Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[Michael Mozina]

Note that that is YOUR choice cut from the definition from Peratt.
For the rest I could not care less about the term discharge.

You and Tim really should enlighten RC and GM on this topic. It's just stupid that you two sit back and ignore their *outrageous* claims and let them try to take a *definition of a discharge in plasma* and claim it's somehow a definition that demonstrates that discharges are "impossible" in plasmas! The fact you two sit back and say nothing says *VOLUMES* IMO.

Ofcourse the claim by Alfvén that any parallel electric field or double layer is a nail to the coffin of MRx is ludicrous,

No, it's not. In Alfven's double layer paper, the double layer is simply a "part of" the overall circuitry and it eliminates any need for "magnetic reconnection" at any point in the circuitry. MR theory isn't "needed" to explain double layer transactions. Occum's razor now applies.

because, as I also already commented, double layer in the auroral acceleration region are at a place where MRx will never ever be considered to happen.

There are two primary uses for MR theory, solar flares and magnetospheric activities. Alfven described both events in terms of "circuits" without any need whatsoever for "magnetic reconnection'. Again, we are right back to an Occum's razor argument in *BOTH* instances.

Well *HUNDREDS* of papers on circuit theory is a bit over the top, as according to ADS he only has 148 paper published, many of which don't deal with circuits.

Point noted. Would 100+ be "ok" by you?

Also, the time the MRx really became a good topic, was at a time that Alfvén had already lost interest in that kind of stuff, and was more occupied with his ideas about resonances in the Saturnian rings, which was evidenced by a huge plot on the walls of his laboratory, where he led me past trying to explain what he was thinking. This was in 1991.

So what exactly is "so new" about MR theory since 1991 that you think might have "interested" him again in the topic of MR theory? Which "experiment" satisfied his requirement that E=0?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So where are we in this denial-go-round?

We have reached the fixed point whose existence is guaranteed by the

Mozina fixed point theorem. As Michael Mozina increases his participation in some discussion of physics, the conversation will inevitably converge toward a fixed point.

Proof: Let m represent Michael Mozina's participation, and let f(m) and t(m) represent the facts being asserted and the fraction of technical content, respectively. Then

[latex]\[ \lim_{m \rightarrow \infty} t(m) = 0 \][/latex]

[latex]\[ \lim_{m \rightarrow \infty} f(m) = \hbox{{\bf Alfvén said...}} \][/latex]​

 

[GeeMack]

So where are we in this denial-go-round?

Besides me, Tim and tusenfem are the only other two to have actually read Alfven's work for themselves. They both (I think) seem to be"ok" with notion of "electrical discharges" in plasmas as defined by Peratt.

RC and GM on the other hand are in complete denial of this *typical* process in plasma and neither of them have read Alfven's book or found any flaw in any of Alfven's work. Mr. Clinger, GM and RC seem to be in pure denial of the fact that Alfven rejected MR theory, even though Alfven called it "pseudoscience" and even talked about putting nails in it's coffin. Never mind the fact he wrote *hundreds* of papers on circuit theory and zero positive papers on MR theory.

The above is an attack against individuals and doesn't address any arguments at all, nor does it describe any problems with magnetic reconnection. It contains a plea to an object of worship, Alfvén. It's irrelevant in its entirety. Argument failed.

 

[GeeMack]

I agree that circuit reconnection is an example of an "electrical discharge" by the way. If you accept this premise, then you must also admit this statement was false?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5462361#post5462361



You mean *besides* a discharge process?

This contains absolutely no reference to, description of, or argument against magnetic reconnection. Irrelevant. Argument failed.

So again, just what are those alleged problems with magnetic reconnection?

 

[GeeMack]

The circuits inside my computer show *lots* of "dynamics", as do the circuit diagrams that describe the motherboard. It seems to me that you keep ignoring/denying the fact that we can add additional circuits to describe the system as required.


No. They simply *did not need* MR theory to explain the energy released in the solar flare. Why use something you don't need?


Except the charge separation that drives the process you mean?

