Something new under the sun

[Zeuzzz]

You've shifted your position so many times it's making me dizzy. Most recently, you went from arguing reconnection was totally impossible to calling it "standard".

This is coming from people interpretting what magnetic reconnection means in different ways. You can not achieve magnetic connection with fridge magnets, because there will be no energy release, and you are not taking into account any plasma physics in your calculations. So although the field you claim exhibits "magnetic reconnection" involves a standard cancelling of vectors across a neutral point in which the lines merge together, there is no energy release, and so is definately not the process that astronomers refer to as magnetic reconnection in plasma.

You also claimed the field Zig and I posted didn't exhibit reconnection, and repeatedly mocked me (really, yourself) for saying it did. Now you say it's obviously the same as all the other examples of reconnection.

It didn't show magnetic reconnection, its showed the topologies of magnetic field lines around a neutral point, but included no calculations of the energies released by the splicing lines. Which was the point I have continually been asking for (at least twenty times now) for how splicing field lines release energy.

Should I go on?

Yes please do.

I don't know who the guy is, but he believes in reconnection - or at least he did. He worked on it, and proposed a slightly modified model here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u0w23p0l0u5k7871/

Note that this is all in the context of trying different variations of the same idea in order to explain specific phenomena, not at all like you, BAC, and that paper of Scott's, which were claiming that the whole idea is impossible.

Yes indeed, he did work on it, and he had an alternative electrical explanation for it, just like Alfven did, which if you hadn't noticed was the whole point about this debate on what causes the energy release in magnetic reconnection. Either the splicing of field lines, or a time varying electric field.

The claim was quite specific from the beginning: Field lines themselves can not release energy, and nothing can be attatched to individual field lines as they are mathematical constructs and nothing more.

 

[Dancing David]

Where?

You claimed that i said magnetic reconnection violated maxwells laws, when I didn't. I said that open field lines violate maxwells equations, thats completely different; and its true.

Yopu know, you should be more careful about what you write, now you are mentioning open lines. before it was reconnections, if omebody gets bored you might get flooded with all the stuff you said about reconnection.

I never claimed that there was a problem with the field being open in magnetic reconnection. I did say that gauss' law for magnetism does not allow open field lines, but I have not once said that the topology of the field lines in magnetic reconnection violates any law.

No you just said a bunch of other stuff that you said made it not true. And now you are just contradicting yourself.

Are you getting enough sleep?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Oh, and by the way - any paper where the first sentence in the abstract is "This paper is not intended for firm believers of X" just screams crackpot, regardless of what X is (but particularly when it's a well-established phenomenon).

Ok so I can add yet another established scientist to your list of alleged 'cranks' now? SI Akasofu Just so happens he is an expert in planetary magnetospheres, and the very area that magnetic reconnection is thought to be occuring.

Long-Standing Unsolved Problems in Solar–Terrestrial Physics

Akasofu, S.I.
Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Volume 35, Issue 4, Aug. 2007 Page(s):751 - 758

Summary:This paper is not intended for firm believers of magnetic reconnection. It calls for attention of the young generation to the following facts: (1) there are a number of unsolved problems such as sunspots, solar flares, and magnetospheric substorms in spite of almost 50 years of effort; (2) one of the reasons for this failure to solve them may be because the guiding principles in understanding those phenomena are not well founded and are misleading; (3) thus, it is encouraged to cast doubt on the leading paradigms and develop new ideas.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Yopu know, you should be more careful about what you write, now you are mentioning open lines. before it was reconnections, if omebody gets bored you might get flooded with all the stuff you said about reconnection.

No you just said a bunch of other stuff that you said made it not true. And now you are just contradicting yourself.

If you mean the materiual where i was stating the fact that when two lines are draw to each other in the example they are cancelling out field vectors? and that this in itself cant release energy? why that would be true.

This post is about the only one where you may draw the conclusion that I am saying that the topologies of the field lines around a neutral point violate maxwells equations. I did not actually say that though, I stated that the net sum of all magnetic flux entering any closed surface is zero, which is true. Luckily no-one has posted a field that has open field lines yet. Then I explained why magnetic reconnection can not occur by the splicing of field lines. (and when I say magnetic reconnetion I mean from the very beginning starting with the magnetic field lines that we put in, all the way up to the energy/plasma release; not just the simple formation of field lines around a neutral point)

 

[Dancing David]

Hi Zeuzz, I guess I was bore, well, lets ee what semantic games you managed to get yourself into:



Here you are saying that reconnection violates Maxwell’s equations: because you use your own private definitions to set up strawman arguments.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3487523&postcount=564

What would Maxwell make of all this reconnection melarchy then? I dont think he would like his most fundamental properties of magnetism to be changed to account for this energy we observe being released. Surely there has to be a more likely explanation than one that changes something as well established as the laws of magnetism?

