Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Reconnection Redux VI

The second paper is about an alternative model for specific flares (in fact only 2 are mentioned). That alternative model is magnetic reconnection between twisted magentic flux ropes. It does not *RULE OUT* the signature "Y" release of energy associated with magnetic reconnection in other (most) solar flares.

To which Mozina replied ...

They clearly do "rule out" your pseudoscientific magnetic reconnection model in these two flares!

The paper in question is Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare. Now let us view two sample quotes from the paper, specifically from page 18. First ...

"Reconnection went on after the impulsive phase, because the magnetic fields at the top of the cusp-like structure became nearly antiparallel due to the stretch of the ropes. However, the reconnection rate declined because the electric currents in the ropes also became antiparallel and repelled each other".​

And slightly later on the same page 18 ...

"The motion of the mutually wrapped dual-rope ejection through the waist must be accompanied by reconnection of the magnetic field lines of the ejection with those of, or near to, the separatrix surface."​

First, let me simply point out that this is strange language indeed for a paper which "rules out" magnetic reconnection. Indeed, one need only actually read the paper to see that the authors make copious use of magnetic reconnection throughout the evolution of the flux ropes.

Note the point made about antiparallel currents in the first quoted passage. Clearly the authors do not treat the flux ropes as simple un-adorned current, as Mozina would have us believe. Rather, there is a specific appeal to reconnection of the magnetic field lines that make up the rope.

In numerous other posts, Mozina has called magnetic reconnection a misinterpretation of "circuit reconnection", as he chooses to call it. I have argued (and Mozina has never responded) that "circuit reconnection" violates the law of conservation of energy, since the energy involved in the currents is considerably smaller than the energy released in reconnection events. However, here in the first quoted passage above, the authors point out that the currents repel each other, since they are after all made of electrons, and like charges repel. Clearly that does explicitly rule out "circuit reconnection" as an alternate explanation for magnetic reconnection; like charged currents which repel each other don't "reconnect", and while opposite charge currents do attract each other, they will simply neutralize each other, not generate energy that way a reconnection event will.

So, what do we have here? Evidently, Michael Mozina does not even read the papers he talks about. He says the paper "rules out" magnetic reconnection, while in fact the paper relies heavily on magnetic reconnection. And it argues against "circuit reconnection" just as a bonus. Very cool.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Your elemental abundance numbers are meaningless because they are all based upon the assumption of little or no mass separation. You seem to think Iron and Nickel are going to stay mixed together with wispy light Hydrogen and Helium. Hell, the moon can't even hang on the hydrogen that blows by it every day and it has *tons* of iron in it.

A bit behind the times I know, but what on Earth are you trying to say here?

(bold added)

I've another question for MM ...

... where are the papers reporting mass separation in ~6000 K plasmas (comprised of H, He, Fe, ...) in the lab? Oh, and *lab* plasmas which have densities comparable to that of the Sun's photosphere ...

 

[Reality Check]

Deleted - should be another thread, i.e. Where are the controllable empirical experiments showing the Iron Sun mass separation?

 

[Reality Check]

Bull. If our sun electrically interacts with the heliosphere, then all suns probably do the same. It certainly has *enormous* implications for cosmology.

Bull.
Our sun does electrically interact with the heliosphere (e.g. the heliospheric current sheet has a current of about 10⁻¹⁰ A/m²) . It is probable that all stars have magnetic fields and the equivalent of the heliosphere.
It certainly has no implication at all for cosmology which is about scales enormously bigger then stars or even galaxies.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Citation for the crust in Birkeland's solar model

This is yet another false statement. There are two major components to Birkeland's solar model, the crust being one of them, the electrical discharge being the other critical "prediction" of his model.

First asked 5 January 2009
Michael Mozina,
Please give a citation where Birkeland states his solar model involves a "crust"?

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Citation for the detection of Birkeland's predicted electrical discharges

This is yet another false statement. There are two major components to Birkeland's solar model, the crust being one of them, the electrical discharge being the other critical "prediction" of his model.

