Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[Reality Check]

Show me. Show me one experiment where gamma rays were produced by "magnetic reconnection".

The typical response of a crank or ignorant person - raise a strawman argument from their stance of delusion or ignorance.
FYI: Michael Mozina gamma rays are not expected from magnetic reconnection experiments because they are not run at the energies high enough to generate them.

 

[Reality Check]

I will mention this experiment again:
Fast compression of a current sheet during externally driven magnetic reconnection (PDF).
What happens is that plasma is shapped into 2 toroids by external magnetics and then forced together into a configuraton where magnetic reconnection happens. This is measured by an array of magnetic probes. It looks like they actually measure how current sheets in the plasma are compressed by the combined external and internal magnetic field.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric currents and magnetic reconnection II

I don't question *THEIR* understanding of the physics Tim, just yours. They are explicit and clear about the where the current originates and the fact that *CURRENT* reconnects. It's YOUR understanding I'm questioning, not theirs.

OK, lets see what we are talking about.

Abstract, Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008
"The behavior and interaction of magnetic flux ropes have long been a topic of interest to solar and space plasma physicists, but few laboratory experiments have been performed as it is necessary to have a relatively collisionless plasma and currents with significant self-generated fields. Movable lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) cathodes have been developed to study the 3D dynamics of flux ropes in the Large Plasma Device (LaPD). Each ~2.5 cm LaB6 cathode can produce current densities of 5-20 A/cm² and ΔB/B ~ 10%. The background plasma (n ~ 2 × 10¹² cm^-3, d ~ 60 cm, L ~ 18 m, and τ_rep= 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 role of reconnection in these interactions will be investigated through detailed volume measurments of the magnetic field and current density (65000 time steps at 20000 spatial points). Data from Langmuir probes and microwave horn antennas will also be presented."
​

Now, according to you, "They are explicit and clear about the where the current originates and the fact that *CURRENT* reconnects." And where in this abstract do we find this explicit and clear statement? We find it here: "J × B forces cause the currents to move across the field and interact." I have looked up the word "interact" and find definitions like "to act on each other" (American Heritage dictionary), or "to act on or in close relation to each other" (Collins English Dictionary), and "to act upon one another" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary online). I reject your claim (and my own earlier agreement with it): There is no "explicit and clear" statement in this abstract that the currents reconnect. "Interaction" could include a great deal of physical association that does not include reconnecting or merging.

Having disputed your claim, I will make a new claim of my own: They are explicit and clear that *MAGNETIC FIELDS* reconnect. And where in this abstract do we find this explicit and clear statement? We find it here: "Reconnection has been observed at multiple locations between the two currents." This is an explicit and clear statement that magnetic reconnection is occurring between the currents. And since you are explicit and clear ("I don't question *THEIR* understanding of the physics") then I assume you agree with them and accept that magnetic reconnection, and not circuit reconnection, is what is happening here.

Now, let me go further. There is no dispute that current streams can & do merge in a plasma. That dispute is over your claim that this process is being mistaken for or misrepresented as magnetic reconnection. To explore this failure of yours even further, let us move on to the research paper that follows on, and more fully explains, the experiment alluded to in the 2008 abstract.

Abstract, Lawrence & Gekelman, 2009
"The concept of quasiseparatrix layers (QSLs) has emerged as a powerful tool to study the connectivity of magnetic field lines undergoing magnetic reconnection in solar flares. Although they have been used principally by the solar physics community until now, QSLs can be employed to shed light on all processes in which reconnection occurs. We present the first application of this theory to an experimental flux rope configuration. The three-dimensional data set acquired in this experiment makes the determination of the QSL possible."
​

Not the most informative abstract perhaps, at least to an amateur. A quasiseparatrix layer is a region of compressed magnetic field that shows up between the flux tubes. If the magnetic field becomes sufficiently compressed, it reconnects.