Oh, here you are saying that magnetic reconnection has been falsified!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3494529&postcount=471

For science to accept that large areas of their discipline are likely incorrect they would have to radically change many things. Millions of textbooks would have to be re-written, thousands of uni courses would have to be abandoned, billions of dollars would have to stop being given to areas that have been largely falsified (magnetic reconnection springs to mind) and it would lead to a lot of top scientists looking very foolish. That is the reason why mainstream science is not accepting of these new ideas, there is not a 'conspiracy' as such, scientists that dismiss it genuinely believe that it is wrong due to the faith they put into science, but they continually fail to come up with any scientifically valid reasons to dismiss it. As usual, its money, capitalism and business that is stopping progress.

here you are talking about one study that somehow negates every definition of reconnection Sol, Ziggurat et al. gave you
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...4&highlight=magnetic+reconnection#post3495024

The main experiment to test mag' reconnection is at a small laboratory in Princeton, Magnetic Reconnection Experiment: "The goal of MRX is to investigate the fundamental physics of magnetic field line reconnection, an important process in magnetized plasmas in space and in the laboratory." Now they give a very detailed explanation about how the energy is created, and the mechanics of the equiptment and many other things. But the one quite amazing omission from any of those papers is any experimental evidence of magnetic field lines actually 'reconnecting' to create this effect.

The simple reason for that is that things that dont exist in the real world cant reconnect. A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field, it has no substance and so can have no properties. Field lines can be used to map out fields, but the actual lines do not exist.

Here you have to separate the actual data about what is known from the interpretation of it. I am not saying that 'magnetic reconnection' (or whatever you want to call it) does not occur, there obviously is a process that releases this energy that we can detect, but i dispute that we have to invoke completely new and unknown charteristics of magnetic field lines to explain this. The data is the key, however people interpret it in different ways.

Here you are engaging in speculative god of the gaps and strawman.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3495233&postcount=478

The data does not indicate that field lines can 'reconnect', it has established that a process can release a certain amount of energy from a high energy plasma, but it falls short of actually validating that reconnection is what caused it.

Magnetic recconection is also based on some assumptions that are not 100%
accurate. It relies on ideal magnetohydrodynamics where magnetic field lines are 'frozen' into the plasma, making it infinitely conductive, so magnetic fields get “frozen into” it. In reality this never happens, and electrical engineers are well aware of it. That is why you will not get a paper published by an electrical engineering journal which includes magnetic reconnection, it seems to be used purely in astronomy. For a long time magnetic reconnection has been generally described through the standard MHD theory, which is based on the assumption that electrons and ions move together as one fluid (or gas) even in the presence of internal current. But we now know that the charges do separate to a certain extent, and the sun is a dynamic plasma, not a gas.

Here you are telling Ziggurat what your private definition of reconnection isn’t
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3560880&postcount=1028

That is what he showed, that the two opposing configurations he showed had a different topology, both of which satisfies Gauss' law for magnetism. This is not magnetic reconnection. No where in this process did he describe how this can release energy, or how these lines actually obtain physical characteristics.

 

[Dancing David]

If you mean the materiual where i was stating the fact that when two lines are draw to each other in the example they are cancelling out field vectors? and that this in itself cant release energy? why that would be true.

This post is about the only one where you may draw the conclusion that I am saying that the topologies of the field lines around a neutral point violate maxwells equations. I did not actually say that though, I stated that the net sum of all magnetic flux entering any closed surface is zero, which is true. Luckily no-one has posted a field that has open field lines yet. Then I explained why magnetic reconnection can not occur by the splicing of field lines. (and when I say magnetic reconnetion I mean from the very beginning starting with the magnetic field lines that we put in, all the way up to the energy/plasma release; not just the simple formation of field lines around a neutral point)

.

Have you decided what features of Birkeland's orb compare to solar processes yet?

