Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[GeeMack]

So, in other words, you have no quantitative evidence that your pictures show what you claim they show.

This bears repeating.

 

[GeeMack]

So how about it? Any progress in uncovering those alleged problems with magnetic reconnection?

So how about it? Any progress in coming up with an MRx "experiment" that isn't actually being "caused" by "discharges" inside of a "discharge" chamber, or one that doesn't begin the the flow of electrons? I'm still waiting for an MRx experiment that begins with magnetic field energy and turns that magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy. So far all I've seen are experiments that begin with particle kinetic energy that "causes" a "reconnection" between "currents/circuits".

I think we can reasonably take that dishonest attempt to deflect the burden of proof, formed into a bunch of quote marked, undefined, sciency sounding gibberish, as a "no" answer to my question.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

That's at least the third time you've accused me of narcissistic behavior and talking to hear myself talk, but I'm one of only three participants in this thread to have actually read Cosmic Plasma, and/or Peratt's book. You haven't read either books, nor found any flaw in Alfven's work, so why exactly are you participating in this thread other than to feed your own narcissistic need for attention?

As Michael Mozina has admitted, neither of those books says anything about magnetic reconnection. Hence Michael Mozina's repeated references to those books are off-topic.

Which experiment on MR theory starts with magnetic field energy and turns it into particle kinetic energy? So far, each and every single one of them begins with charge separation, and/or particle kinetic energy and *THEN* reconnection happens. Your experiments all demonstrate that you have the magnetic flux cart in front of the electric flux horse.

No. The experiment I've been recommending does not begin "with charge separation, and/or particle kinetic energy". Yet magnetic reconnection happens, and is easy to measure.

Michael Mozina's repetitious denials of that fact do not make it any less fact.

IMO it's very damning that most of your MRx experiments require cathodes and discharge chambers.

The experiment I've been recommending does not "require cathodes and discharge chambers."

Michael Mozina's problem is easy to diagnose: For all his ranting and raving about magnetic reconnection in this thread and elsewhere, he still doesn't know what it is.

The reason for that is simple: at its most basic, magnetic reconnection is a mathematical phenomenon. As such, Michael Mozina does not have the technical background needed to understand it. Although he generally tries to argue that mathematics is irrelevant to physics, the mathematical phenomenon known as magnetic reconnection involves a physically meaningful vector field that is easily measured in laboratory experiments and has been measured (with considerably greater difficulty) in space. Those measurements contradict virtually all of Michael Mozina's claims.

So his claims come even faster and louder. Empty claims are all he's got.

 

[Reality Check]

That's just another perfect example of pure denial on your part:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg
.

That's just another perfect example of pure delusion on your part

1. Citing a newspaper article from 1913.
2. The delusion that Saturn is the Sun:
   Is Saturn the Sun?
   14th July 2009
3. The inability to understand the difference between visible light and soft x-rays
   1. The first image is Birkeland's attempt for an analogy of Saturn (fig. 247a). It is in visible light.
   2. The second image is a soft X-ray (not visible light) image of the Sun.
4. Followed by the idiocy of trying to compare the 2 images of Saturn and the Sun in 2 different wavelengths.

 

[Tubbythin]

Followed by the idiocy of trying to compare the 2 images of Saturn and the Sun in 2 different wavelengths.

What I find most bizarre is that even by choosing two completely unrelated images of completely different things he is still incapable of finding two images which look even remotely similar.

 

[Reality Check]

Note that the term "separatrix" is MRx jargon for "double layer".

You are displaying your ignorance again: Magnetic reconnection

Domains in a magnetic plasma are separated by separatrix surfaces: curved surfaces in space that divide different bundles of flux.

No mention of a double layer.

Essentially as I understand their argument, they're using a laser to "knock electrons" from atoms into coherent 'streams" of "current" that flow in opposite directions, and they are then calling it "magnetic reconnection".

Wrong: The lasers vaporize the surface - ions leave it to form a plasma.
The idiocy of claiming currents in different directions is obvious. Any currents have to be in the same direction - away from the surface.