Lawrence & Gekelman, 2009, page 105002-1
"For example, reconnection has been observed in three-dimensional current systems in the aftermath of a collision between two dense plasmas in a background plasma [10]. In the Sun, coronal mass ejections can lead to flux ropes [11] that emerge from the corona and can reach Earth. They may remain anchored on the Sun, or break away to become plasmoids [12]. A single flux rope carries a current which makes the magnetic field surrounding it helical. Two or more adjacent flux ropes can interact via their J x B force. This may lead to merging as was seen in an early experiment [13] in which the process lead to a force free state where the magnetic fields and plasma currents became parallel. A recent experiment using washer stack guns to produce initially parallel current carrying plasmas showed that magnetic field reconnection occurs when two flux ropes merge [14]."
​

Here we see, near the beginning, an explicit statement describing the observation of fully 3-dimensional magnetic reconnection in colliding plasmas. And we also see, at the end, that MAGNETIC FIELD RECONNECTION is observed when two flux ropes merge. That latter flux rope merging is the current reconnection you are talking about. But it is clear enough here that the authors distinguish between the merging of the currents and the reconnection of the magnetic field. This should be no surprise, since currents & magnetic fields are remarkably different things.

Lawrence & Gekelman, 2009, page 105002-4
"In conclusion, we have experimentally observed a QSL with HFT geometry between magnetic flux ropes. The QSL shape has remarkable similarity to simulations in [25]. A more general theory of 3D reconnection based on QSLs has been put forth [27], and work is being done to apply it to this experiment. It is hoped that, once this theory is fully developed, quantities such as the reconnection rate and current layer thickness can be predicted from the strength and size of the QSLs. This experiment is well suited to help guide and verify these theories."
​

Here is another explicit and clear statement: "we have experimentally observed a QSL with HFT geometry between magnetic flux ropes." "HFT" means "hyperbolic flux tube", a reference to the fact that tightly compressed magnetic field lines between the currents diverge hyperbolically at the end of the QSL. Note the reference to "experimentally observed", by magnetometers embedded in the plasma, And note the statement "remarkable similarity to simulations", meaning that the observed geometry of the QSL is remarkably similar to the geometry predicted for it from theoretical simulations based on the theory of magnetic reconnection.

Now, you did say, "I don't question *THEIR* understanding of the physics", but are you still willing to stand by that statement, or would you rather change your mind? After all, we now have multiple statements from them that magnetic reconnection occurs and you say magnetic reconnection never occurs. So there is a bit of a conflict there, no?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Disclaimer: I am not a physicist. What I write below could be wrong. One of my reasons for writing it is to encourage the physicists here to correct any of my misconceptions.

A field line, simply put, is a curve that connects points of equal field strength. So a magnetic field line connects together the points of equal magnetic field strength.

I don't think that's right. I also think that's a common misconception, and I think I may even have said the same thing myself now and then.

Allow me to present what I believe to be a correct definition of magnetic field lines, followed by what I believe to be a (highly relevant) counterexample to the definition Tim Thompson offered above.

Definition. A magnetic field line of a magnetic field B is a differentiable one-parameter curve L(λ) such that dL/dλ=B(L(λ)).

In English, that says a magnetic field line is a curve that's parallel to the magnetic field. Equivalently, the magnetic field is tangent to the magnetic field line at every point on the magnetic field line.

Example. In cylindrical coordinates, consider a magnetic field B(r,θ,z)=(1/r,(θ+π/2),0). That's the magnetic field generated by a certain (unit-dependent) current running through an infinitely long and infinitely thin conducting rod at r=0. (Don't worry about the singularity at r=0, because it goes away for rods that aren't infinitely thin. For a real conducting rod bisected by the plane z=0, the formula shown remains a good approximation to the magnetic field in that plane provided r is small compared to the length of the rod but isn't too close to zero.)

The magnetic field lines of B(r,θ,z)=(1/r,(θ+π/2),0) form circles whose center is r=0. If I've done the math right, the magnetic field line at radius r and height z is L(λ)=(r,λ/r², z).

