\[
V_\delta(r, \theta, z) = \left\{ \langle r^\prime, \theta^\prime, z^\prime \rangle
\; | \;
|r-r^\prime| \leq \delta \; \& \;
|\theta-\theta^\prime| \leq \delta \; \& \;
|z-z^\prime| \leq \delta \right\}
\]
[/latex]​

for small δ > 0.

Reality Check has been trying to give you an even more basic hint:

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 .

 

[Almo]

Michael should address these basic questions that Reality Check and Clinger are posing. You have to walk before you can run.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael should address these basic questions that Reality Check and Clinger are posing. You have to walk before you can run.

Bah!

"Running" in this case requires having read some of Alfven's material and having some concept of "circuit" theory, electrical discharges in plasmas, and the E orientation to plasma physics theory. Since neither of them has read Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma" for themselves, they both remain in staunch denial of OBVIOUS things, like the COMPLETE IRRELEVANCY of "magnetic reconnection" theory in "current carrying" plasmas.

Instead of doing some reading on their own, they insist that we "walk" (actually crawl) around in the dark, deny the validity of plasma physics from the E orientation, and pretend that magnetic lines (which never end) can somehow magically "disconnect" and "reconnect" at various POINTS. They are utterly ignoring the fact they are USING INDUCTANCE in their formulas, not "magnetic reconnection per unit distance". Nevermind the fact that Alfven's double layer paper NAILS THE COFFIN SHUT on MR theory in current carrying environments. Nevermind any of the physical empirical facts. We're all stuck in pure denial because they refuse to educate themselves to plasma physics from the E orientation and they don't even understand the basics of electromagnetic theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Instead of obsessing about the difference in permeability between vacuum and air (less than one part in a million, far less than your likely experimental error), you should run the experiment I've been suggesting, or at least use your alleged 30-year-old knowledge of freshman electromagnetism to calculate its magnetic fields.

I read all those experiments. They didn't say a DAMN THING about "reconnection". They mention INDUCTANCE per unit distance however, as do each of the formulas you posted! You're absolutely *AVOIDING* the "tough question", probably because you don't like the answer. If we substitute steel for your air, or your 'vacuum' the INDUCTANCE changes as a result. All your experiment actually demonstrates is *INDUCTANCE*, not "reconnection". Your freshman physics book doesn't even MENTION reconnection, but it mentions INDUCTANCE a lot! You're in pure denial of the fact that you're MISLABELING INDUCTANCE as "reconnection'.

The magnetic lines have no beginning and no ending. They don't "disconnect" or break anywhere along the line. This is BASIC ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY 101 boys and girls. Alfven' rejected your theory in ALL CURRENT CARRYING ENVIRONMENTS and MADE IT OBSOLETE AND UNNECESSARY in such environments. In fact he made it absolutely unnecessary and obsolete in such environments with the double layer paper he presented at that very same conference. Denial won't save you from either basic physics, or historical fact Clinger.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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).

FYI, I have absolutely no idea why you personally would step back into this mess having read a little of Alfven's work for yourself sol. You're about the only one here besides me that seems to appreciate the fact that photons are a form of kinetic energy, so I'm sure you'll see my point sooner or later.

Since you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound now my friend. How about some direct answers to the following questions:

Do electrical discharges as Peratt defined them occur in plasmas sol, yes or no? Did Alfven reject MR theory in current carrying environments, yes or no? Why? How much KINETIC ENERGY is located at two ZERO points in a couple of magnetic field lines? How come all the equations in question are based on INDUCTANCE per distance unit, not "magnetic reconnection per distance unit? How is "magnetic reconnection' not "inductance" when every single formula is based on INDUCTANCE? Why do I even need 'magnetic reconnection' theory in the first place in a current carrying environment when I can simply use Alfven's double layer paper instead?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

The term "electrical discharge" from Dungey is also a "hint" RC. Unlike you, Dungey understood that electrical discharges can an do occur in plasmas. He DIRECTLY associated flares with electrical discharges, as did Birkeland, Bruce and many others. You're just in hard core denial of basic physics, specifically the fact that electrical discharges can and do occur in plasmas just as Dungey and Peratt said. Trying to split hairs between Peratt's definition and Dungey's use of the term is just another pathetic example of your denial process in motion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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)

BS. He also outright rejected your theory above the photosphere, and in all current carrying environments. I guess your attitude is that if you repeat the same lie over and over people will start to believe you.