And another question evoked from the same sentence!
First asked 5 January 2009
Michael Mozina,
Please give a citation to the sources where the electrical discharges within Birkeland's solar model are actually detected as predicted?

You need to state:

• What his predictions actually were, e.g. the charge dissipated from the electrical discharges on the Sun.
• The controllable empirical experiment that showed that these electrical discharges
  1. happen on the Sun and
  2. the measurements match the numbers from Birkeland.

Anyone reading this thread knows that this critical "prediction" of his model has never been observed.

Anyone reading this other thread knows that you are lying about the crust part of Birkeland's solar model. He never states that the Sun has a crust. He would have not been so silly since he should have known that the Sun was too hot for a crust. Its temperature was known when he wrote his book (Chronology of Discoveries about the Sun)

1894: William E. Wilson and P. L. Gray (Ireland) are the first to measure with reasonable accuracy the effective temperature of the Sun's photosphere: 11,200°F (6,200°C), about 800°F (400°C) too high.

If someone were silly enough to treat Birkeland's terrella experiments as actual representations of the Sun (other than analogies as Birkeland states) then they would come to the deluded conclusion that the Sun has a solid iron surface or crust.

 

[Michael Mozina]

To which Mozina replied ...

The paper in question is Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare. Now let us view two sample quotes from the paper, specifically from page 18. First ...

"Reconnection went on after the impulsive phase, because the magnetic fields at the top of the cusp-like structure became nearly antiparallel due to the stretch of the ropes. However, the reconnection rate declined because the electric currents in the ropes also became antiparallel and repelled each other".​

Er, did you simply miss or dismiss that statement "electric currents *IN THE ROPES* part Tim? If you have electric currents running through "magnetic flux ropes", then your argument translates directly back to "circuits" as Alfven and Carlqvist use in their papers. There is no fundamental difference in what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" and what Alfven calls a "short circuit" in two flowing plasma filaments. I clearly cited Alfven's explanation of a "magnetic rope" which he describes as a "Bennett Pinch" in a plasma filament. What fundamental difference at the level of physics is there between what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" and a simple short circuit in plasma with induction when the circuit is interrupted?

 

[brantc]

that "circuit reconnection" violates the law of conservation of energy, since the energy involved in the currents is considerably smaller than the energy released in reconnection events.

The energy of the whole circuit is available to the reconnection event.

Just like when you dump a capacitor into a coil and watch it blow up. The energy of the source is what does the work. 'Not' the momentary current measured by means of the local magnetic field(ammeter) at the wire attached to the coil.

 

[ben m]

the energy involved in the currents is considerably smaller than the energy released in reconnection events.

Eureka! I may have made a breakthrough. Enough of a breakthrough that it's worth dipping back into this thread for one post after which it all goes straight back on ignore.

After a bit of reading, I have a GUESS at what MM has meant (or what Alfven presumably meant that MM is now incanting) by "circuit energy". The term "circuit energy" seems to be used (very rarely in physics, perhaps more commonly in EE?) to refer to the sum of the self-inductances and all pairs of mutual-inductances of electric currents in an array of circuits. For physicists, it's the energy in section 5.17 of Jackson. It allows you to calculate the energy if you know the currents in a set of circuits, and the inductances of and between all circuits (!) but don't want to calculate the magnetic field explicitly (!?!).

And Jackson section 5.17 is devoted to proving that this inductive energy is exactly the same as the energy you found (in section 5.16) by integrating 1/(2mu0) B^2 over space.

So: it's rather silly that MM has been promoting "circuit energy" as the a matter of central importance to plasma physics, then crying foul/error/balk when anyone invokes "energy stored in a B field". Dude, it's the same thing. And---under what circumstances do you know any mutual inductances without having calculated the fields already? Certainly not the circumstances in a solar flare where the geometry is changing.

