<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)</p><p>The basic premise of 'magnetic reconnection' goes something to the effect: If there is an energy release in a current sheet, it must be "magnetic reconnection' that caused it. The argument itself is a non sequitor. The fact that there is an energy release inside of a current sheet does not demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection' had anything to do with that energy release. According to Alfven, current sheet energy discharges are simply kinetic and electrical in nature. There is no link between current sheet interactions and "magnetic reconnection". </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... You tend to make a lot of assumptions about what I know and don't know which are not true. ...<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Not at all. Since you refuse to give a straightforward answer to most questions I am forced to tryiing to deduce your position and perspective from what I can ask and what you do answer. I offer you simple questions and you duck and evade -- for instance what you mean by "electrical theory" as opposed to the electrodynamics taught in standard physics classes, including to astrophysicists, completely eludes me. I ask you questions involving application of Maxwell's equations and get no response phrased in terms of those equations. I offer a calculation of the magnetic field that would result from your hypothetical current that powers the sun and get no quantitative reply. I point out that simple equations for radiant heat flux will not permit solid iron directly below a very hot photosphere and you ignore it. I give you an opening with Maxwell's equations to point out the derivation of the wave equation from them and you pass up the opportunity or don't recognize it at all. I ask you for references to "electrical theory" and I get some irrelevant rant about magnetic reconnection. If you do understand basic physics then phrase your responses in those terms -- and paraphrasing Alfven is not the way to do that. Alfven's plasma physics is governed by Maxwell's equations too. </p><p>Maybe I don't know what it is that you know, but I can certainly make a judgment as to what it is that you know as it is reflected in your words. And you have yet to produce any tangible knowledge of any basic physics. The only thing that is apparent is that you are well acquainted with the title of Alfven's last book. But you never relate anything to the general body of knowledge regarding physics, or electrical engineering. There are other physics books out there. Are they all wrong about everything ? Are you aware that plasmas are a standard topic in intermediate and advanced texts on electrodynamics ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)The basic premise of 'magnetic reconnection' goes something to the effect: If there is an energy release in a current sheet, it must be "magnetic reconnection' that caused it. The argument itself is a non sequitor. The fact that there is an energy release inside of a current sheet does not demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection' had anything to do with that energy release. According to Alfven, current sheet energy discharges are simply kinetic and electrical in nature. There is no link between current sheet interactions and "magnetic reconnection". <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Huh? It this in response to some earlier post ? If so, what ? It would help rather a lot if you could relate your quotes of Alfven to Maxwell's equations -- explicitly, precisely, and quantitatively. Otherwise you sound rather like a 1960"s Chinaman reciting from <em>Thoughts of Chairman Mao.</em><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Otherwise you sound rather like a 1960"s Chinaman reciting from Thoughts of Chairman Mao. <br /> Posted by DrRocket[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/10/14/ba6b6891-aa3d-4bfd-be97-865d37688de6.Medium.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/10/7cc66437-f6c0-49eb-ba7c-facea1d111f3.Medium.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/14/49698a7e-45b8-43bd-aed3-8d03abcf334f.Medium.gif" alt="" /></p><p> </p><p>If I practiced alchemy, I'd quote Newton every chance I could get. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not at all. Since you refuse to give a straightforward answer to most questions I am forced to tryiing to deduce your position and perspective from what I can ask and what you do answer.</DIV></p><p>I've answered 27 pages of various questions and therefore I have no idea what you're talking about. Tusenfem is the one that's evading your question. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I offer you simple questions and you duck and evade -- </DIV></p><p>You mean like all those questions you've never addressed, like the fact that gamma rays are known to be caused by electrical discharges? Like when I ask you what other known force of nature might explain all these things?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>for instance what you mean by "electrical theory" as opposed to the electrodynamics taught in standard physics classes, including to astrophysicists, completely eludes me. </DIV></p><p>I don't see them as different things in the first place, so you question is simply confusing from where I sit.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I ask you questions involving application of Maxwell's equations and get no response phrased in terms of those equations. </DIV></p><p>I handed you a whole paper worth of equations about return currents in coronal loop activity and you simply ignored it altogether! Equations seem to be of little interest to you from what I've seen thus far.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I offer a calculation of the magnetic field that would result from your hypothetical current that powers the sun and get no quantitative reply.</DIV></p><p>You're asking me to answer a question that nobody can yet answer. I don't know how much energy is external to the sun and how much is internally driven. I've been upfront about that point all along.