Over a year ago I said ...
You and I would get along much better if we simply stuck to the topic.
I see no reason to doubt the wisdom of my earlier advice. Witness the display of unfettered ignorance ...
No, "unfettered ignorance" are those folks engaging in this discussion without actually addressing Alfven's materials. That doesn't necessarily apply to you personally or tusenfem, but there are only a total of three of us that have actually read the appropriate materials.
Of the three of us, I've yet to hear you or tusenfem admit that electrical discharges can and do occur in plasmas. What does that tell us?
The correct answer is that there is no carrier particle because the process is entirely classical.
It's it's entirely classical, then the photon is the carrier particle of the EM field and you've mislabeled "induction".
The energy that accelerates the charged particles comes from the magnetic field directly and to speak of or ask about carrier particles is nothing but another not very clever way to try to distract the argument from the real point, that being the actual observation of actual magnetic reconnection, distinctly different from induction, in controlled laboratory plasma experiments. Try sticking to the topic.
I am sticking to the topic, the *PHYSICS* of plasma interactions. You're the one ignoring the fact that you've mislabeled classic induction as something altogether new, yet you've never demonstrated how it's new.
As for "circuit reconnection", you are conveniently ignoring the fact that I have already proven such things to be physically impossible.
That's because you've proven nothing of the sort. What you all seem to have done in gone into a classic state of pure denial over the notion of discharges in plasmas. As long as you never admit that they occur, or the charge separation is the driving force, you seem to simply assume they are physically impossible.
Parallel magnetic field lines do not reconnect, but antiparallel magnetic field lines will, as will field lines intersecting at an angle.
That is because when the circuits run parallel they "attract" one another and they flow harmoniously toward the oppositely charged end of the experiment. The moment you wire them in reverse however, they start to interfere with each other, and it's highly likely that at some point they can take another 'less resistant" path to a different anode. In other words they can "rewire" the two streams, whereas if they run in parallel they simply pinch together and flow in the same direction. So what?
In the case of antiparallel field lines, as one would encounter for instance, in flux tubes in the solar atmosphere, then currents of like charged particle (say electrons, as one would commonly expect) will slam into each other head on. Being of like charge they will repel each and rapidly generate an expanding cloud of electrons. The case of oppositely charged particles (electrons vs protons or ions) will be much the same, an expanding cloud of charged particles. But in this case it is not due to repulsion, but rather attraction; as the particles move too fast to recombine, they will sling shot past each other and form a similar spreading cloud. In neither case will the particles gain energy in the process (if anything, they must clearly lose energy), and certainly neither case will result in nicely collimated jets, as are in fact observed in the laboratory experiments.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that threads forms into 'tubes" that will indeed interact across a narrowly defined "double layer" that forms between them. The electron 'streams" simply follow a path of lesser resistance and the two circuits rewire themselves in the process. Again, it's not exactly a big 'mystery" when you look at the process from the standpoint of current and current flows.
It is obvious that circuit reconnection and/or particle reconnection are physically impossible processes.
Boloney. That's like claiming you can't switch the flow in two circuits with a switch. Of course you can.
I invite Mozina to demonstrate that I am wrong, simply by describing the physics of the particles during the reconnection process, at a level equivalent to the level I have applied here.
All you have to imagine in solids is two wires that "short circuit" themselves for a second as we "rewire" the two circuits while they are still "hot". In fact we can extend the analogy by using a couple of welding rods and creating an "electricified double layer between the rod tips as we "rewire"' the circuits through the plasma particles first, and then finally touch the rod tips back to the "solid" parts of our wire. The rewiring process is a form of "circuit reconnection" and the electrons are the "current".
Magnetic reconnection is unique and easily distinguished from induction. I have already clearly demonstrated this to be the case ...
No Tim, in fact by calling it a "classical" process, you've demonstrated that there is no empirical physical difference between ordinary induction and what you are calling 'magnetic reconnection". Whatever energy is passed from the magnetic field to charged particles is called "induction" when the process is "classical".
It's not "topology" in quote marks (i.e., something that looks like real topology). It's topology, the real thing. The topology of the magnetic field is directly measured
Ya, you're measuring the current flow through a wire from a distance in terms of the strength of the magnetic field that forms around the wire. You're then conveniently ignoring the current flow that you're actually 'measuring" as well.
and it most certainly is not being inferred from, or mistaken for, a change in direction of the current.
Of course it is Tim. The field itself is sustained by the current. You have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse.
It is in fact, the real topology of the real magnetic field.
It's not just a "line" Tim, it's a "Stream of plasma".
No the current is not like water, and no the current is not doing any work at all.
Bzzzt. There's your physics error in a nutshell. You see a "discharge' in the solar atmosphere and claim the current does none of the work. That's just pure baloney.
It is the magnetic field reconnection the does the work on the current, by virtue of the electric field generated by the reconnection of the magnetic field.
During an "electrical discharge" in the Earth's atmosphere, we also see a magnetic field form around the discharge channel. Is the magnetic field or electrical field responsible for the discharge?
Your description is anti-physical and has nothing at all to do with what is actually observed in the laboratory.
Oh BULL! Discharges occur in the lab and in our own atmosphere every single day of the year.
I do not believe you. No, as a matter of fact, you have done no such thing. The fact that you cannot even properly describe the experiments clearly demonstrates that you have never examined the data from any of the magnetic reconnection experiments. I see no reason to believe you are telling the truth. Of course, you can correct my mistaken presumption (if mistaken it is) by the simple means of showing which experimental data sets you have studied and how you arrived at your conclusions, based on the given data.
I started by reading Birkeland's work with cathode terellas in a vacuum. What did you start with Tim? I don't believe you've properly studied Birkeland's work and so far I've yet to see you acknowledge even Alfven's work in a meaningful way as it relates to a 'circuit"' oriented approach to plasma physics. In fact you seem every bit as intent on insisting that the circuit oriented approach is wrong as Alfven was insistent that MRx theories were pure pseudoscience. Neither of you seems willing to see it from both angles.
!
.