What is Circuit Reconnection?
So, the world wonders, what is "circuit reconnection"?
This is what I mean about you having the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse. The "current" is what drives the parade due to "charge separation" between various areas of the surface. The magnetic field acts to "pinch" the current into well defined "streams" of currents. When the current streams change directions, it's simply "current reconnection" or "circuit reconnection" (as it relates to circuit theory), but the magnetic field doesn't "do" anything other than to release itself "partially" into surrounding plasma, AKA *induction*.
What's the difference between "current" and current?
What's the difference between "charge separation" and charge separation?
What's the difference between "pinch" and pinch?
What's the difference between "streams" and streams?
What's the difference between "current reconnection" and current reconnection?
What's the difference between "circuit reconnection" and circuit reconnection?
What's the difference between "do" and do?
What's the difference between "partially" and partially?
You see, when normal people put words in quotation marks, they mean that whatever they are talking about looks like whatever the words in the quotation marks are, but differences are sufficient to differentiate between them. So, "current" is something that looks like a current, but is different enough from a real current that one must say "current" so as not to confuse the two. And so on for all the other phrases. Indeed, there are so many quotation marks liberally sprinkled around this paragraph that any reasonable person can be excused for coming away from it more confused than informed.
So we are not well informed and have to guess what the words "circuit reconnection" are supposed to mean. But we have a clue: "
"circuit reconnection" (as it relates to circuit theory) ...". Now, let us keep in mind that the ultimate goal is a theory that is consistent with existing physical theory, as well as physics as we observe it to be, especially in laboratory or astrophysical plasmas. Let us also keep in mind that circuit theory is an engineering edifice built on the obvious fact that engineering electrical currents all flow through wires, and are invariably homogenous, as they consist of electrons and electrons only. On the other hand, currents flowing in plasma, whether laboratory or astrophysical in nature, are free to move in 3 dimensional space, constrained only by any imposed electromagnetic fields and the general laws of physics, and very often consist of mixtures of electrons, protons and heavy ions. So we must be prepared to apply circuit theory with great care, recognizing that in many cases, circuit theory simply cannot be applicable.
In my following comments I will ignore the quotation marks and interpret the words as if they were not there.
Now let us examine the argument from Mozina in more detail. We start this: "
The "current" is what drives the parade due to "charge separation" between various areas of the surface." This can only mean that the charges are separated in the sense of a double layer, with the gap between plasma domains constituting the central region of the layer, positive charges along one surface, and negative charges along the other. But of course, the obvious question, what force separates the charges, remains unanswered. Aside from that, this description provided by Mozina makes no sense in the context of magnetic reconnection as it is observed in laboratory plasmas. That's because the double layer must accelerate plasma in the direction that separates the two oppositely charged surfaces, whereas in the experiments particle acceleration is observed exclusively perpendicular to that, in the direction that runs parallel to the oppositely charged surfaces. Of course, we must also note that the plasma properties are measured in laboratory experiments, and magnetic reconnection does take place in the complete absence of double layers. The presence and importance of double layers is greatly exaggerated by Mozina; not only are they not as common as he thinks, but they also lack the necessary potential energy to achieve observed kinetic energies (both of these points being made several times over the last year at least by
tusenfem)
Now this: "
The magnetic field acts to "pinch" the current into well defined "streams" of currents." Here Mozina maybe partly correct. Whether the magnetic field dominates the current, or the current dominates the magnetic field, depends on the conditions of the particular experiment. In the MRX device, for instance, a neutral gas is injected into the chamber and then ionized in the presence of a pre-existing magnetic field. So of course the currents that eventually flow in the ionized gas cannot be the cause of the magnetic field, but they can & will interact with the field. In most cases the energy density of the magnetic field is greater and it squeezes the current into a sheet (not a stream or "stream").
Now this: "
When the current streams change directions, it's simply "current reconnection" or "circuit reconnection" (as it relates to circuit theory), ...". Right away we see that the words "current reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" are both physically undefined
and enclosed in quotation marks, so their interpretation is quite slippery at best. This whole statement is fraught with error and certainly quite wrong, probably quite impossible altogether. For one thing, we are introduced to the parenthetical "
as it relates to circuit theory", which certainly cannot be the case in any real physical detail. Current in a plasma
cannot and
will not act like currents in a wire. The physics of a plasma cannot be reasonably expected to act like the solid state physics of a wire, complete with conduction bands and Fermi energy levels. Furthermore, currents in any standard electric circuit are pushed along by electric fields imposed in the wire from outside (the voltage in the wire is a measure of the strength of the electric field). So at this point we should be very suspicious. All Mozina has actually done is push some words together in very general, nebulous, ill defined concepts, but that won't do. Very specific, physical descriptions and definitions need to be put forth because we know that there are very specific physical constraints that have been ignored to this point.