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science
Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfvén, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in 1.3, 11.3, and 11.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.
A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.
In those parts of solar physics which do not deal with the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region (fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid), the state is even worse. It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made necessary (see Section VIII).
I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you vary the current slowly throughout the experiment, the time derivative will be negligible. By superposition, you may then conclude that Gauss's Law is satisfied throughout the experiment I've been suggesting.

Ya, via *INDUCTANCE* per distance unit, not "magnetic reconnection" per distance unit!

 

[Almo]

If you continue to ignore accepted results without disproving them or showing how they are faulty, your ideas are doomed. It's how science works. Einstein's Relativity was big because it made predictions that were borne out by experiment.

Plasma Cosmology hasn't even dealt with the COBE results yet. Barking up the wrong tree, man.

 

[Reality Check]

BS. He also outright rejected your theory above the photosphere, and in all current carrying environments. I guess your attitude is that if you repeat the same lie over and over people will start to believe you.

You are showing that you are incapable of understanding what he said in his speech. He stated "It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct.".
He is not saying that all papers (which would include his own!) on the low density regions were incorrect - he is saying that he only finds that there are a few correct papers.

Alfvén never rejects MR in 'all current carrying environments'. The criteria that he applies in his book (try understanding it for once) is that there be no current crossing the boundary of a volume. There can be current inside. There can be current outside.

Alfvén strongly stresses the danger of using the frozen-in concept (not MR)

He was wrong as Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003) shows.

 

[Reality Check]

I will give you another chance to check with Anthony Peratt whether your assertion is correct (using your words) :

MM: Ask Peratt whether your 'electrical discharges in plasma' assertion is correct!
First asked 12th October 2011 (13 days and counting)
​

Since you are dragging your feet on this MM, I have sent Anthony Peratt an email.

 

[Belz...]

No, one can lie intentionally or unintentionally.

Ah, so you don't know the definition of the verb "to lie" ?

 

[Belz...]

Damn it RC, that was my last irony meter!

Good, now you can focus on content rather than form, yes ?

I don't hate math, I actually like math. I simply don't use it as a crutch to avoid the "physics" aspect of science.

Hilarious. I love people who can't do science, then claim that not doing science is actually a better way to do science, like their detractors do, simply because doing science would actually reach a conclusion they don't like.

The only instance where he didn't reject it outright was when it was used as a pseudonym for the process described in his double layer paper, making it IRRELEVANT.

Please stop SHOUTING !

FYI, I tripled my normal order of irony meters this week and they came Fedex overnight.

Form over content after all, it seems.

 

[Reality Check]

The term "electrical discharge" from Dungey is also a "hint" RC. Unlike you, Dungey understood that electrical discharges can an do occur in plasmas. He DIRECTLY associated flares with electrical discharges, as did Birkeland, Bruce and many others. You're just in hard core denial of basic physics, specifically the fact that electrical discharges can and do occur in plasmas just as Dungey and Peratt said. Trying to split hairs between Peratt's definition and Dungey's use of the term is just another pathetic example of your denial process in motion.

Oh the ignorance !

And the delusions !

• Basic physics states that electrical discharges cannot happen in plasma - see Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.
• Dungey understood that high current densities (which he calls electrical discharges) can and do occur in magnetic reconnection.
  It is a delusion to state that he says anything about plasmas in general.

Dungey DIRECTLY associated flares with magnetic reconnection.

