Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[GeeMack]

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".

Nonsense. Again. It's just more argument by unsupported assertions, quote-marked yet undefined terminology (gibberish by definition), repeating falsehoods (lying by definition), complaining about valid criticism, insulting real scientists, and holding the process of science itself in contempt. Interesting that such a strategy has failed to convince any rational, intelligent scientist, ever, yet it gets hauled out again and again as if it might work next time.

 

[Ziggurat]

Interesting that such a strategy has failed to convince any rational, intelligent scientist, ever, yet it gets hauled out again and again as if it might work next time.

In fairness, we're guilty of the same thing: we keep using facts and logic to argue with Mozina and it has failed to convince him ever, yet we keep hauling out more facts and logic as if it might work next time.

 

[Reality Check]

...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.

More whining about currents in magnetic reconnection without trying to actually understand the diagram that was in the post and in the article.
The caption in the article reads

Magnetic Reconnection: This view is a cross-section through four magnetic domains undergoing separator reconnection. Two separatrices (see text) divide space into four magnetic domains with a separator at the center of the figure. Field lines (and associated plasma) flow inward from above and below the separator, reconnect, and spring outward horizontally. A current sheet (as shown) may be present but is not required for reconnection to occur. This process is not well understood: once started, it proceeds many orders of magnitude faster than predicted by standard models.

There are no ELECTRIC FIELDS in the diagram.
There are no currents in the diagram.
All of the arrows are to do with the MAGNETIC FIELDS and plasma in the diagram. There is plasma flowing along the magnetic fields (I think because of pressure, not the fields). P.S. flowing plasma is not a current, MM!

There is a current sheet in the diagram (the x's).
It is constant and diirected out of the page as expected from basic electromagnetism.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nonsense. Again. It's just more argument by unsupported assertions, quote-marked yet undefined terminology (gibberish by definition), repeating falsehoods (lying by definition), complaining about valid criticism, insulting real scientists, and holding the process of science itself in contempt.

<snip>

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 11, rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Michael Mozina]

There are no ELECTRIC FIELDS in the diagram.
There are no currents in the diagram.

But it turns out that *IN THE LAB* there are two electric fields and you're simply "reconnecting" them by diverting current! You're trying to pass off an ELECTRIC HORSE as a magnetic line.

IN THE EXPERIMENTS that diagram DOES show the flow of CURRENT, from one CIRCUIT/ELECTRIC FIELD to another. The authors of Tim's paper make it *EXTREMELY* clear that the current is simply being diverted into the other current carrying filament.

The whole experiment demonstrates what the DIAGRAM really represents, specifically the flow of CURRENT. Like I've said all along, I'm fine with the term "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection", but not a single magnetic line disconnects from, or reconnects to any other magnetic line. You're essentially RECONNECTING two ELECTRIC fields in the *EXPERIMENT* RC.

 

[GeeMack]

But it turns out that *IN THE LAB* there are two electric fields and you're simply "reconnecting" them by diverting current! You're trying to pass off an ELECTRIC HORSE as a magnetic line.

IN THE EXPERIMENTS that diagram DOES show the flow of CURRENT, from one CIRCUIT/ELECTRIC FIELD to another. The authors of Tim's paper make it *EXTREMELY* clear that the current is simply being diverted into the other current carrying filament.

The whole experiment demonstrates what the DIAGRAM really represents, specifically the flow of CURRENT. Like I've said all along, I'm fine with the term "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection", but not a single magnetic line disconnects from, or reconnects to any other magnetic line. You're essentially RECONNECTING two ELECTRIC fields in the *EXPERIMENT* RC.

This is just more of the same unsupported assertions. Just saying so doesn't make it so. And just saying so a whole lot of times doesn't help, either. The graphic is plainly described. To claim it means something else without qualification and without objective, quantitative evidentiary support is wrong at best, and at worst, it is dishonest. Also the quote-marked but undefined terms are, as always, gibberish. It's all nonsense, a little bit sciency sounding, but meaningless and pretty much wholly irrelevant. Argument failed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is just more of the same unsupported assertions.

Liar.
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.

Either you can't read and comprehend simple English, or you have every intent of inaccurately representing the experiment (AKA spewer of disinformation). Which is it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

More whining about currents in magnetic reconnection without trying to actually understand the diagram that was in the post and in the article.

No, just more denial on your part to accept that fact that the *EXPERIMENT* demonstrates something that your diagram does not explain in the caption. The experiment demonstrates and explains that the arrows are actually composed of CURRENT, not simply 'magnetic lines'. The CURRENT reconnects, not simple magnetic lines. You've DUMBED DOWN the process in the diagram, but the EXPERIMENT shows us what's really happening at the level of physics. At the level of actual physics, each of those arrows simply represents the flow of CURRENT, and every "reconnection" is between two ELECTRIC fields!