Pointing out once more that this doesn't address any alleged problems with magnetic reconnection. Perhaps there aren't any supportable by legitimate science, and the only supposed problem(s) at all come from a discrepancy with terminology based on a misunderstanding of Alfvén's cherry picked, out of context comments.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Pointing out once more that this doesn't address any alleged problems with magnetic reconnection.

Are you incapable of understanding English? I just "explained" the fact that your beloved "magnetic reconnection" theory fails to account for, or describe the charge separation process that drives the parade. That is a valid criticism of the theory. If you can't accept reality, and you go back into pure denial mode, it's not my fault, it's yours. MR theory is now and will forever be a form of "pseudoscience". If however you're willing to change the name of the process just a bit, note the *charge separation* that *causes* the 'magnetic lines", then "circuit reconnection' is fine by me.

If you can't personally give a little, it's absolutely no skin off my nose. In that case I simply have to chose between the guy with the Nobel Prize in plasma physics and ignore the guy that's never bothered to read his work and denies the fact that "discharges happen' in plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The above is an attack against individuals

No, I'm simply noting where various individuals stand on the issues/debates and where the denial process kicks in. There's nothing 'personal' about it other than the fact you've chosen to deny the fact that discharges happen in plasma, Alfven rejected MR theory, and just about every other scientific and historical fact under the sun.

and doesn't address any arguments at all,

Sure it does. The problem around here stems from pure "denial". You for instance have yet to even accept the fact that your theory lacks any "explanation' in terms of the "charge separation" that is the actual 'cause" of the process. That's a valid criticism of the theory, one you have failed to address or even acknowledge. The problem here is pure denial, and nothing but pure denial.

nor does it describe any problems with magnetic reconnection.

It won't matter how many times that I note that MR theory fails to account for, or explain the 'charge separation' that drives the process. You'll ignore that argument again and again because denial is a favorite tactic around here.

It contains a plea to an object of worship, Alfvén. It's irrelevant in its entirety. Argument failed.

Reading Alfven's work for myself is not "worship" of his work. I simply don't worship pure ignorance like some folks in this conversation that have never bothered to read nor respond to Alfven's work and who continue to claim he did not reject MR theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We have reached the fixed point whose existence is guaranteed by the

I'd be happy to see you personally accept the fact that Alfven rejected MR theory.

Whether Alfven was right or wrong about MR theory might be debatable, but his rejection of the concept is not. He called it pseudoscience and never wrote a single paper in support of it. It's like calling a strong atheist a theist to claim that he did not "lack belief" in MR theory. He certainly did "lack belief" in the idea, going so far as to call it pseudoscience and talking about putting nails in it's coffin. That's about as "lacking belief" in an idea as one can get.

Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

That sure sounds like a "rejection" of the idea to me. He certainly "lacked belief" in the concept didn't he?

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Care to site even one single published experiment on MR theory that satisfies the highlighted condition set forth by Alfven?

 

[tusenfem]

You and Tim really should enlighten RC and GM on this topic. It's just stupid that you two sit back and ignore their *outrageous* claims and let them try to take a *definition of a discharge in plasma* and claim it's somehow a definition that demonstrates that discharges are "impossible" in plasmas! The fact you two sit back and say nothing says *VOLUMES* IMO.

All of those have read my comments on discharges, look at tim's post where he quotes his post in which he quotes my post on the various definitions of discharges. That you need to make such a big deal about it is your problem. I don't frakking care about the word discharge.

No, it's not. In Alfven's double layer paper, the double layer is simply a "part of" the overall circuitry and it eliminates any need for "magnetic reconnection" at any point in the circuitry. MR theory isn't "needed" to explain double layer transactions. Occum's razor now applies.

Alfvén's double layer paper (which one actually???) for one used a double layer to unwind a twisted flux tube, another one evacuates the plasma completely and causes an explosion. The first one will probably take place sometimes, the exploding one will not occur as has already been pointed out to you in an earlier post by me, where I presented a paper where they show that such strong double layers will not happen, but they will split up in smaller double layers. (search for my post, it is several pages back).

A double layer cannot replace the need for MRx, because it cannot produce the topological changes of the magnetic field. Not by an electric field and not by induction or whatever means you want to use.

OccAm's rasor does not even come in this whole discussion, and if anything MRx would "win."