In turn, of course, the rest of us have been pooh-poohing "circuit energy". I had a guess earlier that perhaps this is what it meant, but I rejected that guess because MM's invokations always contradicted this meaning---you always connected it to electric fields, which are completely irrelevant. I asked him directly to define it and he ignored it. But yeah, no, it turns out that "circuit energy" is not small---rather, it is what the rest of us have been talking about the whole time. It's a weird name for 1/(2mu)B^2.

It's not at all a standard term in physics, which is why no one has heard of it. Google turns it up in EE, but search for "circuit energy" +plasma and what comes up? After some mishits, it's: Alfven's book, then some 1972 paper, then MM himself on this forum. No wonder no one can understand him. Anyway, now that I understand him (if indeed I do) I can speak more clearly: MM, this circuit energy thing is exactly the same problem as the problem tusenfem has described repeatedly. If you state the magnetic field distribution---which is what solar flare modelers do---then you instantly know both the energy of this configuration (integrate B^2) and the current density that makes it (curl B). If you state the current density instead, there's a hideous, labor-intensive calculation that gives you the B fields (Biot-Savart) and an even more hideous calculation that gives you the "circuit energy" as a sum of 1/2 LI^2 terms, and even that requires an extra discretization. That's why modern physicists---the ones who need to work with actual numbers---invariably do the former and have done for decades.

Every time you state that the B-field-version is "wrong", you're stating that the circuit energy version is wrong. They're the same thing. Every time you state that B fields don't store and release energy, you're saying the same thing about "circuit energy" (assuming my definition) because they're the same thing.

All clear now? OK, bye.

 

[ben m]

The energy of the whole circuit is available to the reconnection event.

Just like when you dump a capacitor into a coil and watch it blow up. The energy of the source is what does the work. 'Not' the momentary current measured by means of the local magnetic field(ammeter) at the wire attached to the coil.

And this is exactly what I mean by the EU/PC position not making sense. Brantc has posted a EE-style statement about capacitor circuits. It's getting mixed up with a statement about "the energy of the whole circuit" in a way that completely obliterates any sense that "circuit energy" might have made if used as a weird hobby-horse proxy for magnetic energy.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Bump

Pseudo-science looks like science, but it is not science.

(bold added)

As far as I can tell:

* Robinson does not apply any scientific method, period

* BeAChooser applies some aspects, occasionally, and inconsistently

* MM has his own - highly idiosyncratic, logically inconsistent - methodology ... which he applies inconsistently

* Thornhill is an academic fraud; aside from this, his methodology is opaque, and in particular much of it is not independently verifiable

* Scott's methodology includes the acceptance of gross inconsistencies - logical, mathematical, etc

* Zeuzzz (who I inadvertently omitted)? He too seems to have his own, idiosyncratic, methodology, which he applies inconsistently.

But none of this is directly relevant to what I actually wrote ... you see, the criteria I explicitly stated concern physics and its applications (astrophysics, space physics, cosmology), and are about being quantitative (data and analyses) and consistent.

Of the above, only Scott has any significant record re being quantitative, and all fail - badly - wrt consistency (internal, and re all relevant observational/experimental results).

Care to say a few words about brantc?

(bold added)

Since this post of mine MM has provided several good examples of his idiosyncratic, logically inconsistent methodology ... and applied it inconsistently to boot!

I think we - the readers of this thread - have also had an example of brantc's methodology in action; specifically the complete absence of any hypotheses, potentially testable or not.

So, brantc, would you care to say a few words about what you consider to be the methodology you use wrt understanding the universe as a whole (i.e. cosmology)?

And, given that this thread is supposed to be about "plasma cosmology", how "plasma" factors in to your approach to cosmology?

Finally, what's the link between your own take on plasma cosmology and those of Alfvén, Peratt, and Lerner?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Eureka! I may have made a breakthrough. Enough of a breakthrough that it's worth dipping back into this thread for one post after which it all goes straight back on ignore.