 

[Reality Check]

Michael Mozina: Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption

All these experiments demonstrate that the "current" is the cause of "reconnection" events, MRx is not the cause of the creation of currents.

You are still wrong.
Michael Mozina: Why do MR experiments show reconnection and then current disruption?
First asked 16 May 2011

 

[Reality Check]

That is another of your many, many, many, many, many, many lies. It's an example of a discharge pattern that forms around a cathode sphere in a relative vacuum under very specific conditions.

You are still deluded, Michael Mozina.
That image is Figure 247a in Birkeland's book on page 661 and described in the text as

It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe trt the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and di'uptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 247a (which happens to be a unipolar di'harge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great.

This happens to be in an introduction to his section "128. The Sun" but you have obviously not understood the text.

He goes onto suggest these rings as an explanation for zodiacal light which is one of the many things he gets wrong in his book. The only thing that has withstood the progress of science in the book is his explanation of auror, e.g. galaxies are not electrical discharges from brass spheres !

 

[Tim Thompson]

First the field then the current.

All of your "reconnection" experiments are actually "caused by" current flow. All of them involve the flow of current *FIRST* which is then called a "reconnection' process.

NONE of them involve the flow of current first. ALL of them involve the flow of current second. In each and every case the magnetic field topology changes first and then the charged particles are accelerated thereafter, in a time sequence of events that clearly traces the energy from the magnetic field to the current. I am not talking about experiments from decades ago, I am talking about the experiments that are in process now, the experiments I have cited already, e.g. ...

Aside from the Princeton MRX, there are also the Todai Spheromak 3 & 4 experiments at the University of Tokyo in Japan, the Swarthmore Spheromak Experiment (SSX) at Swarthmore College, the Versatile Toroidal Facility at MIT, and the Reconnection Scaling Experiment (RSX) at Los Alamos National Laboratory. All are controlled laboratory plasma devices, all produce & study copious magnetic reconnection events in real time. These, and the papers & experiments cited above all constitute the very evidence that Mozina asks for, and much of it has already been presented. But of course, Mozina asks "where is the evidence?", as if none has ever been presented. And of course Mozina will reject it all on the grounds of bias, without ever examining any of the experiments.

The real data are in. Magnetic reconnection is in and physically impossible "circuit reconnection" is out. But I will have more to say about circuit reconnection later in more detail. Meanwhile, I will simply make note of one salient fact that Mozina has always ignored, but I have pointed out before: The topology of the magnetic field changes first, and accelerated/energized particles appear afterwards. The order of events is significant. If we were seeing "circuit reconnection" (a phrase that has never been properly defined by the way), then we should see the particles "reconnect" (whatever that is) and energize first, and the magnetic field topology change afterwards, in response to the changing currents. So what we actually see is consistent with magnetic reconnection, and inconsistent with "circuit reconnection", for any reasonable definition of the term.

 

[Perpetual Student]

NONE of them involve the flow of current first. ALL of them involve the flow of current second. In each and every case the magnetic field topology changes first and then the charged particles are accelerated thereafter, in a time sequence of events that clearly traces the energy from the magnetic field to the current. I am not talking about experiments from decades ago, I am talking about the experiments that are in process now, the experiments I have cited already, e.g. ...

You can repeat the above a thousand times but it will make no difference. EU groupies have no interest in scientific evidence; they are cultists, dedicated to their dogma, much like scientologists or the many cults of conspiracy wackos among us (like the moon landing hoax loonies). It's not science; it's mindless belief.

 

[Michael Mozina]

NONE of them involve the flow of current first.

Wow! I've seen pure denial here in this thread quite a few times, but never from you until now. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that is just pure denial on your part Tim.