There are two primary uses for MR theory, solar flares and magnetospheric activities. Alfven described both events in terms of "circuits" without any need whatsoever for "magnetic reconnection'. Again, we are right back to an Occum's razor argument in *BOTH* instances.

Unfortunately, you have got no idea what "circuit modeling" actually means. Dungey has shown in the 50s that the only solution for the behaviour of the Earth's magnetosphere is to have MRx at the nose and in the tail. This has NOTHING to do with circuits, this has to do with the dynamics of magnetoplasmas, not even MHD like Alfven defined is, because there MRx cannot happen.

In solar flares we actually SEE that a loop reshapes and from which a plasmoid losens itself. The only way is for the magnetic field is to change its topology from one into another, where both are topologically different. That means that there is no way to put one shape on top of the other and get the same result. There has been a cut which made this fundamental change.

Again, OccAm's rasor does not even come into it.

Point noted. Would 100+ be "ok" by you?

No, 100+ is also wrong, because a lot of his papers did not deal with circuits at all.

So what exactly is "so new" about MR theory since 1991 that you think might have "interested" him again in the topic of MR theory? Which "experiment" satisfied his requirement that E=0?

All the observations that we have in e.g. the Earth's magnetotail. Have you ever READ the Runov et al paper, where Cluster traverses an Xline in the tail? Where all the things that one theoretically expects from the magnetic fields and the flows and the electric fields is in agreement with the model, the curvature of the field, the Hall magnetic fields, the accelerated particles with high velocity perpendicular to the magnetic field (relax of magnetic tension) etc. etc.

His requirement of E=0 is actually Eparallel = 0, and Tim has already shown that that is only in the specific situation that Alfven set up, which no currents etc. Unfortunately, Alfven was wrong in this, the same as he was wrong with his book about matter/antimatter. Also Nobel laureates get it wrong now and then.

 

[tusenfem]

The circuits inside my computer show *lots* of "dynamics", as do the circuit diagrams that describe the motherboard. It seems to me that you keep ignoring/denying the fact that we can add additional circuits to describe the system as required.

You really do not understand what "circuit representation" means, do you?
That has nothing to do with your circuit board in your computer.
You take a big plasmaphysical object, like a coronal loop, and then you look at the dynamics of that loop. You see that there are currents, and there are waves and shear of the footpoints, and what have you nots. Then you reduce these things to overall properties, the shear gets translated to a battery V, the waves and particle interaction get translated to a resistivity R, the fact that it is a loop gets translated into a induction L. So now you have turned this dynamic plasmaphysical system into a static circuit representation, which let's you more easily calculate e.g. the stored energy that is in that plasmaphysical system. Indeed, if you do all the translation correctly, you can actually prove (see textbooks) that the integrals over the electrodynamic fields give you the same stored energy as from the circuit.

However, what the circuit does not show is if the loop increases or decreases in size, or whatever else it does. It only gives you typical time scales at which something can happen, e.g. oscillations at the LRC time scales.

You keep on interchanging the real loop where you can see these kind of things, with the circuit representation where everything is averaged over large spatial scales.

No. They simply *did not need* MR theory to explain the energy released in the solar flare. Why use something you don't need?

No, they just showed that the total energy that they obtained from the circuit representation was on the same order of what is released in solar flares. For that you need not say how the energy is released, which was also not the purpose of the paper. After showing the energy, they then went to the acceleration of the electrons which emit Xrays through bremstrahlung. If you disagree with this, you will have to go through the paper here in a post and the clearly show where this is wrong.

MRx describes all the processe that happen in the plasma,
[/quot]
Except the charge separation that drives the process you mean?

What charge separation? All electric fields around the X line are inductive electric field driven by the changing magnetic field. If you mean the double layers that are created by instabilities in the current sheet after reconnection is already taking place in the experiment (which may or may not accelerate the reconnection rate), that is a whole other thingamajack.

Why don't you actually discuss a paper that you think shows everything you believe is true. Not just link to a paper but actually go through it and write comments, observations etc. Then we can maybe get to the point that we understand where your misconceptions are.

