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

[Perpetual Student]

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.

OK, but well, this is more difficult than I thought. If two such magnets are together the lines from the north pole of magnet A wraps around and enters the south pole of the magnet B. Now, when they are very far from each other, are not the lines from the north pole of A -- that were entering the south pole of B -- now entering the south pole of A? These are the same lines that were exiting A before that are no longer entering B. Would these lines not have to have broken and reconnected at some point for this to happen?
Is this something other than the magnetic reconnection being discussed here?

Addendum: Note in the animation this is exactly what happens to the lines illustrated when the magnets are first drawn apart, before any twisting is done.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

A physical object, like a solid magnetic can be broken in two. It has a beginning, it has an ending, and it has a middle. You can in fact "disconnect" the two solid magnets, and "reconnect" them physically again. That is "solid magnetic reconnection". The number of magnetic lines, and contours of those magnetic lines are directly related to the NUMBER of magnets.

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

Don't touch the two magnets together for a minute. Would you agree that what occurs between the two magnets is "attraction" and "repulsion"? When do the magnetic field lines "reconnect"?

 

[Perpetual Student]

A physical object, like a solid magnetic can be broken in two. It has a beginning, it has an ending, and it has a middle. You can in fact "disconnect" the two solid magnets, and "reconnect" them physically again. That is "solid magnetic reconnection". The number of magnetic lines, and contours of those magnetic lines are directly related to the NUMBER of magnets.

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

Don't touch the two magnets together for a minute. Would you agree that what occurs between the two magnets is "attraction" and "repulsion"? When do the magnetic field lines "reconnect"?

You are not addressing my question about the magnetic lines. Do they not break and reconnect? See my response to Reality Check above.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Is this something other than the magnetic reconnection being discussed here?

Sadly I believe that you'll get different answers from different individuals.

Most "magnetic reconnection" papers and experiments I've ever read occur in plasma, typically "current carrying" plasma. Yes, "magnet reconnection" is different from (a physically different process from) "magnetic/current reconnection" (in current carrying plasma).

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are not addressing my question about the magnetic lines. Do they not break and reconnect? See my response to Reality Check above.

I already answered NO. The MAGNETS physically disconnect and reconnect.

Let's try this "slowly" and let find SOME agreement here. Start with two magnets. Would you agree that what you observe BEFORE you physically reconnect the magnets is "attraction" and "repulsion" depending on the N/S alignments? Yes or no? If yes, when are you claiming that the magnetic fields go from being attractive/repulsive to "reconnected"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

I can already name at least 5 textbooks on plasma physics that I've read that you haven't read. Can you name even two plasma physics textbooks that you've actually read? Basic electrodynamic theory textbooks do not count since they are not focused on plasma physics.

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

Irony overload from the guy that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in a plasma.

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

Oh, INDUCED E fields are real alright, but Somov makes it very clear it's an INDUCTIVE process, and like Alfven, it's essentially a pseudonym in Somov's book(s) for quite ordinary current sheet acceleration.

In fact in Chapter 16 of my book Somov calls it "Reconnect of Electric Currents" and proceeds to use Alfven's work to explain the same process via circuit theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI RC, Clingers "vacuum" equations look nothing like the equations Somov uses. In fact on the page you cited Somov clearly stated that it's an INDUCTIVE process and he uses the E orientation to explain that inductive process.

The electric field is *INDUCED* and can accelerate a charged particle or particles in the vicinity of the neutral point

Emphasis mine.

 

[Reality Check]

Can you name even two plasma physics textbooks that you've actually read?

I have read none. I have read articles and papers about plasma physics. My level of education allows me to understand them (mostly !)

What is really imnportant is whether a person understands their sources. If they do not then they are wiser to read a wide range of and agree with the scientific consensus.

Your level of education (Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)) leads you to make absurd claims, e.g.

• Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!
• A whole list of Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work (citing his work on brass balls in support of an iron sun idea is especially amusing).

Irony overload from the guy that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in a plasma.

Ignorance overload from the guy that has no idea what an electrical discharge is and that its definition means that it can never happen in a plasma, e.g. Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge .

Oh, INDUCED E fields are real alright, but Somov makes it very ....

Oh, INDUCED E fields are real alright and obsessively repeating it does not effect the simple fact that electrical fields can be induced !

But Somov makes it very clear that reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process
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.

 

[Reality Check]

Emphasis mine.

FYI - you are lying (quote mining) again:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov

This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line.
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.

Emphasis mine.

Also note that that "electric field is induced" is mentioned after the reconnect. The implication is that is the reconnect that induces the electric field.

ETA: Added the paragraph before "Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process" so you do not think that I am ignoring the currents that produce the magnetic fields.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI - you are lying (quote mining) again:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov

Emphasis mine.

Also note that that "electric field is induced" is mentioned after the reconnect. The implication is that it the reconnect that induces the electric field.

He's describing the INDUCTION process RC, not "reconnections per unit distance".

 

[Reality Check]

He's describing the INDUCTION process RC, not "reconnections per unit distance".

You are wrong: This section is describing the process of reconnection in a vacuum.
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov

Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
...
This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line.
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 or
| particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.

The mention of the induction of an electric field is after the description of magnetic reconnection. It is almost an afterthought.

And we also have: Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length" !

 

[Michael Mozina]

The mention of the induction of an electric field is after the description of magnetic reconnection. It is almost an afterthought.

So what? It's still an INDUCTION process with permeability measured in *INDUCTANCE* per unit distance, not "magnetic reconnections".

 

[Perpetual Student]

I already answered NO. The MAGNETS physically disconnect and reconnect.

Let's try this "slowly" and let find SOME agreement here. Start with two magnets. Would you agree that what you observe BEFORE you physically reconnect the magnets is "attraction" and "repulsion" depending on the N/S alignments? Yes or no? If yes, when are you claiming that the magnetic fields go from being attractive/repulsive to "reconnected"?

OK, yes, of course S and N attract while alike poles repulse.
Now, back to my question. If I have a bar magnet, I know that there is a magnetic field around it with the field lines (by convention) exiting the N pole and entering the S pole. I know this because I can pass a conductor through that field and generate an electric current, where the direction of the current will tell me where N and S are.
Now, if two bar magnets are connected with S and N together, they essentially become one magnet with one field exiting the non-connected N and entering the other S. Again I know these magnetic field lines are there because I can generate a current by passing a conductor through the field in the same manner as above. Now I repeat my scenario above:

If two such magnets are together the lines from the north pole of magnet A wraps around and enters the south pole of the magnet B. Now, when they are very far from each other, are not the lines from the north pole of A -- that were entering the south pole of B -- now entering the south pole of A? These are the same lines that were exiting A before that are no longer entering B. Would these lines not have to have broken and reconnected at some point for this to happen?

Is this not what is meant by magnetic reconnection, and if not, why not?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have read none.

That explains EVERYTHING!

 

[Humanzee]

Im sorry, am I not seeing reconnection when the magnets are seperate but when one or the other is rotating? Isn't reconnection when a field line that begins and ends on magnet A suddenly begins and on magnet A and ends on magnet B? Sorry if this is a stupid question.

I've lurked here a long time and would really love to see an answer to Perpetual Students question.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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

Reality Check beat me to it, but it's worth repeating: On that very page, Somov writes:

Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it

As Somov says, it is the magnetic field lines that reconnect in that vacuum.

Somov also notes that collisionless reconnection is simpler to understand than reconnection in highly-conducting space plasma. That's why I've been recommending that Michael Mozina try to understand magnetic reconnection in a vacuum, where everything is so much simpler that he could actually understand it (if only he'd learn some freshman-level math and physics).

FYI RC, Clingers "vacuum" equations look nothing like the equations Somov uses.

That's because Somov is using a variant of Faraday's law of induction to explain why the electric field changes in response to fast magnetic reconnection.