Birkeland never DIRECTLY associated flares with electrical discharges (he made analogies between his images and solar activity)

Bruce did but was totally wrong since lightning between physically impossible dust particles can never happen on the Sun.

"Many others" have not (not even Alfvén!).
Decades and decades ago some authors may have associated solar flares with magnetic reconnection and called the high current densities in this process 'electrical discharges, e.g. the authors Dungey cited.

There are no hairs to split as anyone who can read can tell.
Peratt's definition and Dungey's use of the term are vastly different. I frist pointed this pout to you on 13th January 2011 (Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different) and you still cannot understand the simple English that they wrote.
Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.

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

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.

and
MM: Do you agree that that MR happens in solar flares? (Dungey says so!)
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 defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you continue to ignore accepted results without disproving them or showing how they are faulty, your ideas are doomed.

I agree. That is why I went to all the trouble of going through the various experiments and demonstrating they involve current carrying plasma and are therefore irrelevant. Alfven's double layer paper explains these events via inductance, not "magnetic reconnection". More importantly I also spent the time to show everyone that B fields have no beginning or ending. They don't "disconnect" nor "reconnect" or they would have beginnings and endings and violate Gause's law of magnetism. I carefully showed Clinger that his so called "reconnection" equations are based upon "inductance", the STANDARD way to pass energy from the magnetic field to any particle.

It's how science works. Einstein's Relativity was big because it made predictions that were borne out by experiment.

And so did Alfven's prediction. He predicted that double layers formed in current carrying plasmas and circuits and that's exactly what we observe.

Plasma Cosmology hasn't even dealt with the COBE results yet. Barking up the wrong tree, man.

IMO now you're trying to run before anyone here has learned how to walk yet. I can't even get them to understand coronal loops as circuits yet, or to look at magnetospheric activity via the circuit (E) orientation. They haven't figured out this solar system yet from the E orientation.

Don't jump ahead at light speed. Trust me, nobody is ready, least of all me. I'd be happy if they just GOT the E orientation of the events that Alfven already wrote about (like loops and magnospheric circuits). So far they're utterly and completely incapable of accepting the fact that it's also "current reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" and "electrical discharge" event.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ah, so you don't know the definition of the verb "to lie" ?

Hmmm. You may actually have a point since it was rather a terse statement on my part. You're probably right that there has to be an intent to deceive involved. The motive behind that sentence was that I could appreciate that it was possible for Clinger to "not know" if I'd read any freshman textbooks on EM theory, and therefore I wasn't obvious that his statement was false. He possessed no knowledge the statement was false at the time. On the other hand I do believe there was an intent to deceive because he never asked me. He simply ASSUMED something that wasn't true (for his own personal purposes) and made a false claim about my education. You might be right however that there has to be some "intent" in there that is less than honorable for it to be a "lie".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hilarious. I love people who can't do science, then claim that not doing science is actually a better way to do science, like their detractors do, simply because doing science would actually reach a conclusion they don't like.

But I've shown them Alfven's maths. They don't like the implication of the E orientation because Alfven's double layer paper does away with any need for "magnetic reconnection". I've gone to all the trouble to "do the science" and point out the INDUCTANCE PER UNIT measurement that is being applied to this "experiment". It's not my fault Alfven reached conclusions that this crew doesn't like.

Please stop SHOUTING !

FYI, it's not a shouting thing, it's an emphasis thing. I would typically emphasize certain words in a verbal conversation. I'm not shouting, I'm just emphasizing the words of the sentence that I would in a normal conversation.

Form over content after all, it seems.

Indeed. That's why I've provided lots of links in this thread including the work by Mann and Onel, Alfven, Bruce, Birkeland and many, many, many others. How many of them have you read?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Since you are dragging your feet on this MM, I have sent Anthony Peratt an email.

Cool! Just out of curiosity, did you tell him that electrical discharges are impossible in a plasma?