 

[Michael Mozina]

All of those have read my comments on discharges, look at tim's post where he quotes his post in which he quotes my post on the various definitions of discharges. That you need to make such a big deal about it is your problem. I don't frakking care about the word discharge.

Well, you certainly should care about it if you ever expect to bridge our differences. Dungey specifically associated discharge processes with 'reconnection' events over 60 years ago. It should matter to you and everyone else involved in the discussion. Discharges occur around every large body in the solar system with an atmosphere and a magnetic field and the sun has both. Why *wouldn't* we expect it's atmosphere to also experience "discharges"?

Alfvén's double layer paper (which one actually???) for one used a double layer to unwind a twisted flux tube, another one evacuates the plasma completely and causes an explosion. The first one will probably take place sometimes,

IMO "usually" that will be the case as well. You and I do not seem to disagree at all on this point AFAIK.

the exploding one will not occur as has already been pointed out to you in an earlier post by me, where I presented a paper where they show that such strong double layers will not happen, but they will split up in smaller double layers. (search for my post, it is several pages back).

I'm "ok" with them "splitting up into smaller double layers" myself, so again, I don't think we actually disagree on this point.

A double layer cannot replace the need for MRx, because it cannot produce the topological changes of the magnetic field. Not by an electric field and not by induction or whatever means you want to use.

This is the point where we actually seem to disagree. The topological change is directly related to a "current flow" change, like a change in a riverbank due to the flow of the water, or a change in a transistor state. You keep ignoring the possibility that he currents will simply "rewire" themselves into a new topological arrangement. That's exactly HOW it's going to occur! That is the only "physical" way for your "magnetic lines' to actually change their topology.

OccAm's rasor does not even come in this whole discussion, and if anything MRx would "win."

No, two circuits and a few double layers wins. Nothing "new" has to exist in nature, and no new form of energy exchange needs to take place just 'current flow changes over time" and "induction". Even your concept of a "flux" along the tube is like a giant bulge in the water, or current, much the Mississippi is doing at the moment. The current shapes the topology of the river bank. So too the current flow inside the 'line' is what actually changes it's direction, and the topology change is directly related to the change in the current flow direction.

Unfortunately, you have got no idea what "circuit modeling" actually means. Dungey has shown in the 50s that the only solution for the behaviour of the Earth's magnetosphere is to have MRx at the nose and in the tail.

Dungey understood that an MRx event is also a "discharge' event. You seem stuck on that issue, whereas he was not. Note that the "nose" is literally being *BOMBARDED* with waves of charged particles. The solar wind is anything but "stable" over time and that 'flow of charged particles" is already a form of "current" as it slams into the magnetosphere and induction currents are created in the magnetopshere from their flow through the magnetic field. You're again simply ignoring the fact that the charged particles that are traveling at over a million miles an hour *ALREADY ARE* a form of "current". Their flow through a relatively stable magnetic field we surely generate "induction"' processes as they slam into the field, and they will surely "flow" into "currents" that always flow in the magnetosphere.

In solar flares we actually SEE that a loop reshapes and from which a plasmoid losens itself. The only way is for the magnetic field is to change its topology from one into another, where both are topologically different.

So simply rephrase/re-frame that same loop event in terms of circuits and I'll be happy to grant you that circuit reconnection can happen. Fair enough? Sure the magnetic field topology changes once the currents change their direction. That's bound to occur.

That means that there is no way to put one shape on top of the other and get the same result. There has been a cut which made this fundamental change.

If we call a "loop" a 'circuit' then the topology change in terms of the current flows will take place inside the double layer that forms between the two circuits where they 'reconnect'. As the current jumps from one circuit to the other, the magnetic field it generates also changes in terms of "topology".

No, 100+ is also wrong, because a lot of his papers did not deal with circuits at all.

Pick a number you're comfortable with. Put in on the bottom of a fraction. On the top half of the fraction, put the number of positively slanted papers on the topic of reconnection that he wrote. That will be the amount of "published belief" that Alfven had on the topic of MRx theory.

His requirement of E=0 is actually Eparallel = 0, and

You're right, I was sloppy. My bad.

Tim has already shown that that is only in the specific situation that Alfven set up, which no currents etc. Unfortunately, Alfven was wrong in this, the same as he was wrong with his book about matter/antimatter. Also Nobel laureates get it wrong now and then.