For that particular magnetic field, the magnetic field lines do indeed have the property stated by Tim Thompson: the magnitude of the magnetic field is constant on the magnetic field line. To construct my counterexample B', I will subtract two translated copies of the field B from the sum of two translated copies of B. By linearity, B' will be the magnetic field generated by four conducting rods, each carrying exactly the same current.

A more complicated example. Translating the origin to a point p' gives us a different magnetic field B_p'(p)=B(p-p') whose magnetic field lines are translations of the magnetic field lines for B. Still using cylindrical coordinates, let

1. p₁=(1,0,0)
2. p₂=(1,π/2,0)
3. p₃=(1,π,0)
4. p₄=(1,3π/2,0)

Using B_i to abbreviate B_pi, define

B' = B₄ - B₃ + B₂ - B₁​

Near the origin, the magnetic field lines of B' look something like the red, blue, and red/blue lines of

except the X-lines meet at right angles instead of being vertically squashed as in that Wikipedia image.

Consider the magnetic field lines that go through the origin. It turns out that there are two different magnetic field lines that go through that point. For one of those magnetic field lines, the magnitude of the magnetic field increases in the direction of π/4, while for the other field line the magnitude of the magnetic field decreases in the direction of -π/4. For both of those magnetic field lines, the magnitude of the magnetic field is zero at the origin.

Yet neither of those magnetic field lines ends at the origin, and the divergence is zero at the origin (as it is everywhere). I suspect that some of the EU crowd's misconceptions come from using an incorrect definition of magnetic field lines and from a shallow (and incorrect) notion of divergence.

If any of the above is wrong, please correct me.

 

[Tubbythin]

IMO you're being a wee "legalistic" from my perspective in relationship to two very specific images rather than acknowledging the charge separation/current carrying process that is responsible for the coronal loops.

Not in the slightest. You repeatedly show us two pictures of completely different things which look really rather different and use these completely different pictures to claim that anyone that rejects you claims is somehow in denial. Michael, which bit of the notion that "these pictures are completely different" constitutes "legalistic" terminology? The "set-ups" in the two scenarios are completely different, imagined at completely different wavelengths and the results look to be completely different. You have provided zero quantitative evidence to suggest they are not completely different. Why on Earth do you expect anyone to believe anything you claim when your claims repeatedly refer to two images which are completely different as if they are the same thing.
When you've either admitted these pictures do not show the same phenomenon or you provide quantitative evidence to show that they are indicative of the same phenomenon (I have seen no evidence whatsoever from you or anyone else to suggest the similarity isn't one you dreamt up in your head - I certainly can't see it) we can move on to the rest of this post.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I need to correct the following paragraph:

Consider the magnetic field lines that go through the origin. It turns out that there are two different magnetic field lines that go through that point. For one of those magnetic field lines, the magnitude of the magnetic field increases in the direction of π/4, while for the other field line the magnitude of the magnetic field decreases in the direction of -π/4. For both of those magnetic field lines, the magnitude of the magnetic field is zero at the origin.

That's wrong. (The r coordinate of a vector can be negative, but the magnitude of the vector can't be negative.) Corrected version:

Consider the magnetic field lines that go through the origin. It turns out that there are two different magnetic field lines that go through that point, one in the direction of π/4 and the other in the direction of -π/4. For both of those magnetic field lines, the magnitude of the magnetic field decreases as the magnetic field line approaches the null point at the origin, and increases as the field line goes away from that null point.​

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, lets see what we are talking about.

Abstract, Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008
"The behavior and interaction of magnetic flux ropes have long been a topic of interest to solar and space plasma physicists, but few laboratory experiments have been performed as it is necessary to have a relatively collisionless plasma and currents with significant self-generated fields. Movable lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) cathodes have been developed to study the 3D dynamics of flux ropes in the Large Plasma Device (LaPD). Each ~2.5 cm LaB6 cathode can produce current densities of 5-20 A/cm² and ΔB/B ~ 10%. The background plasma (n ~ 2 × 10¹² cm^-3, d ~ 60 cm, L ~ 18 m, and τ_rep= 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 role of reconnection in these interactions will be investigated through detailed volume measurments of the magnetic field and current density (65000 time steps at 20000 spatial points). Data from Langmuir probes and microwave horn antennas will also be presented."
​

Now, according to you, "They are explicit and clear about the where the current originates and the fact that *CURRENT* reconnects." And where in this abstract do we find this explicit and clear statement?