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I point out that simple equations for radiant heat flux will not permit solid iron directly below a very hot photosphere and you ignore it.</DIV></p><p>I've explained now serveral times that it's not "directly below" the photosphere, and that the plasma layers under the photosphere are thicker and cooler than the photosphere and you ignored that too.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I give you an opening with Maxwell's equations to point out the derivation of the wave equation from them and you pass up the opportunity or don't recognize it at all. </DIV></p><p>I suppose I'm not sure what you're expecting me to "recognize". I'm simply expecting you to recognize that these high energy events are discharge relateed. All these equations show a relationship between the magnetic field and the currents that generate them and you evidently don't recognize it either as far as I can tell.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I ask you for references to "electrical theory" and I get some irrelevant rant about magnetic reconnection.</DIV></p><p>What exactly were you expecting? Where do Maxwell's equations allow you to "splce" magnetic field lines?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you do understand basic physics then phrase your responses in those terms --</DIV></p><p>When I do that, and posted relevant papers showing these mathematical relationships, you simply ignored them. What am I supposed to do?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and paraphrasing Alfven is not the way to do that.</DIV></p><p>Paraphrasing or even quoting several of his paragraphs related to magnetic reconnection seem to have zero effect as well. Evidently the mainstream is ignorant of the physics of magnetic reconnection, and they don't care what Alfven thought about the topic, and they don't have a clue about the physics that goes on inside of a current sheet. The worst part is that a lot of these folks fancy themselves to be quite the experts on MHD theory. It always makes me suspicious that the mainstream hasn't even read the book in question, but they're sure it's not important.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Alfven's plasma physics is governed by Maxwell's equations too.</DIV></p><p>Yes, but he didn't believe in "magnetic reconnection", so there's a huge problem.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe I don't know what it is that you know, but I can certainly make a judgment as to what it is that you know as it is reflected in your words. </DIV></p><p>Likewise I can make a judgement as to what you know based on what you've read, and based on what you've said. I point out that if dE/dt is not zeor, dB/dt cannot be zero, and you go off into a subset of the equations and ignore the key issue entirely. That tells me a lot as well.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And you have yet to produce any tangible knowledge of any basic physics.</DIV></p><p>What 'physics' is "magnetic reconnection" based upon? What physics? You can't even tell me what the unique energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" might be, so there is no "physics" to discuss. That's another issue you've been avoiding like the plague.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only thing that is apparent is that you are well acquainted with the title of Alfven's last book. </DIV></p><p>Which seems to put me light years ahead of the mainstream, since none of them have lifted a finger to even read it!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But you never relate anything to the general body of knowledge regarding physics, or electrical engineering. </DIV></p><p>Except all those papers you ignored, starting with the one from Ari on the redshift issue. You aren't talking "physics" with "frozen" plasma, and magnetic fields in light plasma are never "frozen", so anything related to "physics" seems to be pointless when it comes to this topic. There isn't even a physical definition of this concept so we aren't talking "physics" at all. As it relates to electrical engineering, you never once touched Dr. Scott's objections, nor did you comment on the coronal loop paper I posted. What can I do if you won't won't address the physics or the electrical theory side of this debate?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are other physics books out there. </DIV></p><p>Yes, and so what? Did all of these authors write MHD theory? Did any of them "test" this magnetic reconnection process in conditions that would justify their claim? Of course not. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Are they all wrong about everything ?</DIV></p><p>Everything? Certainly not. The topic of magnetic reconnection? Absolutely.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Are you aware that plasmas are a standard topic in intermediate and advanced texts on electrodynamics ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>So why is it that the whole industry can't spot an electrical discharge when they observe on? Bruce figured it out *without* all the fancy satellite images, as did Birkeland. In fact Birkeland's model "predicted" jets and it "predicted" solar wind acceleration. All the theory in world, and all the math in the world isn't going to take the place of emprical tests. Birkieland shwowed the correlation between coronal loops and "electricity". He showed the corelation between electricity and auroral activity. Not a single human being that believes in "magnetic reconnection" has ever shown it to occur *outside* of a current sheet, and it's unnecessary to explain such energy processes inside of one since Alfven already did that.