Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

To test GM's assertion, again, using the same method as before.

This time with a different set of substitutions:

No, you are simply failing to embrace <ABIGWORD> (again)!

We looked at a 2008 <aword> of what you're calling <anotherword>. It turns out to be a <anotherword> of <yetanotherword> according to the authors of Tim's paper, based on <oncemoreaword> 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 <anotherword> (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).

I've left the two words in CAPS in (ELECTRIC and CURRENT).

Yep, seems GM is right; gibberish.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Mozina pretend physics in a nutshell, with conclusive pretty pictures:

*CURRENT RECONNECTION*

"MAGNETIC RECONNECTION"

See? There it is! No "math bunnies" needed!

 

[Reality Check]

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.

You're still wrong as usual !
The production of gamma rays has nothing to do with your delusion of 'DISCHARGE' (lightning) which can never happen in a plasma.
To produce gamma rays all you need to do is add energy to a system. How nature does this is by generating very big, quite strong magnetic fields such as those measured in coronal loops.
Basic electromagnetism shows that these magnetic fields store energy.
Basic electromagnetism shows that these magnetic fields release energy if they change configuration.
Really complex plasma physics give the mechanism for this release (magnetic reconnection).
Experiments show that current sheets change after the magnetic reconnection.

If we wanted to release more energy in a magnetic connection experiment to try to generate gamma rays (they already generate x-rays) then we would use stronger magnetic fields because they are what nature uses in stars.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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*.

Correction: I have looked at some of the papers suggested by Tim Thompson and tusenfem. You may have downloaded some of them, but you clearly haven't been able to read them with any understanding; if you had, you wouldn't have suggested that I (and others) can't support what we say about magnetic reconnection with citations to published papers.

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.

No. You're just guessing, and you're guessing wrong.

In both the lab exercise and in the homework problem I described, the electric field is zero throughout the region portrayed in that picture. There are no currents within that region either.

The lab and homework exercises I described are freshman-level electrodynamics. The only thing you can hope to accomplish by guessing wrong for months and years on end is to prove you have absolutely no understanding of physics.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

That would be the whole problem - your ignorance of the physics means that you have the delusion there is a "current carrying event" (the physics says you are wrong) and leads to the idiotic description of a magnetic line as "sterile".

Magnetic and electric field lines are a fundamental part of electromagnetism. Only the truly ignorant or deluded would call them sterile.

A idiot would call an ordinary electrical discharge an magnetic reconection event. A similiar idiot would claim that there is lightning in plasma or ignore that the use of electrical discharge with respect to magnetic reconneciton bu Dungey means a high current denstity (not lightning!)

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15 April 2001 WL.gif

Ohhh - pretty picture - I see a bunny!

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!

Followed by total gibberish yet again

 

[Perpetual Student]

Look! Solar *LIGHTNING* and "magnetic current reconnection" without barking math bunnies. And -- I can see Russia.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It has been mentioned many times that such a discharge, lightning, has no relationship to magnetic reconnection, therefore the comment is irrelevant.

Yet the cited experiments all demonstrate that both processes are *CAUSED* by charge separation and the redistribution/redirection of current, not magnetic lines. Physics fail.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Mostly it's gibberish, certainly no actual argument.

Pure unadulterated denial. You're reconnecting a couple of *electric* fields by diverting the current and calling it "magnetic" reconnection. The "gibberish" part comes in when you call that current diversion process a "magnetic" reconnection event. It's not a "magnetic reconnection" event since not a single magnetic line "disconnects" from any other magnetic line, nor does any magnetic line "reconnect" with any other magnetic line. The current is simply diverted from one circuit to another, and the "current" actually does the "reconnecting".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Correction: I have looked at some of the papers suggested by Tim Thompson and tusenfem. You may have downloaded some of them, but you clearly haven't been able to read them with any understanding; if you had, you wouldn't have suggested that I (and others) can't support what we say about magnetic reconnection with citations to published papers.

You have yet to provide an experiment that isn't "current driven". In fact your own cited experiments demonstrate (state) rather conclusively that the *CURRENT* (not the magnetic lines) are "reconnecting". You may be able to mathematically support your claim by dumbing down the math to the B orientation alone, but when it comes to PHYSICS, you need *CURRENT* and "charge separation" to make it work.

I'm *STILL* waiting for you or anyone to provide a PUBLISHED paper that doesn't begin and end with "current".

No. You're just guessing, and you're guessing wrong.

No, I'm *NOT* guessing. I'm reading and going with *THEIR* findings. They made if very clear that the CURRENTS reconnect.

In both the lab exercise and in the homework problem I described,

You've never provided a published paper that claims that your "homework" has anything at all to do with magnetic reconnection. When can I expect you to provide one?

 

[GeeMack]

Yet the cited experiments all demonstrate that both processes are *CAUSED* by charge separation and the redistribution/redirection of current, not magnetic lines. Physics fail.

