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

[Reality Check]

Current is MOBILE and quantized. It can indeed "reconnect" to other "circuits" in plasma. So what?
...delusional rant snipped...

Maybe you will undersdtand what I write if I add smilies.
Currents reconnect! Wow !
Currents split and come together all of the time in plasma. Wow !

 

[tusenfem]

No, it's actually not out of context in any way. FYI, I thought that author sounded very familiar to me, but I didn't recognize the text. I went through my plasma physics books at work and lo and behold, I own his book "Fundamentals of Cosmic Electrodynamics". He talks extensively about current sheets and current sheet acceleration in that book too.

But pray tell me, in what direction are the particles accelerated in the current sheet and in which direction are the particles accelerated in the relaxation of the magnetic tension?

I am sure you will find they are in perpendicular directions.

 

[Perpetual Student]

If this has been asked before, I apologize -- I'm not up to the task of reading 112 pages.
Is the debate here about magnetic reconnection confined to plasmas or is there a debate that magnetic reconnection can happen at all?
If so, how can magnetic lines not reconnect in the following situation?
Say I have two bar magnets aligned thus:

[S--------------------N][S-------------------N]

Now from my high school days I can recall the iron filings showing how the magnetic lines are configured and I think everyone here knows what that looks like. So, if I move these bar magnets with my own two hands so that they are sufficiently distant, looking at only one magnet:

[S--------------------N]

we know that the iron filings would show that, as I moved the magnets apart, the lines we had before were severed and they reconnected to accommodate the new shortened magnet.

I know this is a very naive approach and perhaps is far off the mark regarding this debate. Is this magnetic reconnection or not?
Mozina, don't bother answering -- you remain on "ignore." If any of the knowledgeable people here would answer I would appreciate it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just out of curiosity - do you imagine that all of Somov's book is available in Google Books?

No, but I do happen to own "Fundamentals of Cosmic Electrodynamics" by the very same author. Chapter 16, page 307 is entitled "Reconnection of Electric Currents". He then proceeds to explain the process from Alfven's perspective. I don't suppose you've read either of Somov's books on plasma physics? Nah, probably not. You prefer to argue from pure ignorance.

Oddly enough I don't see ANYTHING in Somov's book (the one I own) that looks like Clingers equations. His original explanation of the idea on page 36 uses currents. Section 2.4.2 is entitled "Reconnecting current sheets", and he pretty much picks up where page 108 starts in the book you mentioned. Section 2.4.3 is entitled "Acceleration in current sheets". He's quite fluid with both the B and E orientations, I assure you.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Is the debate here about magnetic reconnection confined to plasmas or is there a debate that magnetic reconnection can happen at all?

Who can tell? The only nay-sayer here is Michael Mozina, and he's been all over the place.

Once upon a time, he denied the possibility of magnetic reconnection under any circumstances, and by repeating the following he appears once again to be denying all magnetic reconnection:

No "reconnection" of "magnetic lines" (B lines) ever actually takes place because B lines have no beginning and no ending and no physical ability to "disconnect from" nor reconnect to, any other magnetic line.

At other times he has said he accepts the reality of magnetic reconnection, but thinks it should have been called "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection" because he doesn't think it has anything to do with magnetic field lines. He has also expressed the opinion that magnetic reconnection can only take place in plasma, or only when there's a nonzero E field.

And don't forget: He thinks Hannes Alfvén said magnetic reconnection was pseudo-science, so it must be some kind of woo even if it's perfectly real.

Say I have two bar magnets aligned thus:

[S--------------------N][S-------------------N]

Now from my high school days I can recall the iron filings showing how the magnetic lines are configured and I think everyone here knows what that looks like. So, if I move these bar magnets with my own two hands so that they are sufficiently distant, looking at only one magnet:

[S--------------------N]

we know that the iron filings would show that, as I moved the magnets apart, the lines we had before were severed and they reconnected to accommodate the new shortened magnet.

I know this is a very naive approach and perhaps is far off the mark regarding this debate. Is this magnetic reconnection or not?

Yes.

Here are the reasons I'm in the midst of a multipart post on a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection:

• I'm showing how a simple experiment reproduces a magnetic field with exactly the same topology and reconnection that appears in Dungey (1958), Yamada et al figure 3a, the Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection, and many other papers on magnetic reconnection.
• The mathematics and magnetostatics are fairly simple, at the freshman level of vector calculus and electromagnetism,
• so I can give dead-simple proofs that Gauss's law for magnetism holds for the magnetic fields I'm deriving
• and I can give a simple but rigorous topological proof that magnetic reconnection actually occurs during the experiment I've been recommending to Michael Mozina for most of the past year.
• The magnetic fields are actually pretty interesting, and provide counterexamples to at least two myths that are often repeated even by people who know something about electromagnetism.

Although I'd like to post part 3 of that derivation tomorrow night, it will probably have to wait until Monday. I know what I'm going to write, and I've done the calculations (again---I first ran the numbers a year ago), but part 3 should show the magnetic fields and field lines in graphical form, and that's the hard part. It's taking me a while to figure out how to convert all of the numbers into comprehensible pixel maps.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Who can tell? The only nay-sayer here is Michael Mozina, and he's been all over the place.