 

[Reality Check]

No, just more denial on your part to accept that fact that the *EXPERIMENT* demonstrates something that your diagram does not explain in the caption. The experiment demonstrates and explains that the arrows are actually composed of CURRENT, not simply 'magnetic lines'. The CURRENT reconnects, not simple magnetic lines. You've DUMBED DOWN the process in the diagram, but the EXPERIMENT shows us what's really happening at the level of physics. At the level of actual physics, each of those arrows simply represents the flow of CURRENT, and every "reconnection" is between two ELECTRIC fields!

The ignorance and whining about CURRENT continues:
There is no experiment in that post. The diagram is a cartoon showing what happens in magnetic reconnection.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
More whining about currents in magnetic reconnection without trying to actually understand the diagram that was in the post and in the article.

The diagram has a caption. Try reading it

Magnetic Reconnection: This view is a cross-section through four magnetic domains undergoing separator reconnection. Two separatrices (see text) divide space into four magnetic domains with a separator at the center of the figure. Field lines (and associated plasma) flow inward from above and below the separator, reconnect, and spring outward horizontally. A current sheet (as shown) may be present but is not required for reconnection to occur. This process is not well understood: once started, it proceeds many orders of magnitude faster than predicted by standard models.

The CURRENT sheet is optional. It is not the arrows. It is the line of x's.
A basic knowledge of electromagnetic will tell you this:

1. Currents are produced at right angles to magnetic fields. This is the right hand rule that is taught in high schools.
2. The magnetic field lines are in the plane of the page.
3. The only currents that they can produce must be out of or into the page.
4. The ony things that point into or out of the page that the x's.

The caption is not explicit but the flows of plasma look like the yellow arrows, i.e. plasma flowing into areas of lower pressure.
You need to have a look at the animated version to see how the magnetic field lines change.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The ignorance and whining about CURRENT continues:
There is no experiment in that post. The diagram is a cartoon showing what happens in magnetic reconnection.

We're discussing how the *EXPERIMENT* relates to the 'diagram' RC. Stop dodging the issue.

The diagram has a caption. Try reading it

I'll do better than that. I'll highlight the important points, and explain to you how it relates to the *EXPERIMENT* in question:

Magnetic Reconnection: This view is a cross-section through four magnetic domains undergoing separator reconnection. Two separatrices (see text) divide space into four magnetic domains with a separator at the center of the figure. Field lines (and associated plasma) flow inward from above and below the separator, reconnect, and spring outward horizontally. A current sheet (as shown) may be present but is not required for reconnection to occur. This process is not well understood: once started, it proceeds many orders of magnitude faster than predicted by standard models.

FYI, the highlighted text is a euphemistic term for "current". The movement of the charged particles is what creates the magnetic field in the first place.

The *EXPERIMENT* begins with two *ELECTRIC* fields RC. The flow of current through the filament (or the double layer) is what creates the "magnetic lines" and streams of current that "reconnect". The reason that the energy exchange process is "not well understood" is the fact they're utterly ignoring the current that sustains the whole show, and the CHARGE SEPARATION and ELECTRIC FIELDS that are ultimately "reconnecting" via the redirection of current.

Tim's cited paper makes it *EXTREMELY* clear about how the process actually works. The authors very professionally explained the cathodes and charge separation that create the filaments and they acknowledge that the current is reconnecting. Alfven's charge separation (Mann and Onel's) is caused by the movements of plasmas in the photosphere and the circuits close under the photosphere. They simply treat these current carrying filaments as current carrying "circuits" rather than calling them (dumbed down) "magnetic lines".

Your personal internal circuit disconnects (denial processes) are extremely hard to deal with RC, mostly because they are based on pure denial of scientific, and experimental fact.

The CURRENT sheet is optional.

No RC, the current sheet is NOT optional in the experiment that Tim cited. It is the CATHODE and ANODES that create the movement of current/plasma thread inside of the plasma. Without that flow of current, there is no 'magnetic line'. You consistently fail to acknowledge the fact that the movement of charged particles is what CAUSES the formation of the magnetic field. You've got the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and Tim's experiments demonstrate this fact. What actually "reconnects" are two *ELECTRIC FIELDS* due to the change in flow pattern of the "current".

Wake up and smell the coffee RC. They reconnected two *ELECTRIC* fields, not just a couple of "magnetic lines".

 

[GeeMack]

We're discussing how the *EXPERIMENT* relates to the 'diagram' RC. Stop dodging the issue.

Yet there is no place where the experiments refer to that diagram or where the description of that diagram refers to the experiments. So "how the *EXPERIMENT* relates to the 'diagram'" is manufactured from scratch. And certainly not supported objectively or quantitatively. It's just another looks-like-a-bunny argument. Failed again.

