Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[Michael Mozina]

When a plasma flows it carries equal numbers of electrons and ions, i.e. there is no net flow of electric charge.

Let me ask you a BASIC and simple question about the electrons and ions in that current carrying thread in the EXPERIMENT. Do the electrons and positively charged ions move in the SAME or the OPPOSITE direction RC?

 

[Reality Check]

Let me ask you a BASIC and simple question about the electrons and ions in that current carrying thread in the EXPERIMENT. Do the electrons and positively charged ions move in the SAME or the OPPOSITE direction RC?

Let me ask you a BASIC and simple question about physics. Do the electrons and positively charged ions im water flow in the same ditrection?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Today is Alfven's Birthday

Considering that his name crops up so often in this thread, and several others, I thought it only appropriate to point out that today, 30 May 2011, marks the 103rd birthday of Hannes Alfven. Certainly there is nothing embarrassing in not being absolutely correct about everything. Alfven made his fair share of mistakes, just like every other famous name in any branch of science. That does not detract from the fact that his share of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics, for being the founding father of magnetohydrodynamics, was certainly a well earned reward.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric currents and magnetic reconnection V

Since you said that the electric fields were reconnecting, I wanted you to identify the electric fields that are reconnecting. I still don't have a comprehensible answer to that question.

Yes Tim, you do. I didn't give it to you, the authors of the paper gave it to you. They very clearly and meticulously explained how it works, down to the details of the physical process of current reconnection between the two current carrying filaments. They explained it clearly and logically too. They specifically noted that the current is deflected (J × B ) into the other current channel. There's no way they could have been any more clear about the fact that the currents are redirected between the two current filaments.

If by "the authors" you are referring to Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008, then I reject your entire paragraph as factually false.

• No, they did not say anything that can be interpreted as "the details of the physical process of current reconnection" anywhere in that abstract.
• No, they did not say "that the current is deflected (J × B ) into the other current channel".
• This is a factually false statement: "There's no way they could have been any more clear about the fact that the currents are redirected between the two current filaments." In fact, they do not mention the currents between the two filaments at all.

I have no idea how you come to these strong conclusions as they are not justified by the language of the abstract.

 

[tusenfem]

I guess this all comes down to this part:

Reconnection has been observed at multiple locations between the two currents.

Which MM will interpret that it is a reconnection between one current and the other current, whereas it should most likely be read as "in the region between the currents" which makes a lot more sense. Unfortunately, it is an AGU abstract so we don't get any more information.

I have not had much time lately to be here (lots of work, travel, etc.), maybe I will find time now to go through one of the Gekelman papers throroghly.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric currents and magnetic reconnection VI

I have not had much time lately to be here (lots of work, travel, etc.), maybe I will find time now to go through one of the Gekelman papers throroghly.

See my post Electric Currents and Magnetic Reconnection II (#763 on page 20) and the post by W.D. Clinger that follows immediately after. The paper Lawrence & Gekelman, 2009 is the one that more thoroughly describes the experiments referred to in the AGU abstract Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008.

I guess this all comes down to this part:

Reconnection has been observed at multiple locations between the two currents.

Which MM will interpret that it is a reconnection between one current and the other current, whereas it should most likely be read as "in the region between the currents" which makes a lot more sense.

It certainly appears that Mozina automatically interprets the word "reconnection" as an explicit statement that the currents are merging. But the word "reconnection", in the absence of any other adjectives or modifiers, invariably means "magnetic reconnection" in this context. This is standard semantics in the field. At the moment, this discussion is purely semantics and not physics. Simply put, Mozina does not understand the words and what they mean; he imposes his own personal meanings on the words and then assumes "there is no way they could have been more clear".

Of course there are examples where the current streams do merge, this abstract is simply not one of them. But even if the currents do merge, that fact is irrelevant. The idea that magnetic reconnection can be confused with "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection" is ludicrous, and carries with it the necessary assumption that nearly all living plasma physicists are morons. It is a sign of enormous & quite frankly insulting arrogance.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I guess this all comes down to this part:



Which MM will interpret that it is a reconnection between one current and the other current, whereas it should most likely be read as "in the region between the currents" which makes a lot more sense. Unfortunately, it is an AGU abstract so we don't get any more information.

I have not had much time lately to be here (lots of work, travel, etc.), maybe I will find time now to go through one of the Gekelman papers throroghly.