In the HIGHLIGHTED part Tim. Give it a rest Tim. The experiment *begins* with electric fields. You are ultimately reconnecting electric fields and calling it "magnetic reconnection". It's the *CURRENT* that actually changes direction, and physically 'reconnects'.

We find it here: "J × B forces cause the currents to move across the field and interact." I have looked up the word "interact" and find definitions like "to act on each other" (American Heritage dictionary), or "to act on or in close relation to each other" (Collins English Dictionary), and "to act upon one another" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary online). I reject your claim (and my own earlier agreement with it): There is no "explicit and clear" statement in this abstract that the currents reconnect. "Interaction" could include a great deal of physical association that does not include reconnecting or merging.

You're ignoring the PHYSICS Tim. They explicitly talk about the CURRENTS, not just magnetic fields. There are no magnetic fields in the absence of current.

Having disputed your claim, I will make a new claim of my own: They are explicit and clear that *MAGNETIC FIELDS* reconnect.

You mean having "handwaved" at both my claim *AND THEIR CLAIM*, you're going to go into pure denial about the fact that they started with electric fields, not simple magnetic lines. You're going to ignore the fact they created "current carrying filaments" inside the plasma like we find in an ordinary plasma ball. You're going to ignore the fact that the electric field has to be turned on during the *ENTIRE* process. You're going to ignore the fact they specifically mentioned that the "currents" interacted, not simply "magnetic lines. "

Oh no. You're going to try to dumb down the whole ELECTRIC HORSE DRIVEN EVENT to a "magnetic" event alone, and you're going to ignore their whole presentation.

Where does that leave us Tim? You're reconnecting a couple of current streams that are driven by charge separation and an electrical field a "magnetic line reconnection" event because you're insisting on dumbing down the whole thing the the B field.

We're clearly stuck in denialville at this point Tim. You're in pure denial of the electrical field that drives the process and the fact that it's the "current" that changes direction and that "reconnects". Nothing but pure denial will work, because the moment you admit that the currents are the things that change topology and the *ELECTRIC FIELD* is what ultimately "reconnects", the debate is over. You'll have to acknowledge the logic of Alfven's rejection of a dumbed down B orientation in favor of an *ELECTRIC* one. There's nothing about this event that isn't explained by Alfven's circuit orientation to plasma physics and his double layer paper.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Near the origin, the magnetic field lines of B' look something like the red, blue, and red/blue lines of

except the X-lines meet at right angles instead of being vertically squashed as in that Wikipedia image.

The point you and Tim seem to be intent on ignoring is that the blue and red arrows, and their direction of travel are directly related to the movement of the 'current' between the two current carrying filaments. You're both intent on ignoring the fact that you're ultimately reconnecting ELECTRIC FIELDS and CURRENT, inside of CURRENT CARRYING FILAMENTS.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The typical response of a crank or ignorant person - raise a strawman argument from their stance of delusion or ignorance.
FYI: Michael Mozina gamma rays are not expected from magnetic reconnection experiments because they are not run at the energies high enough to generate them.

You're actually right for a change. They'd have to crank up the current to "DISCHARGE" proportions to get gamma rays and neutron capture processes in plasma since that is exactly how nature does it.

 

[GeeMack]

In the HIGHLIGHTED part Tim. Give it a rest Tim. The experiment *begins* with electric fields. You are ultimately reconnecting electric fields and calling it "magnetic reconnection". It's the *CURRENT* that actually changes direction, and physically 'reconnects'.

Unsupported, unqualified assertion. Failed.

You're ignoring the PHYSICS Tim. They explicitly talk about the CURRENTS, not just magnetic fields. There are no magnetic fields in the absence of current.