Not really. I've agreed that "current reconnection" happens in plasma, circuits form in plasma, electrical discharges happen in plasma and induction happens in plasma. I've been rather consistent. It's you that seems to be all over the place in term of what you personally call "reconnection". For instance:

Yes.

NO! It's called "attraction/repulsion"! If you actually let them physically touch that is called "solid magnet reconnection".

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/electromag/java/magneticlines2/

Considering you're slapping that term to anything you see, from inductance processes to attraction/repulsion processes, to "topology changes over time", to solid magnet reconnection, it's impossible to tell what YOU PERSONALLY mean by the term "magnetic reconnection". You handwave a new (and bogus) claim into the conversation pretty much every single day.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Say I have two bar magnets aligned thus:

[S--------------------N][S-------------------N]

Now from my high school days I can recall the iron filings showing how the magnetic lines are configured and I think everyone here knows what that looks like. So, if I move these bar magnets with my own two hands so that they are sufficiently distant, looking at only one magnet:

[S--------------------N]

we know that the iron filings would show that, as I moved the magnets apart, the lines we had before were severed and they reconnected to accommodate the new shortened magnet.

I know this is a very naive approach and perhaps is far off the mark regarding this debate. Is this magnetic reconnection or not?

W.D.Clinger: Yes.

So, it's that simple? What else could the lines in my little example do but "reconnect" in order to have the new arrangement?
This just seems to be too easy! I will probably regret this, but I am going to take Mozina off "ignore" to see if there is any rational explanation as to why the lines do not reconnect. I will do my best to keep an open mind. So, Mr. Mozina, if you care to do so, have at it!

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm showing how a simple experiment reproduces a magnetic field with exactly the same topology and reconnection that appears in Dungey (1958), Yamada et al figure 3a, the Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection, and many other papers on magnetic reconnection.

Both of their processes took place in PLASMA Clinger, not in a "vacuum" or "air" or "water". You're trying to ride their coattails even though their "experiments" are nothing like your 'experiment'. What a crock.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't suppose you've read either of Somov's books on plasma physics? Nah, probably not. You prefer to argue from pure ignorance.

I prefer to argue from my extensive knowledge of physics and an education that allows me to understand science when it is presented to me (and when gibberish is being spouted by Internet physics cranks).

Oddly enough I don't see ANYTHING in Somov's book (the one I own) that looks like Clingers equations.

Oddly enough, you are probably wrong
Fundamentals of cosmic electrodynamics

Starting from the language of plasma physics, from Maxwell's equations, the author guides the reader into the more specialized concepts of cosmic electrodynamics.

W.D. Clinger's posts so far are
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 1and an erratum,
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 2

and what is Equation 1, MM?

[SIZE=+1]Equation 1 (Ampère's law with Maxwell's correction)[/SIZE]

That's one of the four Maxwell's equations.

(replaced the Latex? with a Wikipedia link)

I would be surprised if a book that starts from Maxwell's equations does not quote them.

The rest of W.D. Clinger's equations (e.g. the derivation of the magnetic field around a current carrying rod) is basic EM and calculus. It is unlikely to be in anything but textbooks on basic EM and calculus. But who knows?

Another question arises - why is a person ignorant of high school science (Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)) reading a book for graduate students?
Fundamentals of cosmic electrodynamics
"It is aimed primarily at beginning graduate students who are assumed to have a knowledge of basic physics"

 

[Perpetual Student]

This is exactly what I had in mind:
http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/motion04.htm
Clearly the lines break and reconnect!

 

[Michael Mozina]

I prefer to argue from my extensive knowledge of physics and an education that allows me to understand science when it is presented to me (and when gibberish is being spouted by Internet physics cranks).

So you haven't read either of Somov's books, one of which I've read, you haven't read Alfven's books, two of which I've read. You haven't read Peratt's book either, and I've read that book too. Somehow, evidently through pure clairvoyance, you've become some sort of resident expert on plasma physics *WITHOUT* reading any of the relevant materials! LOL!

I would be surprised if a book that starts from Maxwell's equations does not quote them.

You're probably right, it's in there somewhere. I'm also sure permeability is listed in there there somewhere too. Nothing in Clingers presentations gets any boost from Somov's work thus far since Somov is clear about RECONNECTING CURRENTS!

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is exactly what I had in mind:
http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/motion04.htm
Clearly the lines break and reconnect!

No, the solid magnetic breaks and reconnects again forming two magnets and then one again. That is "solid magnetic reconnection". The problem is that plasma contains no solid magnets for "magnet reconnection" to occur in plasma. It does however contain CURRENTS and currents can definitely "reconnect" in plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let's count and see how many things have been associated with or directly called "magnetic reconnection" now in this thread:

1) Electrical discharges (Dungey - Peratt)
2) Reconnection of Electric Currents (Somov - Chapter 16 - Fundamentals of Cosmic Electrodynamics)
3) Solid magnet reconnection (Clinger)
4) The permeability of a vacuum (measured in inductance per unit length) (Clinger)
5) Ampere's law and circuit theory (everyone)
6) Current sheet acceleration (Somov - Alfven)
7) Double layer transactions (Alfven)

Did I miss any?