After a bit of reading, I have a GUESS at what MM has meant (or what Alfven presumably meant that MM is now incanting) by "circuit energy". The term "circuit energy" seems to be used (very rarely in physics, perhaps more commonly in EE?) to refer to the sum of the self-inductances and all pairs of mutual-inductances of electric currents in an array of circuits. For physicists, it's the energy in section 5.17 of Jackson. It allows you to calculate the energy if you know the currents in a set of circuits, and the inductances of and between all circuits (!) but don't want to calculate the magnetic field explicitly (!?!).

And Jackson section 5.17 is devoted to proving that this inductive energy is exactly the same as the energy you found (in section 5.16) by integrating 1/(2mu0) B^2 over space.

So: it's rather silly that MM has been promoting "circuit energy" as the a matter of central importance to plasma physics, then crying foul/error/balk when anyone invokes "energy stored in a B field". Dude, it's the same thing. And---under what circumstances do you know any mutual inductances without having calculated the fields already? Certainly not the circumstances in a solar flare where the geometry is changing.

In turn, of course, the rest of us have been pooh-poohing "circuit energy". I had a guess earlier that perhaps this is what it meant, but I rejected that guess because MM's invokations always contradicted this meaning---you always connected it to electric fields, which are completely irrelevant. I asked him directly to define it and he ignored it. But yeah, no, it turns out that "circuit energy" is not small---rather, it is what the rest of us have been talking about the whole time. It's a weird name for 1/(2mu)B^2.

It's not at all a standard term in physics, which is why no one has heard of it. Google turns it up in EE, but search for "circuit energy" +plasma and what comes up? After some mishits, it's: Alfven's book, then some 1972 paper, then MM himself on this forum. No wonder no one can understand him. Anyway, now that I understand him (if indeed I do) I can speak more clearly: MM, this circuit energy thing is exactly the same problem as the problem tusenfem has described repeatedly. If you state the magnetic field distribution---which is what solar flare modelers do---then you instantly know both the energy of this configuration (integrate B^2) and the current density that makes it (curl B). If you state the current density instead, there's a hideous, labor-intensive calculation that gives you the B fields (Biot-Savart) and an even more hideous calculation that gives you the "circuit energy" as a sum of 1/2 LI^2 terms, and even that requires an extra discretization. That's why modern physicists---the ones who need to work with actual numbers---invariably do the former and have done for decades.

Every time you state that the B-field-version is "wrong", you're stating that the circuit energy version is wrong. They're the same thing. Every time you state that B fields don't store and release energy, you're saying the same thing about "circuit energy" (assuming my definition) because they're the same thing.

All clear now? OK, bye.

I think several of us have had similar eureka moments, wrt MM's approach.

Mine, for example, came with his 'empirical demonstration of known forces of nature' (or similar), using a plasma ball (the toy) to 'prove' (or similar) the existence of gravity and electromagnetism as known forces of nature^.

One aspect I find particularly curious: if MM is, indeed, successful in his application of computer programming to business problems, why is he apparently so blind to the fundamental necessity of making clear definitions of key terms (and of applying those definitions consistently)?

^ in a nutshell, MM seemed completely blind to the theory-based nature of physics, and even of the use of induction in science

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Bull. If our sun electrically interacts with the heliosphere, then all suns probably do the same. It certainly has *enormous* implications for cosmology.

Bull.
Our sun does electrically interact with the heliosphere (e.g. the heliospheric current sheet has a current of about 10⁻¹⁰ A/m²) . It is probable that all stars have magnetic fields and the equivalent of the heliosphere.
It certainly has no implication at all for cosmology which is about scales enormously bigger then stars or even galaxies.

Another example of MM's approach to cosmology ...

... what are those implications, MM?

And would you care to have a go at *quantifying* those implications?

Oh, and:

* What does "electrically interacts with" mean? For starters, do you have a clear definition of this? And can you show how this definition relates to the sorts of things one finds in standard textbooks (or even in papers by Alfvén)?