Unqualified misunderstanding of the facts. Failed again.

You mean having "handwaved" at both my claim *AND THEIR CLAIM*, you're going to go into pure denial about the fact that they started with electric fields, not simple magnetic lines. You're going to ignore the fact they created "current carrying filaments" inside the plasma like we find in an ordinary plasma ball. You're going to ignore the fact that the electric field has to be turned on during the *ENTIRE* process. You're going to ignore the fact they specifically mentioned that the "currents" interacted, not simply "magnetic lines. "

Argument by incivility and insult. Another failure.

Oh no. You're going to try to dumb down the whole ELECTRIC HORSE DRIVEN EVENT to a "magnetic" event alone, and you're going to ignore their whole presentation.

Where does that leave us Tim? You're reconnecting a couple of current streams that are driven by charge separation and an electrical field a "magnetic line reconnection" event because you're insisting on dumbing down the whole thing the the B field.

More unqualified, unsupported assertions. Another failed argument.

We're clearly stuck in denialville at this point Tim. You're in pure denial of the electrical field that drives the process and the fact that it's the "current" that changes direction and that "reconnects". Nothing but pure denial will work, because the moment you admit that the currents are the things that change topology and the *ELECTRIC FIELD* is what ultimately "reconnects", the debate is over. You'll have to acknowledge the logic of Alfven's rejection of a dumbed down B orientation in favor of an *ELECTRIC* one. There's nothing about this event that isn't explained by Alfven's circuit orientation to plasma physics and his double layer paper.

Argument by personal attack, incredulity, ignorance, lack of qualification, idolatry of dead heroes, and unconventional use of terms left undefined, in a word, gibberish. Complete failure.

 

[GeeMack]

The point you and Tim seem to be intent on ignoring is that the blue and red arrows, and their direction of travel are directly related to the movement of the 'current' between the two current carrying filaments. You're both intent on ignoring the fact that you're ultimately reconnecting ELECTRIC FIELDS and CURRENT, inside of CURRENT CARRYING FILAMENTS.

This is entirely wrong. If it's intentional, it's a lie. If it's not, it's a gross misunderstanding. The arrows are describing magnetic fields, magnetic reconnection, not electric currents. Argument failed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not in the slightest. You repeatedly show us two pictures of completely different things which look really rather different and use these completely different pictures to claim that anyone that rejects you claims is somehow in denial.

No. I have provided you with TONS of books and papers to read which none of you seem inclined to read, let alone comment on.

I've cited your own EXPERIMENTS that demonstrate that the ELECTRIC field does all the work and that 'currents' actually physically reconnect. These experiments require CATHODES and use cathodes, just like Birkeland's experiments worked with cathodes.

Unfortunately Tim is now in pure denial of the statements from his own cited authors, and evidently even you don't want to deal with the electric field aspect that ties these events together! This whole conversation is surreal IMO. The coronal loop events are all ELECTRICALLY driven processes, including the current filament channels, including the charge separation that makes the high energy emissions possible, and including the LOOPS we see in the solar atmosphere. Would you prefer pure pure white light comparisons? Will it matter? There's one on my website:

The Bennett Pinch filament releases all types of high energy wavelengths, and even white light wavelengths as well. It's the ELECTRIC FIELD that does the work!

 

[GeeMack]

No. I have provided you with TONS of books and papers to read which none of you seem inclined to read, let alone comment on.

Of course it's a lie to say "tons", and most of it is irrelevant to the topic of magnetic reconnection. And that which is has been grossly misinterpreted, apparently for the purpose of supporting some preconceived nonsense about a physically impossible electric Sun.

I've cited your own EXPERIMENTS that demonstrate that the ELECTRIC field does all the work and that 'currents' actually physically reconnect. These experiments require CATHODES and use cathodes, just like Birkeland's experiments worked with cathodes.