I'll do better than that. I'll highlight the important points, and explain to you how it relates to the *EXPERIMENT* in question:

FYI, the highlighted text is a euphemistic term for "current". The movement of the charged particles is what creates the magnetic field in the first place.

Absolute nonsense. There is no scientific justification for claiming that "associated plasma" is somehow a euphemism for current. To state that would require a complete misunderstanding of magnetic reconnection, or possibly a dishonest redefinition of terms to prop up some crackpot notion that magnetic reconnection doesn't exist. Either way, it's simply wrong. But for the sake of amusement in seeing this electric Sun farce continue to crash and burn, how about a citation, scientific and objective, relating to plasma and/or astro physics, that unambiguously describes an electric current as "associated plasma" or vice versa?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yet there is no place where the experiments refer to that diagram or where the description of that diagram refers to the experiments.

The experiment and the WIKI diagram "explain" what is called "magnetic reconnection". They are both related to the same event. Get beyond pure denial.

So "how the *EXPERIMENT* relates to the 'diagram'" is manufactured from scratch. And certainly not supported objectively or quantitatively. It's just another looks-like-a-bunny argument. Failed again.

Everything in the experiment was well quantified. You failed to read it AGAIN.

Absolute nonsense. There is no scientific justification for claiming that "associated plasma" is somehow a euphemism for current.

This is a completely irrational and completely false statement, *AGAIN*!

To state that would require a complete misunderstanding of magnetic reconnection,

It's quite clear to me that the authors of Tim's cited paper obviously understand the process, and they clearly explained the process and did so very well indeed IMO. The fact that you're stuck on a denial-go-round is nobody's problem but your own. You don't understand or respond to the science or the papers or the experiments. You therefore refuse to deal with the fact that they are reconnecting two *ELECTRIC* fields. Around and around we go, when the denial-go-round will stop, nobody knows.

or possibly a dishonest redefinition of terms to prop up some crackpot notion that magnetic reconnection doesn't exist.

You must not be discussing me or my beliefs since I have long acknowledged that "reconnection' happens, it's just "current" and "electric fields" that ultimately 'reconnect".

Either way, it's simply wrong. But for the sake of amusement in seeing this electric Sun farce continue to crash and burn, how about a citation, scientific and objective, relating to plasma and/or astro physics, that unambiguously describes an electric current as "associated plasma" or vice versa?

This is another example of pure denial. I have already cited a paper that Tim suggested, in fact it was the first one on his list. You're in pure denial of their description of events however, so you badger me for more. Why should I bother since you continue to simply handwave at anything and everything that's already been provided?

 

[GeeMack]

[...]

The personal attacks, insults, irrelevant arguments containing undefined terms used in unconventional ways (gibberish), and other nonsensical arguments from misunderstanding, ignorance, and incredulity aside...

It's quite clear to me that the authors of Tim's cited paper obviously understand the process, and they clearly explained the process and did so very well indeed IMO.

Good. So magnetic reconnection exists. It can be objectively and quantitatively described. Empirical experiment bears this out. And it isn't just an erroneous term for "circuit reconnection". We all seem to be in agreement now.

But...

But for the sake of amusement in seeing this electric Sun farce continue to crash and burn, how about a citation, scientific and objective, relating to plasma and/or astro physics, that unambiguously describes an electric current as "associated plasma" or vice versa?

... there's bound to be some entertainment value in the admission that no such citation can be found. And don't hold back just because an agreement has been reached that magnetic reconnection is a legitimate physical phenomenon, the existence of which is borne out by empirical science.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Good. So magnetic reconnection exists. It can be objectively and quantitatively described. Empirical experiment bears this out. And it isn't just an erroneous term for "circuit reconnection". We all seem to be in agreement now.

Wow!!! I'm amazed. Mozina (still on ignore) is capable of thought independent of his EU cult. Congratulations to all involved in attaining this unexpected happening. I guess this beast of a thread can now be put to rest.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The personal attacks, insults, irrelevant arguments.....

......are your personal specialty since you refuse to deal with or discuss the actual physics.

Good. So magnetic reconnection exists. It can be objectively and quantitatively described.

And Tim's authors did exactly that. They also made it clear that the "current" is what physically 'reconnects' and they make it clear that electrical fields ultimately reconnect too.

Empirical experiment bears this out. And it isn't just an erroneous term for "circuit reconnection". We all seem to be in agreement now.

No, we do NOT agree. Circuits reconnect. Current reconnects. Not a single magnetic line disconnected from any other magnetic line, nor did it reconnect to any other magnetic line. Magnetic fields always form as full and complete continuum and are CAUSED by moving current in plasma. Only moving charged particles are capable of disconnecting and reconnecting to other electric fields as was the case in Tim's cited "experiment" on "reconnection".