</p><p>IMO you're overlooking all the ugly parts of the mainstream's position. Gamma rays are known to be caused by discharges. x-rays are known to be caused by them too. Neutron's can be pinched from plasma in high energy discharges and cathode ray jets too. All of these things are observed in the solar atmosphere. How long do you intend to just ignore that point? </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Huh? It this in response to some earlier post ? If so, what ? </DIV></p><p>No, it's a simple fact. The arguement in favor of "Magnetic reconnection" is based on some belief that current sheet energy releases are in some way associated with 'magnetic reconnection", but that was never established. It's a pure non sesquitur of an arguement. There is no correlation between current sheet acceleration and 'magnetic reconnection". In fact Alfven specifically explained these kinetic and electrical reconnection processes in some detail. Of course since nobody in the mainstream has bothered to read his most important work, they remain "mystified" by the simplest of things. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Otherwise you sound rather like a 1960"s Chinaman reciting from Thoughts of Chairman Mao. Posted by DrRocket</DIV> If I practiced alchemy, I'd quote Newton every chance I could get. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Considering the fact that the mainstream is peddling pseudoscience according to Alfven, it's not me that practicing the "alchemy". Magnetic reconnection is alchemy. Kinetic energy and electirical reconnection however is pure physics. Any of you care to explain the unique energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" or is that alchemist secret too? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If I practiced alchemy, I'd quote Newton every chance I could get. Posted by derekmcd</DIV>Considering the fact that the mainstream is peddling pseudoscience according to Alfven, it's not me that practicing the "alchemy". Magnetic reconnection is alchemy. Kinetic energy and electirical reconnection however is pure physics. Any of you care to explain the unique energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" or is that alchemist secret too? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /> As you have been told numerous times there is an energy associated with the magnetic field.</p><p><br />http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/engfie.html</p><p>If you change the topology of the magnetic field you can in principle change the energy density associated with it and hence the volume integral that is the total energy. This has nothing to do with cutting and splicing anything. In fact I believer it is done without the use of any black electrical tape at all. Now, there may other equivalent ways of looking at the the problem, but I see nothing particularly wrong with this one. I don't think I yet see alll of the approximations involved, but I don't see anything wrong with the basic idea at this point. It seems to be in conformance with Maxwell's equations. Insert rant here ___________________________________________.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As you have been told numerous times there is an energy associated with the magnetic field.</p><p>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/engfie.html</p><p>If you change the topology of the magnetic field</DIV></p><p>You mean like if you change the electric field inside the plasma? How were you intending to change the topology of the magnetic field to explain multi-million degree coronal loops an not do it with electricity?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>you can in principle change the energy density associated with it and hence the volume integral that is the total energy.</DIV></p><p>Yes, but induction is not 'magnetic reconnection". Induction is a well understood branch of *REAL PHYSICS*, unlike magnetic reconnection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This has nothing to do with cutting and splicing anything. </DIV></p><p>Shall I post tusenfems diagram for you again? He was certainly "cutting and splicing" the magnetic field lines.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In fact I believer it is done without the use of any black electrical tape at all. </DIV></p><p>Show me an example of "magnetic reconnection" *without* a current sheet then. WIKI claims that no current sheet is even required to splice these magnetic lines. When has that ever happened?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, there may other equivalent ways of looking at the the problem,</DIV></p><p>Yes, and I prefer Birkeland's way and Bruce's way of "looking at the problem", and particularly their way of solving it, *emprically* in Birkeland's case.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but I see nothing particularly wrong with this one. I don't think I yet see alll of the approximations involved, but I don't see anything wrong with the basic idea at this point. It seems to be in conformance with Maxwell's equations. Insert rant here ___________________________________________. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The only "rant" is that a normal induction event, like your coil analogy, is already a well understood part of MHD theory and it has nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection. Induction doesn't defy any of Maxwell's equations, or any of Alfven's views on plasma physics. Nowhere in that set of Maxwell's equations do they allow for cutting and splicing of magnetic field lines to release energy, and induction is not "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>I've been through the so called "tests" of "magnetic reconnection". They all involve a current sheet, so Alfven suggested I pay it no attention. Anyone can claim to be an expert on MHD theory, but I trust Alfven understood plasma physics and electrical theory in general. At no time did he put any faith in 'magnetic reconnection" and none of the folks that fancy themselves to be better at MHD theory than Alfven can demonstrate anything of the sort. Thus far WIKI's claim remains undemonstrated, every test involved "curl" in the magnetic field and therefore none of these energy releases are even remotely related to "magnetic reconnection'. They are simple electrical and kinetic "reconnection" events. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... every test involved "curl" in the magnetic field and therefore none of these energy releases are even remotely related to "magnetic reconnection'. They are simple electrical and kinetic "reconnection" events. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> <img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/c/a/9cab6787646062d6e658cd1e83ad468f.png" alt=" abla imes mathbf{E} = -rac{partial mathbf{B}} {partial t}" /></p><p>Of course they involved curl in the electric field. Welcome to Maxwell's equations.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Of course they involved curl in the electric field. Welcome to Maxwell's equations. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I can't get the mainstream to even accept the fact that there *is an electric field* inside the plasma! You can't talk about the curl of something that they won't accept is there in the first place. </p><p>There is nothing mysterious about coronal loops, cathode ray "jets", and solar wind acceleration. Birkeland "predicted" all of these things in his emprical experiments over 100 years ago. When the mainsream finally recognizes that the electric field is there, curl and all, and that it is time variable, *then* maybe they won't be so mystified by something Birkeland figured out 100 years ago, Bruce figured out 40+ years ago, and Alfven figured out 30+ years ago. Alfven understood Maxwell's equations just fine. He saw x-ray images of the solar corona. He chalked up these events to "electrical activity", not "magnetic reconnection". Birkeland demonstrated empirically that these events are directly related to electrical current flow. </p><p>Nobody has ever demonstrated that "magnetic reconnection" is anything other than a cludged understanding of MHD theory, and mathematical mythos. Reconnections inside a current sheet have already been explained by Alfven in MHD theory. They are kinetic and electrical reconnection events that have nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Indution is not "magnetic reconection", and all energy stored in a current sheet is kinetic and eletrical in nature. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Cluster_Helps_Deepen_Understanding_Of_Magnetic_Reconnection_999.html</p><p>Let's look at exactly how this misinformation is being spread:</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><span class="BTX">Some of the most explosive phenomena in the Universe are due to a physical process known as magnetic reconnection.</DIV></span></p><p>Notice how nobody bothered to point out this was a "hypothesis" that has never actualy been demonstrated? Now it's just stated as "fact" that these high energy events are caused by "magnetic reconnection", not that they are "alledged" to have been caused by this magnetic reconnection thingy? The article starts off with a blatently false statement.</p><p><span class="BTX">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Fundamental aspects of this process are still not fully understood</DIV></span></p><p>So the idea now is that it absolutely does exist, but these guys can't explain the physics? Oh? How come it it "fact" that these events are related to "magnetic reconnection", and they can't even explain the physics behind the process?</p><p><span class="BTX">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but new advances, using Cluster data, have recently been reported by a team led by scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.</DIV></span> </p><p>So what did they learn?</p><span class="BTX">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Understanding magnetic reconnection is key to explaining explosive phenomena in space - such as solar flares (billion-megaton explosions in the Sun's atmosphere, see Movie 1) and gamma-ray bursts (intense bursts of radiation from exotic stars) - and on Earth (for example laboratory nuclear fusion).</DIV></span><p>Here we go again...... Now they again state that these things *are in fact directly related to* "magnetic reconnection", without ever demonstrating anything of the sort, and without so much as a physical definition of what is unique about "magnetic reconnection".</p><p><span class="BTX">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just like a rubber band can suddenly snap when pulled too far, magnetic reconnection is a natural process by which the energy in a stressed magnetic field is suddenly released, projecting electron and ion jets.</DIV></span></p><p>More allegations being stated as "fact" without a shred of emprical support.</p><p><span class="BTX">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How magnetic energy can be released so quickly is a question that has perplexed scientists for several decades.</DIV></span></p><p>Such fast discharge events did not perplex Birkeland. He demonstrated them in his lab and they have nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection". They only perplex today's scientists because today's scientists are ignoring the current flow that generates these high energy discharge events.</p><p><span class="BTX">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In the 1990's, theoreticians found that in a narrow region close to a reconnection site (see light blue region in Figure 1), the electrons and protons move independently - instead of moving together, spiralling along magnetic field lines as they normally do.</DIV></span></p><p>In other words all these high energy events take place in a current sheet with moving protons and electrons that "reconect' in terms of electrical reconnection and kinetic interactions. Birkeland predicted that too using *electrical current*.</p><p><span class="BTX">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As a result, whistler waves are generated which can accelerate electrons to much higher velocities. In other words, a theoretical explanation was found for the fast release of magnetic energy during reconnection where whistlers play a key role (Drake et al, 2001).