Well, at least you aren't in denial of scientific or history fact like most folks in this discussion. I'll grant you that much. I guess our basic disagreement relates to the "cause" of the loop in the sense that MRx does not note the charge separation that drives the loop in the first place, and the notion that a "topology" change is somehow related to *ONLY* the magnetic field rather than the flow of current through the 'circuits'.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What charge separation?

FYI, before I even get to the rest of your last post, we should discuss this issue.

That is the whole problem with MR theory in nutshell IMO, and the actual physical difference in terms of Alven's approach and your approach. According to his circuit theory, the whole loop is "caused" by a 'charge separation' between two points on the surface. His "motive force" is the *ELECTRIC FIELD*. What MRx?

All electric fields around the X line are inductive electric field driven by the changing magnetic field.

There's already "electric current" running *THROUGH* your "magnetic line"!

 

[Tubbythin]

Alright, that sounds like a plan.

Ok...

Ah, but therein lies the rub. I can't do that. I could "physically" reject "some" early brands of 'magnetic reconnection' theory based upon their use of "monopoles" to do the actual energy exchange, since monopoles violated Guass's law of magnetism. I could not however reject the concept on mathematical grounds once I reached Birn's paper on this topic, and therefore my confusion over Alfven's position. I really had to do some more reading of Alfven's work to fully "understand" his position since his objections could not have been mathematical in nature either. They weren't mathematical in nature.

This is ultimately where I had to "bridge the gap" between Alfven's "circuit" oriented approach to coronal loops, and Birn's understanding of a "magnetic line" (with current running along the line). I finally "bridged that gap" by calling it "circuit reconnection".

Can you explain explicitly what you mean by this term?

From the start, Alfven's objections were not simply 'mathematical' in nature, but "physical" in nature, and ultimately "scientific" in nature IMO at the level of particle physics.

That's a pretty wishy-washy statement with no real meaning.

I don't really have to prove any such thing by the way. *If* I were really all that interested in disproving 'circuit' reconnection theory, that might be true. All I'm really noting in the final analysis is that Alfven's circuit oriented approach is equally valid at both the level of mathematics and physics. Two "circuits" that exchange particle energy through a double layer is essentially what we're discussing and in all such cases Alfven's writings already account for these events *without* any need for "magnetic reconnection". From the standpoint of pure mathematics, it's equally valid to look at this issue from either an E (circuit) or B(magnetic) orientation, but at the level of physics, there is a difference. Alfven's "circuit energy" was a product of the ELECTRIC field between two points on the surface. The electric field was the motive force. You're trying to suggest that the magnetic field is the motive force, yet every experiment you put before me begins and end with "charge separation" between two or more cathodes/anodes.

But you haven't provided any quantitative evidence to support your claim. As far as I can make out you're still effectively just saying "Alfven says it is so therefore it must be".

Ultimately at the level of physics it's "charge separation" that drives the parade, not "magnetic lines". Those "magnetic lines" (composed of moving charged particles) exist because of the currents that sustain them. The moment we remove the current, the show is over, the energy dissipates, and the rest of the plasma in the loop comes crashing to the ground.

http://www.sawfnews.com/Health/34957.aspx

That's not exactly peer reviewed lit.

That collapse is a direct result of the termination of the charge separation. It not only "possible", it's 'predictable' in a circuit oriented approach to coronal loops.

There's quantitative predictions of this?

This whole debate ultimate comes down to an Occum's razor argument IMO. If both approaches are equally valid, but one of them requires a "new kind" of energy exchange that incorrectly 'predicted" the fact that coronal loops could fizzle out, run out of steam, and even flow in opposite directions from time to time, then clearly it's not as good as "circuit" theory in explaining plasma events.

In what sense is it a ""new kind" of energy exchange"?

Alfven ultimately didn't need no stinking MR theory to explain current flow exchanges of energy in plasma. He used a circuit approach instead, and used double layers as a "typical" part of such circuitry. He didn't need it, so why write about it or worry later about why astronomers can't figure out the behaviors of circuits with only a "magnetic" oriented view of events.