Your denial-go-round is really getting old.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow!!! I'm amazed. Mozina (still on ignore) is capable of thought independent of his EU cult. Congratulations to all involved in attaining this unexpected happening. I guess this beast of a thread can now be put to rest.

Not really. As always GM simply lied about/misrepresented what I actually said. The sad/somewhat funny part is you'll probably never know truth from fiction due to your 'trust' of his statements, and your unwillingness to hear both sides of the conversation.

 

[GeeMack]

......are your personal specialty since you refuse to deal with or discuss the actual physics.

Actual physics? Like an electric Sun?

And Tim's authors did exactly that. They also made it clear that the "current" is what physically 'reconnects' and they make it clear that electrical fields ultimately reconnect too.

No they do not. Just no.

No, we do NOT agree. Circuits reconnect. Current reconnects. Not a single magnetic line disconnected from any other magnetic line, nor did it reconnect to any other magnetic line. Magnetic fields always form as full and complete continuum and are CAUSED by moving current in plasma. Only moving charged particles are capable of disconnecting and reconnecting to other electric fields as was the case in Tim's cited "experiment" on "reconnection".

More unsupported assertions including a unique use of the terms "experiment" and "reconnection". Of course being undefined, they make the entire argument nonsense.

Your denial-go-round is really getting old.

I deny that any electric Sun proponent has made a compelling, scientifically objective case supporting the claim that there are problems with the physics of magnetic reconnection. In fact, anyone that seems to know a little bit about physics and the process of science, including pretty much every professional physicist on the planet appears to be in agreement with my denial. Clearly every effort made to argue the against-the-mainstream position has failed.

I'm betting there will be no acknowledgement of this unequivocally wrong comment...

Magnetic Reconnection: This view is a cross-section through four magnetic domains undergoing separator reconnection. Two separatrices (see text) divide space into four magnetic domains with a separator at the center of the figure. Field lines (and associated plasma) flow inward from above and below the separator, reconnect, and spring outward horizontally. A current sheet (as shown) may be present but is not required for reconnection to occur. This process is not well understood: once started, it proceeds many orders of magnitude faster than predicted by standard models.

[...] FYI, the highlighted text is a euphemistic term for "current". [...]

Any citation forthcoming?

But for the sake of amusement in seeing this electric Sun farce continue to crash and burn, how about a citation, scientific and objective, relating to plasma and/or astro physics, that unambiguously describes an electric current as "associated plasma" or vice versa?

Apparently not.

 

[Reality Check]

FYI, the highlighted text is a euphemistic term for "current".

You have made this basic mistake before so I will emphasis the physics for you: A flow of neutral material is not an electrical current.
Plasma is made of positive and negative ions. It is neutral overall. When it moves from one place to another that is a flow, not an electrical current.

No RC, the current sheet is NOT optional in the experiment that Tim cited.

No MM: I am talking about the diagram.
We are discussing the diagram, not your fantasies about an experiment.

ETA
As for the experiment that Tim cited, that sounds like this one of the many experements he has cited, none of which mention "*ELECTRIC* fields".

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.

The idiocy is that you are obsessing with their mention of the word cathode instead of trying to understand the *EXPERIMENT*.

One cathode is used to create the plasma.
Other cathodes are used to create current channels through the plasma. These current channels interact (they do not reconnect if only for the simple reason that they were never connected !).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actual physics? Like an electric Sun?

No, physics like the paper you keep ignoring.

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

Attempt to hijack the thread much?

No they do not. Just no.

Yes they do. Repeating the same tired lies based on pure denial will not ever change scientific fact.

Any citation forthcoming?

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

Any chance you're going to read it and deal with it?

Apparently not.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You have made this basic mistake before so I will emphasis the physics for you: A flow of neutral material is not an electrical current.

The experiments clearly demonstrate that the plasma flow is NOT neutral, it's driven by CHARGE SEPARATION, CATHODES and ANODES.

Plasma is made of positive and negative ions. It is neutral overall. When it moves from one place to another that is a flow, not an electrical current.

Ya, like a lightning bolt is "neutral overall"!

No MM: I am talking about the diagram.
We are discussing the diagram, not your fantasies about an experiment.

Dude, you're in pure denial of the implication of your own cited experiments on "reconnection" and how they relate to the diagram to describe "reconnection". The actual experiments begin and end with cathodes, anodes and ELECTRIC fields that 'reconnect' via the redirection of current. The existence of the current is directly related to the charge separation between the anodes and cathodes. The fact you refuse to deal with the experiment will not make it go away RC. The authors are VERY clear about the current and the existence of the current. There's nothing "charge neutral" about it.