 

[Reality Check]

So you haven't read either of Somov's books, one of which I've read, you haven't read Alfven's books, two of which I've read. You haven't read Peratt's book either, and I've read that book too.

That is stupid - shall I ask you about all of the books that I have read that you probably have not?

I do not have to read specific books to know that the physics of magnetic reconnection are well understood (except by you of course)

You're probably right, it's in there somewhere. I'm also sure permeability is listed in there there somewhere too.

So am I. I am sure that permeability is listed in throusands of books.

Nothing in Clingers presentations gets any boost from Somov's work thus far since Somov is clear about RECONNECTING CURRENTS!

So am I: RECONNECTING CURRENTS! See - very clear !

That has nothing to do with the fact that Somov in his other book states that magnteic reconnection in vacuum happens.
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov

Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle of particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.

This sounds like another candidate for one of your delusions
Michael Mozina
Do you have the delusion that Somov thinks that magnetic reconnection in a vacuum is not a real physical process?

ETA:
MAGNETIC RECONNECTION SCENARIO OF THE BASTILLE DAY 2000 FLARE by Boris V. Somov, Takeo Kosugi, Hugh S. Hudson, and Taro Sakao.
(Thanks GeeMack)

 

[Perpetual Student]

No, the solid magnetic breaks and reconnects again forming two magnets and then one again. That is "solid magnetic reconnection". The problem is that plasma contains no solid magnets for "magnet reconnection" to occur in plasma. It does however contain CURRENTS and currents can definitely "reconnect" in plasma.

I am not following that. Do the magnetic lines break and reconnect or not?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I am not following that. Do the magnetic lines break and reconnect or not?

No. The solid magnet physically breaks and reconnects. Once you reconnect the solid magnets and it becomes a single solid magnet again, sure it's one "thing" again. Until you physically reconnect the solid magnets, no, it's just ordinary magnetic attraction and repulsion between two magnets that is taught in every single freshman classroom.

 

[Reality Check]

Let's count and see how many things have been associated with or directly called "magnetic reconnection" now in this thread:

1) Electrical discharges (Dungey - Peratt)
2) Reconnection of Electric Currents (Somov - Chapter 16 - Fundamentals of Cosmic Electrodynamics)
3) Solid magnet reconnection (Clinger)
4) The permeability of a vacuum (measured in inductance) (Clinger)
5) Ampere's law and circuit theory (everyone)
6) Current sheet acceleration (Somov - Alfven)
7) Double layers (Alfven)

Did I miss any?

Your list is wrong (e.g. double layers have nothing to do with MR) and incomplete

• electrons
• ions
• magnetic fileds
• electric fields
• plasma
• Gauss's law
• Gauss's law for magnetism
• ideal MHD
• resisitive MHD
• Hall effect MHD
• permeablity
• permeablity of air
• permeablity of free space
• current sheets
• the small kinetic energy of the plasma particlee (that it is only a tiny part of the total energy though is in another thread)
• welding in space (Mozina)
• contour lines
• circuit models
• inductance
• induction
• magnetic field lines
• etc.
• etc.
• etc.

 

[Perpetual Student]

No. The solid magnet physically breaks and reconnects. Once you reconnect the solid magnets and it becomes a single solid magnet again, sure it's one "thing" again. Until you physically reconnect the solid magnets, no, it's just ordinary magnetic attraction and repulsion between two magnets that is taught in every single freshman classroom.

I do not follow what you're saying. When the two magnets are together, the magnetic lines go -- by convention -- from north to south (outside) forming a kind of shell around the connected objects, which act as a single magnet. When they are pulled apart, all the lines no longer wrap around the two objects but end up wrapping around each magnet individually. What happened o these lines? Did they not break and simultaneously reconnect? If not, how did this new configuration of the lines come about?
Mr. Mozina, I am really trying to stay with you on this.

 

[Reality Check]

No. The solid magnet physically breaks and reconnects. Once you reconnect the solid magnets and it becomes a single solid magnet again, sure it's one "thing" again. Until you physically reconnect the solid magnets, no, it's just ordinary magnetic attraction and repulsion between two magnets that is taught in every single freshman classroom.

That is rather insane, MM:
What matters is what happens to the magnetic field lines as you separate 2 magnets, rotate one and put them together again (and repeat).
You can see the field lines breaking and reconnecting.

One way that I have heard this explained is:
When you rotate the magnet the first time (so that ti starts to oppose the other magnetic), neutral (or null) points develop where the magnetic field is zero. There are no magnetic field lines where B = 0. This allows the lines to become undefined (break) as they pass through the neutral point and then defined again (reconnect).

 

[Reality Check]

When they are pulled apart, all the lines no longer wrap around the two objects but end up wrapping around each magnet individually.

Sorry: This is where I should have said something about your original two magnets separating scenario - the separation just stretches the filed lines.

The important thing about the animation is the rotation of the magnet.