And Alfven's approach does quantitatively better than modern approaches?

 

[Reality Check]

RC and GM on the other hand are in complete denial of this *typical* process in plasma and neither of them have read Alfven's book or found any flaw in any of Alfven's work.

Once again you are lying: I accept the *typical* process in plasma of discharges in plasma, e.g. the high current densities caused by magnetic reconnection.

What any person who can think for themselves will not accept is the delusion that electrical discharges such as lighting happens in plasma.

You want to quote mine Peratt's definition and use just "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy", ignoring the fact that his examples are aurora and lightning (electrical discharges in air!). The idiocy of this is that magnetic reconnection then fits that definition!

Then there is the idoicy of continuously demanding that people read an outdated textbook. I have read more modern plasma physics textbooks. I do not need to read an outdated one.

 

[Reality Check]

You and Tim really should enlighten RC and GM on this topic. It's just stupid that you two sit back and ignore their *outrageous* claims and let them try to take a *definition of a discharge in plasma* and claim it's somehow a definition that demonstrates that discharges are "impossible" in plasmas! The fact you two sit back and say nothing says *VOLUMES* IMO.

So you think that Peratt was dumb enough to think that air is a plasma (he gives lighting is an example of of your "*definition of a discharge in plasma*")
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011 (you have shown no ability to understand the difference for 4 months now !)

MM: Why does the title of Anthony Peratt's book appear in the section 1.5 title?
Shouldn't the title be "Electrical discharges in Plasma"?

Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

... Occum's razor now applies.

And we discard the circuit theory because it predicts less than MR theory!
But in actual fact Occam's razor does not apply. Both theories are valid. The big difference is that circuit theory is a large scale approximation while MR theory is a detailed theory.

Again, we are right back to an Occum's razor argument in *BOTH* instances.

Again you are wrong: Occum's razor argument does not apply.

 

[Reality Check]

Are you incapable of understanding English? I just "explained" the fact that your beloved "magnetic reconnection" theory fails to account for, or describe the charge separation process that drives the parade.

Are you incapable of understanding the simple fact that you have not shown that

• there is a parade .
• that the parade is driven by something.
• that there is charge separation driving magnetic reconnection.

 

[tusenfem]

FYI, before I even get to the rest of your last post, we should discuss this issue.

That is the whole problem with MR theory in nutshell IMO, and the actual physical difference in terms of Alven's approach and your approach. According to his circuit theory, the whole loop is "caused" by a 'charge separation' between two points on the surface. His "motive force" is the *ELECTRIC FIELD*. What MRx?

You just don't get it, do you? The loop, of which the footpoints are moving usually, experiences a shear, which creates a voltage drop (equal to the vxB) which drives a current through it. There is NO charge separation in that whole shebang. Electric field, yes, charge separation, no.

There's already "electric current" running *THROUGH* your "magnetic line"!

NO, there is an electric current flowing across the magnetic field lines, as demanded by Maxwell's equations. A current layer separating two oppositely directed magnetic fields. In the steady state there is NO electric field necessary to have this current.

 

[tusenfem]

Well, you certainly should care about it if you ever expect to bridge our differences. Dungey specifically associated discharge processes with 'reconnection' events over 60 years ago. It should matter to you and everyone else involved in the discussion. Discharges occur around every large body in the solar system with an atmosphere and a magnetic field and the sun has both. Why *wouldn't* we expect it's atmosphere to also experience "discharges"?

As I have shown there is a different definition of discharge for different authors. Dungey actually says it is just an strong increase of the current in the plasma (wow did we not already have this stupid discussion?)

A discharge is not a "single well defined process." Therefore, I decide not to talk about the D word, but rather talk about the real processes that are happening. However, because that would mean that you would actually have to learn plasma physics, which you won't, you keep on insisting on your pet word D, which would magically describe a large variety of plasma physical processes, without having to bother about the details.

Therefore I ban the D word.

I'm "ok" with them "splitting up into smaller double layers" myself, so again, I don't think we actually disagree on this point.

So if they are splitting in smaller double layers, then the posited explosion by Alfvén will not happen.