* What physical parameters do you (or would you) use to characterise this kind of interaction?

* How would you go about designing a research project to estimate the values of those key parameters (and their uncertainties)?

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

1. Citation for the crust in Birkeland's solar model?
   First asked 5 January 2009
2. Citation for the detection of Birkeland's predicted electrical discharges?
   First asked 5 January 2009

 

[Reality Check]

Did you simply miss or dismiss that statement "Reconnection..."

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
To which Mozina replied ...

The paper in question is Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare. Now let us view two sample quotes from the paper, specifically from page 18. First ...

"Reconnection went on after the impulsive phase, because the magnetic fields at the top of the cusp-like structure became nearly antiparallel due to the stretch of the ropes. However, the reconnection rate declined because the electric currents in the ropes also became antiparallel and repelled each other".
​

Er, did you simply miss or dismiss that statement "electric currents *IN THE ROPES* part Tim? If you have electric currents running through "magnetic flux ropes", then your argument translates directly back to "circuits" as Alfven and Carlqvist use in their papers. There is no fundamental difference in what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" and what Alfven calls a "short circuit" in two flowing plasma filaments. I clearly cited Alfven's explanation of a "magnetic rope" which he describes as a "Bennett Pinch" in a plasma filament. What fundamental difference at the level of physics is there between what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" and a simple short circuit in plasma with induction when the circuit is interrupted?

I doubt that Tim missed the phrase "the electric currents in the ropes".
I think I know what the phrase is about (Tim may confirm).

It seems really simple:

• Magnetic fields act on electric charges.
• A plasma is an ionized gas, i.e. it contains electrons and ions.
• A magentic flux rope in a plasma will create currents in the plasma.
• It is these currents that are referenced in the quote.

The currents are a consequence of the magnetic flux ropes. They do not cause the magnetic flux ropes.

And:
Er, did you simply miss or dismiss that statement "Reconnection went on after the impulsive phase" part Michael Mozina?

 

[brantc]

And this is exactly what I mean by the EU/PC position not making sense. Brantc has posted a EE-style statement about capacitor circuits. It's getting mixed up with a statement about "the energy of the whole circuit" in a way that completely obliterates any sense that "circuit energy" might have made if used as a weird hobby-horse proxy for magnetic energy.

The point I was trying to make is the measuring the current at one point in the circuit while at steady state does not tell you the energy available to do the work of reconnection.

When the reconnection happens then the current(energy) that is available becomes apparent at the measuring device.. The capacitor is an analogy for the power source.

"Circuit energy" is not a proxy for magnetic energy. It is the source of magnetic energy.

 

[brantc]

I doubt that Tim missed the phrase "the electric currents in the ropes".
I think I know what the phrase is about (Tim may confirm).

It seems really simple:

• Magnetic fields act on electric charges.
• A plasma is an ionized gas, i.e. it contains electrons and ions.
• A magentic flux rope in a plasma will create currents in the plasma.
• It is these currents that are referenced in the quote.

The currents are a consequence of the magnetic flux ropes. They do not cause the magnetic flux ropes.

So you are saying the the magnetic tube forms that drives plasma through. How does that magnetic tube form???

What laws show a tube forming strictly from magnetism?

 

[Reality Check]

So you are saying the the magnetic tube forms that drives plasma through. How does that magnetic tube form???

Coronal loops form from the sun's magnetic field.

Coronal loops form the basic structure of the lower corona and transition region of the Sun. These highly structured and elegant loops are a direct consequence of the twisted solar magnetic flux within the solar body. The population of coronal loops can be directly linked with the solar cycle, it is for this reason coronal loops are often found with sunspots at their footpoints. The upwelling magnetic flux pushes through the photosphere, exposing the cooler plasma below. The contrast between the photosphere and solar interior gives the impression of dark spots, or sunspots.

What laws show a tube forming strictly from magnetism?