Have you decided which object's motion is not explained by gravity minus dark matter yet? Have you picked one so we can talk about it's mass and acceleration beyond that of gravity minus dark matter? Then we can talk about the charge and what field is driving the accelearation.

Or do you not have something that can be scaled, do you not have something that can be explained by the data, yet? I will wait, this is the third time I have asked.

How do you explain the orbits of star clusters? They need dark matter too.

Or do you want to talk about what evidence there is for giga-ampere currents in space?

 

[robinson]

Fascinating.

 

[Reality Check]

Zeuzzz: The first posting that I can find from you on magnetic reconnection is about the example. It is only later that you start to query about the energy releases in magnetic reconnection.

It looks like you are talking about "magnetic reconnection" as the reconnection + the release of energy while everyone else is talking about just the reconnection. So we all agree that the reconnection happens.

 

[sol invictus]

Fascinating.

It is, isn't it? Like a train wreck.

Sometimes I think psychology is even more interesting than physics...

 

[robinson]

I was commenting on the magnetism stuff. I almost started a thread on magnetism a long time ago, but this conversation, which started off about gravity, ended up being about plasma and magnetism and all kinds of fascinating stuff.

Every person who is insulting, rather than scientific, you just lose credibility each time you say something dumb.

 

[sol invictus]

Every person who is insulting, rather than scientific, you just lose credibility each time you say something dumb.

Who's being insulted?

Anyway, it's totally impossible for me to care any less about your assessment of my credibility.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Zeuzzz: The first posting that I can find from you on magnetic reconnection is about the example. It is only later that you start to query about the energy releases in magnetic reconnection.

It looks like you are talking about "magnetic reconnection" as the reconnection + the release of energy while everyone else is talking about just the reconnection. So we all agree that the reconnection happens.

If you are desribing the cancelling of vectors in the magnetic field around a neutral point, which brings two lines together, you could technically call it "reconnection". But any standard textbook with a basic magnetic field configuration will show this, and no energy is released, and so its not the same magnetic reconnection used in astronomy. Magnetic connection is by definition the release of energy (plasma) from the magnetic field lines themselves (the "splicing" of these lines".)

As i said before, quite a few times:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3560420&postcount=1024

Yes, the lines appear to reconnect, just as they do in any model of a standard neutral point. Given the definition of what field lines are representing, it would not make any sense for them to not. A simple interaction between solenoid fields can easily demonstrate this.

The field lines did exactly what they should do, cancelled out in the necessary places, and due to this the topology of the abstract lines changed. The lines certainly appear to 'reconnect' or cross, but there is a good reason for that, they cancel out and form a neutral point. No energy release involved.

That is not magnetic reconnection that is referred to in astronomy to explain various energy sources, there is no mention of how energy is released from those lines, or any of the relevant plasma equations necissary for the model.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Hi Zeuzz, I guess I was bore, well, lets ee what semantic games you managed to get yourself into:

Here you are saying that reconnection violates Maxwell’s equations: because you use your own private definitions to set up strawman arguments.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3487523&postcount=564


Oh, here you are saying that magnetic reconnection has been falsified!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3494529&postcount=471

here you are talking about one study that somehow negates every definition of reconnection Sol, Ziggurat et al. gave you
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...4&highlight=magnetic+reconnection#post3495024

Here you are engaging in speculative god of the gaps and strawman.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3495233&postcount=478

Here you are telling Ziggurat what your private definition of reconnection isn’t
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3560880&postcount=1028

magnetic reconnetion is not just the shape of the field lines, the energy release is an essential part of the process. Magnetic reconnection is used to explain various energetic events in space, this is what we are talking about and where the abiguity arrises. You cant say that a simple topological change in the position of virtual lines can release energy/plasma, there has to be an explanation of how the lines create this energy. So far no-one has posted one. Apart from Sol's idea of some type of 'tangle' energy.

I would agree with most statements I made there. Especially that last quote, thats the whole thrust of what i'm getting at.

The first one may need some clarification, I never said that magnetic reconnection violates any of maxwells laws, but when you attatch plasma to individual field lines you really are altering the fundamental laws of magnetism.

 

[Reality Check]

magnetic reconnetion is not just the shape of the field lines, the energy release is an essential part of the process. Magnetic reconnection is used to explain various energetic events in space, this is what we are talking about and where the abiguity arrises. You cant say that a simple topological change in the position of virtual lines can release energy/plasma, there has to be an explanation of how the lines create this energy. So far no-one has posted one. Apart from Sol's idea of some type of 'tangle' energy.