That is simply false. Whether cathodes were involved in the experiments or not is irrelevant to the purpose and results of the experiment. It's likely that all the experiments use at least some amount of aluminum, copper, vinyl, silica, and oxygen in varying amounts for various purposes. It would be sheer idiocy to suggest that solar flares and coronal loops are related to any of those simply because of their inclusion as needed to create the conditions for the experiments.

Unfortunately Tim is now in pure denial [...]

Continued argument by direct personal insult of Tim and avoidance of any actual substantive concerns is noted.

[...] of the statements from his own cited authors, and evidently even you don't want to deal with the electric field aspect that ties these events together! This whole conversation is surreal IMO. The coronal loop events are all ELECTRICALLY driven processes, including the current filament channels, including the charge separation that makes the high energy emissions possible, and including the LOOPS we see in the solar atmosphere.

More unsupported and unqualified assertions. Another failure to offer a valid argument or to address the topic.

Would you prefer pure pure white light comparisons? Will it matter? There's one on my website:

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]

The Bennett Pinch filament releases all types of high energy wavelengths, and even white light wavelengths as well. It's the ELECTRIC FIELD that does the work!

Nonsense. Nothing remotely objective or legitimately scientific. Again. The picture is not quantitatively described, and has no relevance to the subject of magnetic reconnection. It's just spam. Another complete failure to even address the topic of the thread, much less actually demonstrate that there are problems with the physics of magnetic reconnection.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Near the origin, the magnetic field lines of B' look something like the red, blue, and red/blue lines of

[qimg]http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Nerdliness/380px-Reconnection.gif[/qimg]

except the X-lines meet at right angles instead of being vertically squashed as in that Wikipedia image.

The point you and Tim seem to be intent on ignoring is that the blue and red arrows, and their direction of travel are directly related to the movement of the 'current' between the two current carrying filaments. You're both intent on ignoring the fact that you're ultimately reconnecting ELECTRIC FIELDS and CURRENT, inside of CURRENT CARRYING FILAMENTS.

As GeeMack said, you are "entirely wrong."

You could entertain us further by explaining what you think you mean by "the two current carrying filaments." (In the example I gave, there are no currents at all within the boundaries of that picture.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is entirely wrong. If it's intentional, it's a lie. If it's not, it's a gross misunderstanding. The arrows are describing magnetic fields, magnetic reconnection, not electric currents. Argument failed.

No, you are simply failing to embrace *PHYSICAL REALITY* (again)!

We looked at a 2008 'experiment' of what you're calling "reconnection". It turns out to be a "reconnection" of "currents" according to the authors of Tim's paper, based on 'magnetic deflection' of the current. Some current that is flowing in one of the current carrying filament is simply deflected (following the arrows) into the other filament. In fact, the entire process is technically a "reconnection" (via current) between ELECTRIC fields, not simply magnetic ones. The authors of paper clearly understand that CURRENT is being redirected, even if this group is completely and totally clueless (again).

 

[Michael Mozina]

As GeeMack said, you are "entirely wrong."

You could entertain us further by explaining what you think you mean by "the two current carrying filaments." (In the example I gave, there are no currents at all within the boundaries of that picture.)

Since you have personally refused to put up a *PUBLISHED* paper of an actual MRx "experiment", we've been looking at the papers that *TIM* suggested, which were *PUBLISHED*.

Since you are simply ignoring the fact that "cause" of the current and the reconnection is ultimately related to "electric' fields, charge separation and "current", we're essentially going around in circles of pure denial.

The funny part from my perspective is when Tim started lecturing me about not being able to tell the difference between a current carrying filament and a simple magnetic line. You aren't "reconnecting" simple "magnetic lines" in these experiments. You're "reconnecting" a couple of electric fields (via current) in the final analysis.

That's the whole problem with dumbing down a current carrying event to a sterile "magnetic" line. It's like calling any ordinary electrical discharge in the atmosphere of Earth a "magnetic reconnection" event.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is simply false. Whether cathodes were involved in the experiments or not is irrelevant to the purpose and results of the experiment.

BS.

 

[GeeMack]

No, you are simply failing to embrace *PHYSICAL REALITY* (again)!