This is the point where we actually seem to disagree. The topological change is directly related to a "current flow" change, like a change in a riverbank due to the flow of the water, or a change in a transistor state. You keep ignoring the possibility that he currents will simply "rewire" themselves into a new topological arrangement. That's exactly HOW it's going to occur! That is the only "physical" way for your "magnetic lines' to actually change their topology.

No, two circuits and a few double layers wins. Nothing "new" has to exist in nature, and no new form of energy exchange needs to take place just 'current flow changes over time" and "induction". Even your concept of a "flux" along the tube is like a giant bulge in the water, or current, much the Mississippi is doing at the moment. The current shapes the topology of the river bank. So too the current flow inside the 'line' is what actually changes it's direction, and the topology change is directly related to the change in the current flow direction.

Then please work it out, show us how "a few circuits" and "a few double layers" do it. Come on, put your money where you mouth is, show how it is done. You won't ofcourse, because you can't. Just linking to the Onel & Mann paper is not an answer to this direct question, for obvious reasons, which I have stated in another message.

Dungey understood that an MRx event is also a "discharge' event. You seem stuck on that issue, whereas he was not. Note that the "nose" is literally being *BOMBARDED* with waves of charged particles. The solar wind is anything but "stable" over time and that 'flow of charged particles" is already a form of "current" as it slams into the magnetosphere and induction currents are created in the magnetopshere from their flow through the magnetic field. You're again simply ignoring the fact that the charged particles that are traveling at over a million miles an hour *ALREADY ARE* a form of "current". Their flow through a relatively stable magnetic field we surely generate "induction"' processes as they slam into the field, and they will surely "flow" into "currents" that always flow in the magnetosphere.

I am not stuck on the D word, you keep on bringing it up, without realising that Dungey has a different definition of discharge than the one you agreed upon with Tim from Peratt.

No, the solar wind is NOT a current, it consists of equal amounts of positive and negative charge (quasi neutral) moving at the same speed, and thus there is NO CURRENT, can you get your electrodynamics straight please? The only current that is there is the heliospheric current sheet, which is driven by the changing direction of the heliospheric magnetic field between the northern and the southern hemisphere, which is only slightly spiral.

So simply rephrase/re-frame that same loop event in terms of circuits and I'll be happy to grant you that circuit reconnection can happen. Fair enough? Sure the magnetic field topology changes once the currents change their direction. That's bound to occur.

You can't but please show me how to do it.

If we call a "loop" a 'circuit' then the topology change in terms of the current flows will take place inside the double layer that forms between the two circuits where they 'reconnect'. As the current jumps from one circuit to the other, the magnetic field it generates also changes in terms of "topology".

Which double layer, which circuits? Please give a complete description with drawings and the like, instead of these vague descriptions of "currents jumping from one circuit to another."

QUOTE=Michael Mozina;7173200]
Pick a number you're comfortable with. Put in on the bottom of a fraction. On the top half of the fraction, put the number of positively slanted papers on the topic of reconnection that he wrote. That will be the amount of "published belief" that Alfven had on the topic of MRx theory.

Who the frak cares about a number? Alfvén stated a few times he did not believe in MRx, scientific experiments and space observations have proved him wrong.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The circuits inside my computer show *lots* of "dynamics", as do the circuit diagrams that describe the motherboard. It seems to me that you keep ignoring/denying the fact that we can add additional circuits to describe the system as required.

You really do not understand what "circuit representation" means, do you?
That has nothing to do with your circuit board in your computer.

This is the point where we actually seem to disagree. The topological change is directly related to a "current flow" change, like a change in a riverbank due to the flow of the water, or a change in a transistor state. You keep ignoring the possibility that he currents will simply "rewire" themselves into a new topological arrangement. That's exactly HOW it's going to occur! That is the only "physical" way for your "magnetic lines' to actually change their topology.

And so we learn that "magnetic lines" will "actually change their topology" in "exactly" the same way that the "motherboard" inside Michael Mozina's "computer" can "rewire" its "circuit diagrams" into a "new topological arrangement".


If that's true, then Michael Mozina should be able to give us one of his fabulous proofs by pretty picture: He should reproduce this alleged rewiring in his terrestrial laboratory computer and show us the "before" and "after" photographs of his motherboard.