My derivation does not involve that law of induction. That's why I've had to be so careful about changing the magnetic field so slowly that the effect of ∂B/∂t on the electric field will be negligible and can be ignored. By avoiding induction, I simplify the derivation and keep it within the realm of first-year magnetostatics and freshman calculus. That means the magnetic reconnection has to happen slowly, which might make it kind of boring if we were looking at it in real time, but we can use time-lapse animation to compensate for that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Im sorry, am I not seeing reconnection when the magnets are seperate

Right, just attraction and repulsion.

but when one or the other is rotating?

The rotation process causes "magnetic flux" and induces currents. That "rotation" feature generates the magnetic field changes that induce currents. It's still an induction process. The only thing that physically "reconnects" in PS's experiment are the magnets themselves. While rotating however, they will induce currents between the magnets, at least in plasma.

Isn't reconnection when a field line that begins and ends on magnet A suddenly begins and on magnet A and ends on magnet B? Sorry if this is a stupid question.

Considering how many different definitions "reconnection" we seem to have, your question doesn't sound silly at all. I have no idea what *THEY* mean by the idea, I only know what it means as it relates to plasma physics and solid magnets aren't relevant in that environment. The MOVEMENT factor is relevant in plasma and that movement of the magnetic field will in fact induce currents in plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, yes, of course S and N attract while alike poles repulse.

So the only physical thing that actually physically reconnects are the magnets. The fields simply repulse or attract until the magnets are JOINED. The MOVEMENT of the field (the rotation) will in fact INDUCE currents.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Reality Check beat me to it, but it's worth repeating: On that very page, Somov writes:

As Somov says, it is the magnetic field lines that reconnect in that vacuum.

There's a difference between HIS "magnetic" lines and yours. His fields lines don't "reconnect" at a couple of zero points, they merge, change, FLUX and INDUCE currents. He also has CURRENT flowing through his X points. You'd know all this if you'd read his WHOLE book as I have done. Evidently you have no intention of reading his work. Fine. Keep going with your math. I'm dying to find out how you intend to handle that kinetic energy problem at a couple of zero points in a magnetic field. I know how Somov and Dungey deal with it (current), but I have no idea what you think is the POWER SOURCE for your experiment yet.

Somov also notes that collisionless reconnection is simpler to understand than reconnection in highly-conducting space plasma.

Sure, as long as you realize it is INDUCTION that transfers magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy.

That's why I've been recommending that Michael Mozina try to understand magnetic reconnection in a vacuum, where everything is so much simpler that he could actually understand it (if only he'd learn some freshman-level math and physics).

Alright, I'm going to ask you the same question I asked RC. I can name at least 5 plasma physics textbooks I've read to date. How many books on PLASMA PHYSICS have you actually read Clinger?

That's because Somov is using a variant of Faraday's law of induction to explain why the electric field changes in response to fast magnetic reconnection.

It's simply "fast induction" due to changing magnetic fields (like PS's rotating magnets). There's nothing "special" about that kind of "INDUCTION"!

My derivation does not involve that law of induction.

And that is why you're basically screwed in terms of explaining the kinetic energy. FYI, you are in fact using INDUCTANCE related variables that will change dramatically with the material.

That's why I've had to be so careful about changing the magnetic field so slowly that the effect of ∂B/∂t on the electric field will be negligible and can be ignored.

Ya, but that's never going to explain the kinetic energy of a flare Clinger.

By avoiding induction, I simplify the derivation and keep it within the realm of first-year magnetostatics and freshman calculus.

You also charged into UNCHARTED TERRITORY since no other author I've ever read makes your claim and doesn't use induction.

That means the magnetic reconnection has to happen slowly, which might make it kind of boring if we were looking at it in real time, but we can use time-lapse animation to compensate for that.

And the irony of course is that CURRENT is actually doing all the work. In the real world dB/dt changes fast and that's all related to Dungey's "electrical discharge" process.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Im sorry, am I not seeing reconnection when the magnets are seperate but when one or the other is rotating? Isn't reconnection when a field line that begins and ends on magnet A suddenly begins and on magnet A and ends on magnet B? Sorry if this is a stupid question.

I've lurked here a long time and would really love to see an answer to Perpetual Students question.

Are you finding it as amazing as I am that no answers to these questions are forthcoming?