Let's start with this list that you provided earlier in the thread of actual referenced "experiments" in MRx in a lab.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7178404&postcount=573

The first reference you gave us:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFMSM31A1706L

Each 2.5~cm LaB6 cathode can produce current densities of 5-20 A/cm2 and Δ B/B ~ 10%. The background plasma (n ~ 2 × 1012 cm-3, d ~ 60 cm, L ~ 18 m, and τrep= 1 s) is produced with a DC discharge using a pulsed barium oxide-coated cathode. The two current channels are created by biasing the LaB6 cathodes with respect to a grid anode at the opposite end of the chamber. They are emitted parallel to each other and the background B field. J × B forces cause the currents to move across the field and interact. Reconnection has been observed at multiple locations between the two currents.

The currents come first Tim. They always come first Tim. That's the problem with your theory. You have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse. The current does the "reconnection". What is conspicuously absent from your list of cited experiments are experiments that begin with a magnetic field, like a simple, stable field produced in a solid, and turned it into particle kinetic energy at the point of "reconnection", and only at the point of "reconnection", while measuring the magnetic fields inside the experiment.

You are in complete denial of the cause/effect relationships. The current comes first and the "reconnection" is a function of the topology of the flow of that current.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You can repeat the above a thousand times but it will make no difference.

You're right that repetition of pure denial will make no difference in my opinion. If anything, a continuous string of pure denial is likely to move me in the opposite direction in fact. I've seen that pattern play out in creationist lore over and over again. When all else fails, pure denial kicks in.

EU groupies have no interest in scientific evidence; they are cultists, dedicated to their dogma,

But just the opposite is true. I've gone through those experiments with a fine tooth comb looking for one that *BEGINS WITH MAGNETIC FIELDS*, not "current flow". No such experiment exists.

much like scientologists or the many cults of conspiracy wackos among us (like the moon landing hoax loonies). It's not science; it's mindless belief.

If you're so sure it's my fault and not your fault, how about you personally rounding us up an "experiment" where "reconnection" comes first and "current" comes only from the point of "reconnection". The one thing that is *PAINFULLY* clear about all of these experiments is that current is the CAUSE of reconnection. You're all in hardcore denial of this scientific fact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As Michael Mozina has admitted, neither of those books says anything about magnetic reconnection. Hence Michael Mozina's repeated references to those books are off-topic.

I have admitted nothing of the sort! That is your own fabrication. In fact, I have provided quotes from Alfven's book on this topic on numerous occasions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. The experiment I've been recommending does not begin "with charge separation, and/or particle kinetic energy". Yet magnetic reconnection happens, and is easy to measure.

Show me a published paper on magnetic reconnection that does *NOT* begin and end with "current/charged particle kinetic energy".

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, in other words, you have no quantitative evidence that your pictures show what you claim they show.

No, that is NOT what I said. RC was actually kind enough to quote Birkeland and his "discharge" statements related to the first B/W image. I have provided you with ample other authors relating discharges to solar flares and coronal loops to "circuits". They show exactly what I claim they show, "discharges" and current carrying "circuits" in plasmas.

 

[GeeMack]

Wow! I've seen pure denial here in this thread quite a few times, but never from you until now. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that is just pure denial on your part Tim.

Let's start with this list that you provided earlier in the thread of actual referenced "experiments" in MRx in a lab.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7178404&postcount=573

The first reference you gave us:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFMSM31A1706L

The currents come first Tim. They always come first Tim. That's the problem with your theory. You have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse. The current does the "reconnection". What is conspicuously absent from your list of cited experiments are experiments that begin with a magnetic field, like a simple, stable field produced in a solid, and turned it into particle kinetic energy at the point of "reconnection", while measuring the magnetic fields inside the experiment.

You are in complete denial of the cause/effect relationships. The "current" comes first and the "reconnection" is a function of the topology of the flow of that current".

Such absolute wrongness combined with the intentional and dishonest cherry picking to support a crackpot dogma isn't even an argument. It's a bunch of words cobbled together in a failed attempt to sound sciency, but the result only merits ridicule.