We looked at a 2008 'experiment' of what you're calling "reconnection". It turns out to be a "reconnection" of "currents" according to the authors of Tim's paper, based on 'magnetic deflection' of the current. Some current that is flowing in one of the current carrying filament is simply deflected (following the arrows) into the other filament. In fact, the entire process is technically a "reconnection" (via current) between ELECTRIC fields, not simply magnetic ones. The authors of paper clearly understand that CURRENT is being redirected, even if this group is completely and totally clueless (again).

All the terms in quote marks appear to be used in unconventional ways, yet remain undefined. Everything that is actual English words and phrases used in seemingly conventional ways is just more unsupported, unqualified assertions, a personal attack, and an insult directed at "this group". There is little that might be considered understandable communication here, and nothing relevant to the claim that there are problems with the physics of magnetic reconnection. Mostly it's gibberish, certainly no actual argument. The attempted argument is just, as usual, sciency sounding words strung together in another failed effort to make a valid scientific point.

 

[Tubbythin]

No. I have provided you with TONS of books and papers to read which none of you seem inclined to read, let alone comment on.

We're talking about the comparison of the two pictures. Which papers explicitly and quantitatively discuss the link between those two pictures?

I've cited your own EXPERIMENTS that demonstrate that the ELECTRIC field does all the work and that 'currents' actually physically reconnect. These experiments require CATHODES and use cathodes, just like Birkeland's experiments worked with cathodes.

Michael, either you have quantitative justification for saying the two pitcures show the same phenomena or you don't. Which papers explictly compare the two images in quantitative terms?

Unfortunately Tim is now in pure denial of the statements from his own cited authors, and evidently even you don't want to deal with the electric field aspect that ties these events together!

I want to deal with the evidence for your claim that the two pictures of completely different set-ups, imaged at completely different wavelengths and that look almost completely difference actually show the same phenomenon.

This whole conversation is surreal IMO.

Yeah. IT's surreal that someone would choose to repeatedly post, side-by-side, two completely unrelated photographs for no apparent reason. And then to claim that those who point out the absurdity of posting two completely unrelated images (imaged at completely different wavelengths) are in denial of something or other.

The coronal loop events are all ELECTRICALLY driven processes, including the current filament channels, including the charge separation that makes the high energy emissions possible, and including the LOOPS we see in the solar atmosphere. Would you prefer pure pure white light comparisons? Will it matter? There's one on my website:

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]

The Bennett Pinch filament releases all types of high energy wavelengths, and even white light wavelengths as well. It's the ELECTRIC FIELD that does the work!

Why on Earth do you think I'd want to see another picture? You've repeatedly failed to provide any quantitative link between the previous two.

 

[GeeMack]

Since you have personally refused to put up a *PUBLISHED* paper of an actual MRx "experiment", we've been looking at the papers that *TIM* suggested, which were *PUBLISHED*.

Since you are simply ignoring the fact that "cause" of the current and the reconnection is ultimately related to "electric' fields, charge separation and "current", we're essentially going around in circles of pure denial.

The funny part from my perspective is when Tim started lecturing me about not being able to tell the difference between a current carrying filament and a simple magnetic line. You aren't "reconnecting" simple "magnetic lines" in these experiments. You're "reconnecting" a couple of electric fields (via current) in the final analysis.

More unqualified opinion, an argument (and I use the term very loosely) constructed from words and phrases used in unusual ways, undefined, and strung together into what looks like an unsupported assertion. Argument failed.

That's the whole problem with dumbing down a current carrying event to a sterile "magnetic" line. It's like calling any ordinary electrical discharge in the atmosphere of Earth a "magnetic reconnection" event.

It would be a lie if intentional, and if not, a gross misunderstanding of the physics being discussed, to say anyone here is describing anything that might be comparable to an "ordinary electrical discharge in the atmosphere of Earth". It has been mentioned many times that such a discharge, lightning, has no relationship to magnetic reconnection, therefore the comment is irrelevant. Argument failed. Again.