The science of physics has failed? Fourteen people from some crank web site, none of whom have any qualifications to scientifically criticize anything in the field of physic, none of whom are participating in the scientific process in any legitimate way, wandering around a bunch of 'net forums insisting their crackpot notions are true, without a speck of quantitative objective support, and allegedly demolishing everything understood by thousands of professionals who actually work in the field of plasma physics. This argument is so irrational that it merits nothing more than the ridicule it receives. Argument failed.

 

[GeeMack]

Pure unadulterated denial. You're reconnecting a couple of *electric* fields by diverting the current and calling it "magnetic" reconnection. The "gibberish" part comes in when you call that current diversion process a "magnetic" reconnection event. It's not a "magnetic reconnection" event since not a single magnetic line "disconnects" from any other magnetic line, nor does any magnetic line "reconnect" with any other magnetic line. The current is simply diverted from one circuit to another, and the "current" actually does the "reconnecting".

Translated...

Pure unadulterated denial. You're reconnecting a couple of *electric* fields by diverting the current and calling it "sdfklj" reconnection. The "weorghi" part comes in when you call that current diversion process a "qeuvy" reconnection event. It's not a "welihb" event since not a single magnetic line "qeivbef" from any other magnetic line, nor does any magnetic line "vhrtvbwo" with any other magnetic line. The current is simply diverted from one circuit to another, and the "jibegb" actually does the "nmwjoertfbw".

Nothing about it makes any sense. Not an argument. Effort failed completely.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The science of physics has failed?

No, your personal understanding of physics has failed again, as usual, for the umpteenth time.

Fourteen people from some crank web site, none of whom have any qualifications to scientifically criticize anything in the field of physic, none of whom are participating in the scientific process in any legitimate way, wandering around a bunch of 'net forums insisting their crackpot notions are true, without a speck of quantitative objective support, and allegedly demolishing everything understood by thousands of professionals who actually work in the field of plasma physics. This argument is so irrational that it merits nothing more than the ridicule it receives. Argument failed.

I guess since you've spent YEARS refusing to actually read Alfven's work, or Peratt's work, and you really have no clue about circuit theory, your entire 'argument' is necessarily limited to "personal attack". That's evidently all you've got. You've certainly got no qualifications in plasma physics, not even *AMATEUR* qualifications. You don't understand the physics at all. It's therefore nothing but a "personal vendetta" from your perspective. How freaking sad.

As I have explained to you all, I'm personally fine with the terms "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection" to describe these *ELECTRICAL* processes in plasma. If however you are *INSISTING* on "reconnecting" a couple of *ELECTRIC* fields via "current", it's scientifically bankrupt to insist on dumbing down the whole physical transaction to the B orientation and calling it "magnetic" reconnection. Not a single magnetic line disconnected from or reconnected to any other magnetic line. Current simply chose the path of least resistance at the point of "reconnection" and the ELECTRIC field topology changed as a result.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nothing about it makes any sense. Not an argument.

Nothing about reconnecting two *ELECTRIC* fields via current and calling it "magnetic" reconnection makes any sense. Not an argument. EPIC FAIL.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Evidently the term gibberish has come to translate into "I'm in pure denial" of the fact that my experiment ultimately "reconnects" two *ELECTRIC* fields via current".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Essentially your whole argument comes down to an oversimplification fallacy. BECAUSE you've insisted on mathematically "dumbing down" a current driven process to a B orientation, you insist that I personally accept the term "magnetic" at the point of "reconnection". BS. You've simply *OVERSIMPLIFIED* the math and OVERSIMPLIFIED the physics as a result. You've got the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and your own experiments demonstrate this *FACT*. When we get to the lab, it turns out that you're actually *reconnecting* a couple of *ELECTRIC* fields via the redirection of current.

 

[GeeMack]

Evidently the term gibberish has come to translate into "I'm in pure denial" of the fact that my experiment ultimately "reconnects" two *ELECTRIC* fields via current".

Just so we're all on the same page about the definition of "gibberish" and how it is being used for purposes of this conversation...

gib·ber·ish /'jibəriSH/ noun: Unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.​

As used in this thread to describe the nonsensical attempts at creating arguments, "gibberish" refers to the use of quote-marked terms which clearly are being used in unconventional ways, yet haven't been defined. That makes the entire comments containing those terms unintelligible, not understandable, meaningless. Concisely, they are gibberish.

An example where the quote-marked terms are substituted with random strings of letters which, being equally undefined as the terms they substitute, carry exactly the same meaning...

Pure unadulterated denial. You're reconnecting a couple of *electric* fields by diverting the current and calling it "sdfklj" reconnection. The "weorghi" part comes in when you call that current diversion process a "qeuvy" reconnection event. It's not a "welihb" event since not a single magnetic line "qeivbef" from any other magnetic line, nor does any magnetic line "vhrtvbwo" with any other magnetic line. The current is simply diverted from one circuit to another, and the "jibegb" actually does the "nmwjoertfbw".