With such an extreme misunderstanding of empirical demonstrations of magnetic reconnection, including the obvious contempt for the relevant physics and supporting math, it's no wonder no critic of magnetic reconnection is able to convince a single legitimate scientist that their criticism is valid.

But even if we consider for a moment the possibility that the critics are correct, their argument is so poorly formed and so abysmally presented that no legitimate physicist finds it compelling... no matter how often it's repeated. Consider that their current approach has met with 100% failure. It might be time for another strategy like learning and applying a little real physics and math, and communicating in plain English without all the undefined, quote-marked words and phrases.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think we can reasonably take that dishonest attempt to deflect the burden of proof, formed into a bunch of quote marked, undefined, sciency sounding gibberish, as a "no" answer to my question.

The dishonest behavior is yours and yours alone. I have pointed out to all of you that your beloved Mrx experiments all begin and end with charged particle kinetic energy (aka current) along the "lines" and that "current' is what actually changes direction. You're putting the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and hoping that nobody noticed. I noticed. Alfven noticed too. He preferred to work in terms that are consistent with other branches of science, including electrical engineering, and particle physics. Your claim that Magnetic field comes first and particle kinetic energy comes later is absolutely bogus. The charged particle kinetic energy does all the work and the "current" is what actually "reconnects" and/or changes topology.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Such absolute wrongness combined with the intentional and dishonest cherry picking to support a crackpot dogma isn't even an argument. It's a bunch of words cobbled together in a failed attempt to sound sciency, but the result only merits ridicule.

With such an extreme misunderstanding of empirical demonstrations of magnetic reconnection, including the obvious contempt for the relevant physics and supporting math, it's no wonder no critic of magnetic reconnection is able to convince a single legitimate scientist that their criticism is valid.

But even if we consider for a moment the possibility that the critics are correct, their argument is so poorly formed and so abysmally presented that no legitimate physicist finds it compelling... no matter how often it's repeated. Consider that their current approach has met with 100% failure. It might be time for another strategy like learning and applying a little real physics and math, and communicating in plain English without all the undefined, quote-marked words and phrases.

That is pure, unadulterated denial at it's finest. Congrats!

 

[GeeMack]

So, in other words, you have no quantitative evidence that your pictures show what you claim they show.

No, that is NOT what I said. RC was actually kind enough to quote Birkeland and his "discharge" statements related to the first B/W image. I have provided you with ample other authors relating discharges to solar flares and coronal loops to "circuits". They show exactly what I claim they show, "discharges" and current carrying "circuits" in plasmas.

It shows nothing of the sort. It is a picture spammed repeatedly here without any accompanying quantitative data or description. And anything quantitative in the original publication says nothing about replicating coronal loops, discrediting magnetic reconnection, or any such thing. Any argument that it does would be a lie. The picture is just spam, an intentional and dishonest attempt to distract from the topic.

So...

[...] in other words, you have no quantitative evidence that your pictures show what you claim they show.

 

[GeeMack]

The dishonest behavior is yours and yours alone. I have pointed out to all of you that your beloved Mrx experiments all begin and end with charged particle kinetic energy (aka current) along the "lines" and that "current' is what actually changes direction. [...]

Tim pointed out that in all the magnetic reconnection experiments under consideration, none of them involve the flow of current first. All of them involve the flow of current second.

NONE of them involve the flow of current first. ALL of them involve the flow of current second. In each and every case the magnetic field topology changes first and then the charged particles are accelerated thereafter, in a time sequence of events that clearly traces the energy from the magnetic field to the current.

And Tim's comments are supported by links to contemporary research, not by bald unsupported assertions twisting something some dead scientists said decades or centuries ago. So this...

I have pointed out to all of you that your beloved Mrx experiments all begin and end with charged particle kinetic energy (aka current) along the "lines" and that "current' is what actually changes direction.

... is simply another argument containing undefined quote-marked terms and unsupported assertions. As usual it's an argument constructed from gibberish. And as always it has failed to convince any reasonably intelligent person that it is scientifically valid. Spamming isn't working. Time for another strategy.