Am I to understand that you're going to rely upon a "reconnection" of the gaps argument now? Your so called "magnetic lines" turn out to be "current streams" that are created by "charge separation". The whole existence of the magnetic line is directly related to the movement of charged particles. When the "reconnection" is complete, the current streams are joined. Give me a break. You guys definitely have a "disconnect" at the level of particle physics. The magnetic field is directly related to the movement of charged particles *EVERYWHERE* in the chamber, even between the the two current filaments.

FYI, I'll be off the web most of this week, but I'll take up the conversation when I get get back. In the mean time you might to at least TRY to set RC straight about the flow of various particles during a "charge separation\current flow" process. He evidently doesn't even understand the basics in terms of charged particle movement and I really don't have to time to go into a whole other denial go round process.

By the way, this active cycle is going to be FUN with SDO:

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_1600.mpg

The flare events are clearly "discharge" processes that come up and through the surface of the photosphere, just as my website "predicts" and just as Birkeland's discharge process worked. You guys are absolutely, positively, determined to deny that these flare events are simply 'discharge" processes created by "current flow". Unfortunately for you, the new 1600 and 1700A SDO images are laying waste to your beliefs, and they are now doing it on nearly a daily basis. They show exactly the same pattern we saw in that white light TRACE image. The discharge process lights up the plasma in the photosphere surface where the currents come and and through the photosphere.

 

[GeeMack]

The flare events are clearly "discharge" processes that come up and through the surface of the photosphere, just as my website "predicts" and just as Birkeland's discharge process worked.

Since "discharge" and "predicts" are clearly used here in unconventional ways yet remain undefined, the above comment is gibberish. Argument failed.

You guys are absolutely, positively, determined to deny that these flare events are simply 'discharge" processes created by "current flow". Unfortunately for you, the new 1600 and 1700A SDO images are laying waste to your beliefs, and they are now doing it on nearly a daily basis.

There is no accompanying objective and quantitative analysis. Nobody can stare at pictures and make a valid determination about solar physics. It's just more of the same silly looks-like-a-bunny science. Argument failed.

They show exactly the same pattern we saw in that white light TRACE image. The discharge process lights up the plasma in the photosphere surface where the currents come and and through the photosphere.

Bare, unsupported assertion. And it's already been shown many times to be nonsense. It isn't science. It's just a bunch of words strung together, meaningless in the context of this discussion. Argument failed.

So apparently we won't be seeing any quantitative, objective criticisms of the science of magnetic reconnection.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Look, a solar flare, which is a truly a discharge:

 

[Tubbythin]

The flare events are clearly "discharge" processes that come up and through the surface of the photosphere, just as my website "predicts" and just as Birkeland's discharge process worked.

And yet you have consistently and repeatedly failed to provide quantitative evidence to back up this assertion...

 

[Reality Check]

In the mean time you might to at least TRY to set RC straight about the flow of various particles during a "charge separation\current flow" process.

There is nothing to set straight .

The other posters know enough physics to understand that

• When a plasma moves in response to the magnetic tension force, this is a flow of plasma. There is no 'charge separation'. There is no 'current flow'.
  The flow is along the magnetic field.
• When charged particles within a plasma move in response to a changing magnetic field, this is a current (usually in a sheet).
  This is a current that obeys the right hand rule that high school students learn.

Relating this back to the magnetic reconnection diagram which explicitly states that there are flows and an optional current sheet, i.e. it agrees with me

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.

And another bit from the article that you seem unable to understand:

When this happens, the plasma is pulled out by magnetic tension along the direction of the magnetic field lines.

• The plasma flow is along the magnetic field lines.
• The current sheet is out of the page (the line of crosses) as expected by anyone who has taken high school electromagnetism.

The flare events are clearly "discharge" processes that come up and through the surface of the photosphere, just as my website "predicts" and just as Birkeland's discharge process worked.

Totally ignorant (and getting beyond delusional): solar flares have been observed for decades to happen above the photosphere. They tend to happen near the top of coronal loops which extend for thousands of kilometers above the photosphere.

Your crank web site predicts nothing about solar flares. All you have is your "I see bunnies in the clouds" fantasies. In this case you look at a flare from above and delude yourself into thinking that it comes from below the photosphere. You ignore the observations that show that flares happen above the photosphere.
The only thing that you do get right is that solar flares do affect the photosphere!


This has nothing to do with Birkeland's work which was electrical discharges through a gas from metallic balls (usually brass).

• The Sun is not a brass ball.
• The Sun is made of plasma and so electrical discharges are impossible.
• Birkeland was careful to state that his experiments were an analogy for the Sun (and Saturn's rings, galaxies, etc. ).