I would agree with most statements I made there. Would have helped if you had shown why you think they are wrong.

The first one may need some clarification, I never said that magnetic reconnection violates any of maxwells laws, but when you attatch plasma to individual field lines you really are altering the fundamental laws of magnetism.

You cited the Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection and it states clearly:

Solar flares, the largest explosions in the solar system, may involve the reconnection of large systems of magnetic flux on the Sun, releasing in minutes energy that is stored in the magnetic field over a period of hours to days.

The lines do not "create" the energy. The magnetic field contains the energy and releases it when its configuration changes. Addition of plasma does not change this fundamental law of magnetism.

 

[robinson]

At some point, the people proposing magnetic fields can store energy, then release it, are going to have to explain how that works.

Same for "magnetic reconnection".

 

[sol invictus]

If you are desribing the cancelling of vectors in the magnetic field around a neutral point, which brings two lines together, you could technically call it "reconnection".

That is not magnetic reconnection that is referred to in astronomy to explain various energy sources, there is no mention of how energy is released from those lines, or any of the relevant plasma equations necissary for the model.

Oh, you mean like this numerical solution to Maxwell's equations in plasma - the one you've been trying to ignore?

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~bpsullivan/recon_files/curz.gif

Or like the four or five other numerical simulations which found the same thing? Or like all the experimental results? Or like the simple argument I gave earlier which explains why these results are the way they are?

 

[robinson]

Magnetic reconnection is a fundamental physical process occuring in a magnetized plasma, whereby magnetic field lines are effectively broken and reconnected, resulting in a change of magnetic topology, conversion of magnetic field energy into bulk kinetic energy and particle heating. Reconnection is responsible for many dynamic phenomena in the the laboratory, the Earth's magnetosphere, the Sun, and many astrophysical settings. Reconnection is illustrated in the animation at right, created by M. Shay, University of Maryland.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~bpsullivan/recon.html

Like everything else claimed about "Magnetic reconnection", it seems saying it happens, and posting an animation, are considered "proof" somehow. Or writing a formula.

What is missing, as has been pointed out, is any kind of explanation or theory about how it happens, where the energy is stored, or released from, and how "lines" can break.

 

[robinson]

I'm not saying it can't happen, I am simply skeptical of the weak or nonsensical arguments about it.

 

[sol invictus]

Like everything else claimed about "Magnetic reconnection", it seems saying it happens, and posting an animation, are considered "proof" somehow. Or writing a formula.

That's not just an "animation". That's a numerical solution to Maxwell's equations in plasma, probably run on a supercomputer, and then turned into a movie so you can watch it. Many other groups have run similar simulations using different algorithms and they all result in the same phenomenon. Moreover experiments have been done with real plasma, where the magnetic fields are actually measured in real time while the reconnection is occurring. The results confirm the numerics and the theory.

There is a clear physical explanation for and understanding of why this happens which I sketched in an earlier post. It has to do with the fact that plasmas are nearly perfect conductors, which means the field gradients get very large before the reconnection can occur. When it does occur the energy stored in the field drops suddenly and is released. Intuitively, it's not unlike a very strong rope that must be stretched with great force until it finally snaps. There is nothing mysterious about this to anyone with any shred of understanding of the solutions to these equations. However this intuition (while correct and valid) is beside the point - the real proof comes from solving the equations, and which these groups have done, and measuring the effect in a controlled lab setting, which has also been done.

What is missing, as has been pointed out, is any kind of explanation or theory about how it happens, where the energy is stored, or released from, and how "lines" can break.

There is nothing missing. Go read the last 15 pages of this thread and then come back and say that again. We know the fundamental equations that govern the system, we know the solutions to those equations which are relevant, we know how they behave with time. We can simulate them and see our theoretical predictions confirmed. We can build experiments and measure the effect in real plasma, and see our theoretical predictions confirmed.

What more can you possibly ask for? You want someone to teach you enough E&M so you can understand it? That's what school is for - go back to it. It sounds like you don't even know that magnetic fields store energy - and this is impossible to understand if you don't know even the absolute basics of the physics.

 

[robinson]

Once more, direct questions are asked, and no answer is to be had. It is a mystery.