Clearly this argument is meaningless. Definitively, it is gibberish. Although most of us understand the terms magnetic, gibberish, magnetic reconnection, disconnects, reconnect, current, and reconnecting, we can't possibly know what "magnetic", "gibberish", "magnetic reconnection", "disconnects", "reconnect", "current", and "reconnecting" mean in this application because they have not been defined.

If there is any actual objective, quantitative support for the claim that there are problems with magnetic reconnection, at almost 800 posts into this thread and still wholly lacking in any such support, now would be a good time to bring that material into the discussion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Translation: You are in pure denial of the fact that the experiment you folks cited ultimately "reconnects" two *ELECTRIC* fields via the redirection of current.

Yep. That's what that term has come to mean alright. PURE UNADULTERATED DENIAL OF SCIENTIFIC FACT.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

[size=-2](In a previous post, I referred to freshman-level electrodynamics when I meant to say freshman-level electromagnetism.)[/size]

In the following selections from Michael Mozina's recent posts, I have used the following colors to highlight different kinds of error:

• orange text is irrelevant
• brown text is factually incorrect
• red text is factually incorrect and likely to be dishonest for reasons that have already been explained

Yet the cited experiments all demonstrate that both processes are *CAUSED* by charge separation and the redistribution/redirection of current, not magnetic lines. Physics fail.

Pure unadulterated denial. You're reconnecting a couple of *electric* fields by diverting the current and calling it "magnetic" reconnection. The "gibberish" part comes in when you call that current diversion process a "magnetic" reconnection event. It's not a "magnetic reconnection" event since not a single magnetic line "disconnects" from any other magnetic line, nor does any magnetic line "reconnect" with any other magnetic line. The current is simply diverted from one circuit to another, and the "current" actually does the "reconnecting".

You have yet to provide an experiment that isn't "current driven". In fact your own cited experiments demonstrate (state) rather conclusively that the *CURRENT* (not the magnetic lines) are "reconnecting". You may be able to mathematically support your claim by dumbing down the math to the B orientation alone, but when it comes to PHYSICS, you need *CURRENT* and "charge separation" to make it work.

I'm *STILL* waiting for you or anyone to provide a PUBLISHED paper that doesn't begin and end with "current".



No, I'm *NOT* guessing. I'm reading and going with *THEIR* findings. They made if very clear that the CURRENTS reconnect.



You've never provided a published paper that claims that your "homework" has anything at all to do with magnetic reconnection. When can I expect you to provide one?

Essentially your whole argument comes down to an oversimplification fallacy. BECAUSE you've insisted on mathematically "dumbing down" a current driven process to a B orientation, you insist that I personally accept the term "magnetic" at the point of "reconnection". BS. You've simply *OVERSIMPLIFIED* the math and OVERSIMPLIFIED the physics as a result. You've got the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and your own experiments demonstrate this *FACT*. When we get to the lab, it turns out that you're actually *reconnecting* a couple of *ELECTRIC* fields via the redirection of current.

Please show us what the math should look like when it isn't *OVERSIMPLIFIED*.

I'm not going to hold my breath. You couldn't even answer this much easier question:

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]

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.)

FYI, your color coding system appears to represent the level of pure denial going on around here.

Since you have *NEVER* provided a published paper on MRx theory, we've been discussing Tim's first paper from 2008. In *THAT* 'experiment' (complete with control mechanisms), they created two current carrying filaments. Are you not paying attention at all?

We've been comparing that *EXPERIMENT* to your diagram, and it turns out the the arrows represent *CURRENT* and the direction of travel of CURRENT. They are not simply sterile magnetic lines, they are line denoting the path of least resistance through the plasma.

Essentially the *EXPERIMENT* is "reconnecting" two *ELECTRIC* fields via the redirection of current. I've never had any problem calling this physical process "current reconnection" or "circuit reconnection", but not a single magnetic line disconnects from, or reconnects to, any other magnetic line. The *CURRENT* simply changes it's path, the current topology changes over time, and the two ELECTRIC FIELDS reconnect.

Calling that "magnetic reconnection" is like calling any ordinary electrical discharge event a "magnetic reconnection" event only because the magnetic field topology changes over time. Your own *physical experiments* demonstrate that the "current" and the "current filaments" are what actually do the 'reconnecting", and it's ultimately the *ELECTRIC* fields that reconnect, not simply 'magnetic lines'. You've got the whole physical process dumbed down to the B orientation just so you can call an ELECTRICAL reconnection a "magnetic reconnection" event.

Honestly folks, your own cited experiments demonstrate that you're actually reconnecting two *ELECTRIC* fields, via a deflection of current to the other side of the double layer, and calling that "magnetic reconnection".