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2011/07jun11/M2_CME_304_large_crop.mpg

Lest I hijack some other thread, I'll just post Skeptic Ginger's link here too, so we can discuss it openly. Alfven's circuit theory nicely explains such events as a disruption of the entire "dark filament" circuit. The material inside the dark filament "erupts" in one large event, releasing all the EM and kinetic energy at once.

MR theory on the other hand is really unnecessary and really ignores the physics entirely. The charge separation and CURRENT drives the parade. You folks insist on putting the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse.

 

[GeeMack]

http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2011/07jun11/M2_CME_304_large_crop.mpg

Lest I hijack some other thread, I'll just post Skeptic Ginger's link here too, so we can discuss it openly. Alfven's circuit theory nicely explains such events as a disruption of the entire "dark filament" circuit. The material inside the dark filament "erupts" in one large event, releasing all the EM and kinetic energy at once.

MR theory on the other hand is really unnecessary and really ignores the physics entirely. The charge separation and CURRENT drives the parade. You folks insist on putting the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse.

The unsupported assertion isn't any more evidence this time than it was any of the other times it's been tried. Argument failed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The unsupported assertion isn't any more evidence this time than it was any of the other times it's been tried. Argument failed.

Your whole belief system is based upon pure denial: Dark filament? What dark filament? Dark filament eruption? What dark filament eruption? Current? What current? Electrical Discharge? What discharge?

Denial failed.

 

[GeeMack]

Your whole belief system is based upon pure denial: Dark filament? What dark filament? Dark filament eruption? What dark filament eruption? Current? What current? Electrical Discharge? What discharge?

Denial failed.

Again, it is a lie to suggest that my position is based on a belief system.

Apparently we won't be seeing any quantitative, objective criticisms of the science of magnetic reconnection.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Again, it is a lie to suggest that my position is based on a belief system.

Sure it is. You believe that your denial routine is working. It's not. Anyone that WANTS to see that dark filament erupt can do so. Your denial of their importance to solar physics is just sad.

Apparently we won't be seeing any quantitative, objective criticisms of the science of magnetic reconnection.

Apparently you refuse to acknowledge that there is no quantitative criticism of "circuit reconnection".

FYI, this was a "circuit interruption" event, not a "reconnection" event.

 

[GeeMack]

Sure it is. You believe that your denial routine is working. It's not. Anyone that WANTS to see that dark filament erupt can do so. Your denial of their importance to solar physics is just sad.

Apparently you refuse to acknowledge that there is no quantitative criticism of "circuit reconnection".

There has been no objective quantitative explanation of what "circuit reconnection" is. The term, being a combination of known words but assembled and used here in an unconventional way, and being undefined, is gibberish. The notion that a quantitative criticism might apply to gibberish is irrational. The entire comment is nonsense.

FYI, this was a "circuit interruption" event, not a "reconnection" event.

This is a wholly unsupported assertion comprised of gibberish. Argument failed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There has been no objective quantitative explanation of what "circuit reconnection" is.

There has been plenty of quantitative explanations for circuit disruption, none of which you have responded to or dealt with. This event has nothing whatsoever to do with "reconnection'. It's a DISRUPTION of the ENTIRE dark filament circuit.

We can even see "dark" material ejected into the atmosphere as the filament erupts. Your whole denial routine is falling apart GM. Give it up.

 

[GeeMack]

There has been plenty of quantitative explanations for circuit disruption, none of which you have responded to or dealt with. This event has nothing whatsoever to do with "reconnection'. It's a DISRUPTION of the ENTIRE dark filament circuit.

We can even see "dark" material ejected into the atmosphere as the filament erupts. Your whole denial routine is falling apart GM. Give it up.

This thread is about the alleged, but not yet provided problems with the physics of magnetic reconnection. The persistent and uncivil taunting, badgering, lying, and insulting like we see above obviously does not address that topic in any way. The persistent effort to sway this discussion away from alleged, but not yet provided problems with the physics of magnetic reconnection in order to avoid supporting the claim that such problems exist, like we see above, is dishonest, and also off topic.

It appears the status quo remains as is, and we won't be seeing any quantitative, objective criticisms of the science of magnetic reconnection.

 

[tusenfem]

http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2011/07jun11/M2_CME_304_large_crop.mpg

Lest I hijack some other thread, I'll just post Skeptic Ginger's link here too, so we can discuss it openly. Alfven's circuit theory nicely explains such events as a disruption of the entire "dark filament" circuit. The material inside the dark filament "erupts" in one large event, releasing all the EM and kinetic energy at once.

MR theory on the other hand is really unnecessary and really ignores the physics entirely. The charge separation and CURRENT drives the parade. You folks insist on putting the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse.

blah blah blah