So what actually does happen in a plasma? For one thing, we know that the constraints produced by wires are certainly inoperative. Currents are free to move in 3 dimensions, constrained only by the electric & magnetic fields found in the plasma, some imposed from outside the plasma, some generated in the plasma by dynamo action. Currents in wires are strongly constrained to move in streams defined by the wires, but streams in the plasma are far less constrained. In fact, currents don't need to form in streams at all in a plasma and can take surprisingly complex shapes, including sheets, fans, and fragmented streams, constrained in size & shape only by the geometry of the electric & magnetic fields and the energies of the particles. As you might guess by now, the simplistic and very general concepts enshrined in Mozina's words are useless in the real world of real physics, where the possibilities are in fact too complicated to be presented in a forum like this, except in very general terms. And that's why we have plasma physics text books (e.g.,
Fundamentals of Plasma Physics by Paul Bellan, Cambridge University Press 2006 is a good one amongst many; in this case,
Paul Bellan is the leader of the
Bellan Plasma Group at the
California Institute of Technology; amongst other things, they are very good at
laboratory simulations of solar prominences). So if you really want to know what happens in plasma in detail, you need to consult a plasma physics text book, not Michael Mozina. And you need to realize that "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection", as Mozina loosely describes it, simply does not happen. And I will have more to say about that too.
Meanwhile, let us finish the paragraph with this: "
... but the magnetic field doesn't "do" anything other than to release itself "partially" into surrounding plasma, AKA *induction*" This too happens to be quite wrong. We know, by virtue of direct observation in laboratory plasma that this is not what happens. What really happens is that the fast moving magnetic field
does not move through the plasma, rather it
moves with the plasma so that the relative velocity between the magnetic field and the plasma is zero. There can be no induction if there is no relative velocity between the plasma and the magnetic field. The plasma is quite frozen to the field, and that's how it gains so much energy so fast; the tension in the magnetic field pulls it far faster than it could ever move through the plasma, and since the energy density of the field is far larger than the energy density of the plasma, the field dominates the plasma and drags it along.
So dissecting Mozina's paragraph reveals two serious weaknesses. First, the language is entirely inappropriate. What we need is technical & scientific detail, but what we get is vague & hand-wavy language, couched in broad generalities and liberal use of quotation marks, so much so that we can't even be sure what the words are supposed to mean. It is simply, linguistically uninformative. The other problem is that, where we are able to establish some reasonable sense of what the words mean, we find that they are contrary to physics as we observe it to be. So aside from being linguistically uninformative, it is technically inaccurate. In short, where we can pin him down to specifics, Mozina is just plain wrong.
Now consider this ...
As for "circuit reconnection", you are conveniently ignoring the fact that I have already proven such things to be
physically impossible.
As for "circuit reconnection", you are conveniently ignoring the fact that I have already proven such things to be
physically impossible.
That is a fairy tale. Magnetic reconnection only happens when the electric currents are flowing in opposite directions. That means, in your "circuit reconnection" fantasy, the currents bash into each other head on. Head on. So why don't you describe the physics for us, how these two currents manage to merge into another current, gaining energy despite colliding head on. And if that's not enough, how about conservation of energy? How do you explain the final current carrying more energy than the sum of the energies of the input currents? Where does all that extra energy come from (ignoring for a moment the head on collision of the currents)?
Parallel magnetic field lines do not reconnect, but antiparallel magnetic field lines will, as will field lines intersecting at an angle.
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.
It is obvious that circuit reconnection and/or particle reconnection are physically impossible processes. 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.
And Mozina's reply to my invitation ...
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.
{ ... }
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".
What's the difference between "tubes" and tubes?
What's the difference between "double layer" and double layer?
What's the difference between "streams" and streams?
What's the difference between "mystery" and mystery?
What's the difference between "short circuit" and short circuit?
What's the difference between "rewire" and rewire?
What's the difference between "hot" and hot?
What's the difference between "electrified double layer" and electrified double layer?
What's the difference between "solid" and solid?
What's the difference between "circuit reconnection" and circuit reconnection?
What's the difference between "current" and current?
Anybody see a common pattern unfolding? One might be excused for thinking Mozina gets royalties each time he uses quotation marks. Again, the key terms are set off in quotation marks to make sure we don't accidently think Mozina is talking about something he looks like he is trying to talk about.
Now, I specifically said, "at a level equivalent to the level I have applied here". I also said, "So why don't you describe the physics for us, how these two currents manage to merge into another current,
gaining energy despite colliding
head on." Did anybody see Mozina address the real physical issue of currents colliding head on in free space (not in wires)? Maybe I missed it. In fact, reading Mozina's response, I can't see that it really relates to the points I was making anyway. How does circuit reconnection in free space not violate the law of conservation of energy, by endowing currents with more energy after they interact than they had before? I don't see any answer to that either. And what's all this talk of an "electrified double layer" between welding tips? Last time I checked, the arc of current flowing between the tips of a welder was a far cry from any kind of double layer.
Throughout the entire conversation, from one end of this thread to the other, Mozina insists that he knows more than everybody else in sight, that no living person knows more about plasma physics than he does. And yet all we get from him is word salad, vague & hand-wavy arguments laced with quotation marks and mistakes that would embarrass high school students.
The fact is that circuit reconnection or particle reconnection or current reconnection, which ever term Mozina favors today, is
physically impossible. It cannot happen and it does not happen and it never will happen in plasma physics. And to that assertion Mozina has no science based argument to present. That's why this thread, like his others, simply goes on in interminable repetition,
an infinite loop, as programmers like to say. So the thread goes ever on, out from the door where it began ...
If you ignore the utter sadness of the whole ignorance thing, it's actually pretty funny. Sorry, but that line isn't in the holy book, but thanks for playing!