No "laws show a tube forming strictly from magnetism".
Observations show that coronal loops are loops of magnetc flux.

 

[Zeuzzz]

wow this threads sprung back to life

I still haven't posted what I consider the "complete model" of PC yet, from older versions or modern observations.

As the bar for winning this debate was set pretty low back when edd said:

There's nothing wrong straight off with continuing to refine a model indefinitely however.

There's no rule like "if you've adjusted your theory 100 times it's clearly wrong".

Well, if thats the tactic being employed by rival theories I'll take my time. Unless this statement wants to be refined.

 

[brantc]

Bump(bold added)

I think we - the readers of this thread - have also had an example of brantc's methodology in action; specifically the complete absence of any hypotheses, potentially testable or not.

I thought my description of reconnection was based entirely on experimental evidence.

I have lotsa hypotheses. Some untestable with present technology. Thats why I dont say anything. It would just degenerate into my being called names. If we want to go on that journey...... My view departs significantly from the EU Standard view. Figuring out how to test the rest.

So, brantc, would you care to say a few words about what you consider to be the methodology you use wrt understanding the universe as a whole (i.e. cosmology)?

In a perfect world? Take the money and politics out of science.
Have parallel development efforts.

There is no reason why money cant go to studying plasma in a cosmological context using a purely electrical theory at the same time the Big Bang is being studied.
I vote for my tax dollars to go into a plasma telescope for studying Flux Tubes.

There is no reason to call people crackpots or any other name for advancing what they consider to be their observations.
"Untrained" people can apply the scientific method well, as well as trained people applying it poorly(it really helps to have training(understanding), degree or not).
Not everybody has the same input through life, which means different conclusions(interpretations).

Have tiered peer review. First level any theory can get published as long as it is basically a good paper. It doesnt have to be perfect or the theory(hypotheses) even be correct.. Second level should be better(should have some observations or results). Prestige should be the best(~easily replicable, no question breakthrough results or super good paper). But you should be able to publish Aether as well as Big Bang in a "reviewed" journal.
With open names(but not attached to the review) and have plasma people, electrical engineers whatever, mix it up..

I dont believe science by consensus is a good thing. I think that understanding what somebody says is a good thing but just accepting it because the authority says so is a bad thing.

It is the current(scientific) culture that is impeding understanding the universe as a whole. No one group of people have all the answers.

And, given that this thread is supposed to be about "plasma cosmology", how "plasma" factors in to your approach to cosmology?

I believe that causality is important. From my point of view, which is an electrical one, when you see a magnetic field you think electric current. This is why I am looking for the power source and why I believe the electric fields are more basic then magnetic fields. I'm a steady state, electrical redshift infinite always been here universe kinda guy.

I think that electric fields cause more ionization than gravity does. Dont get me wrong I'm a firm believer in the effects of gravity, maybe it just needs to be modified a little.

Finally, what's the link between your own take on plasma cosmology and those of Alfvén, Peratt, and Lerner?

Every scientist formulates a view based on their life's knowledge. This knowledge is a valuable addition to the pool of human knowledge. Even if you think its garbage, it still has value. It tells you the other path. These people have degrees and went to some of the same colleges we did, yet their interpretation is not "good" knowledge.

I like their hypotheses better than the Big Bang. It fits better with my life experience. I grew up with the Big Bang, reading all the science magazines, becoming an electronics tech.. As I started to push more towards R&D science(job) I became more engineer like and more rigorous.
The Big Bang did not fit as well as electrical explanations in plasma.

I found the standard EU to be lacking also, so I went even beyond that with current physics not an issue.
What I found as my model is outlandish and absolutely not familiar.
But its the application of as pure a science as I could get, even if it meant changing what our(my) current understanding of physics is(there are definite indications this is necessary).
I have no vested interests in any sort of "quo"..

Whether I'm right or not is a different story.
Actually I have no doubt I am wrong, as I am sure my model and every other model will be superseded with time.
But the ride and conversation is fun.