</DIV></span> </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waves_in_plasmas</p><p>What? Whistler waves are directly related to electron flow. They are electrical in nature. So now we know that electrical current is present in these events, it generates whitler waves as electrons do, and it's a kinetic and electrically active event just as Alfven suggested. What we do not see is any evidence that "magnetic reconnection" does anything to anything. This is a kinetic and electrical "reconnection" process.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><span class="BTX">But a key question remains: why do magnetic fields involved in a reconnection process suddenly explode for no apparent reason after remaining apparently quiescent for long periods of time. In other words, what triggers magnetic reconnection?</DIV></span></p><p>Um, ya think that electron flow that is producing the whistler waves had something to do with it? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><span class="BTX">On 21 August 2002, the constellation of Cluster satellites passed by a magnetic reconnection event, located some 120,000 km away from Earth - 1/3 of the distance to the Moon - near the center of the magnetotail (the night side of the magnetosphere).</DIV></span></p><p>More statements of "fact" about "magnetic reconnection" that actually have nothing to do with "magnetic recconnection", but rather "electrical reconnection" and "kinetic interaction".</p><p><span class="BTX">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A recent study reports a detailed analysis of this event showing intense whistlers appearing about 30 seconds prior to reconnection. This is a potential triggering factor as they generate sufficient anomalous resistivity to allow magnetic reconnection to take place (for more on anomalous resistivity see "Cluster probes generalized Ohm's law").</DIV></span></p><p>In other words, they observed a huge surge in the flow of electrons through the plasma 20 seconds before they observed these high energy releases. Well, do you think that maybe the current flow that generates the whistler waves might be linked to both events?</p><p><span class="BTX">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The whistlers were found to be greatly enhanced when reconnection kicked off (Figure 2). In addition, as reconnection proceeded, the wave frequency became higher and higher. The fact that spectral characteristics of the whistler waves are observed to be different before and after the start of reconnection suggests that they were produced by different mechanisms.</DIV></span></p><p>Er, how so? The fact they release different energy signatures simply suggests to me that the flow of electricity is not constant, but rather it is time variable. </p><p><span class="BTX">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"The data collected by the four Cluster satellites on 21 August 2002 suggest that whistler waves prior to reconnection may play an important role in triggering reconnection", says Dr. Jinbin Cao, corresponding author of this study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.</DIV></span></p><p>It also suggests that *electron flow* is directly related to these "electrical reconnection" and "kinetic reconnection" events. </p><p><span class="BTX">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"This new result will certainly help constrain theoreticians and their computer simulations to better model magnetic reconnection as detailed observations in space are scarce. However, the triggering of reconnection remains an open question. Future missions like the ESA/JAXA Cross-Scale project and the NASA MMS mission will hopefully provide the tools to pinpoint the triggering mechanism", underlines Philippe Escoubet, Cluster project scientist and Cross-Scale study scientist at the European Space Agency.</DIV></span></p><p>You can't "pinpoint" the unique energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection' inside of a current sheet because there isn't one. These are electrical reconnection events. These are kinetic reconnection events. Magnetic fields cannot be cut and spliced, so they certainly are not "magnetic reconnection" events. Alfven already explained the physics of electrically active plasma, and it does not involve any "magnetic reconnection" processes. </p><p>This whole article is pure misinformation. There is no mystery here. The electron flows through the plasma create "whistler waves", and these electrical reconnection events are directly related to electron flow. There is nothing "magnetic" about the "reconnection" of protons and electrons. These are *electrical reconnection* events, not "magnetic reconnection" events. Birkeland proved that over 100 years ago. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4233 </p><p>Gee, I wonder what might cause plasma to form helical magnetic field structures and tightly wound "jets" in a laboratory plasma? Oh ya.....</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/14/ccb9a654-b919-45a6-9e61-a7b1bd359abd.Medium.png" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p> </p><p>FYI DrRocket, Hannes Alfven had no trouble at all explaining coronal loop activity. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4233 Gee, I wonder what might cause plasma to form helical magnetic field structures and tightly wound "jets" in a laboratory plasma? Oh ya.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Maxwell and Lorentz explain it very simply.</p><p> </p><dd><img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/8/c/58c2b8b14b73d2bafeaaafb80b4a5491.png" alt="mathbf{F} = q (mathbf{E} + mathbf{v} imes mathbf{B})," /> </dd><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><strong><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Del</strong> is here the derivative operator (∂/∂x, ∂/∂y, ∂/∂z) usually written a "nabla" (an upside-down &Delta
which I could not find unfortunately. The last term in Maxwell’s law is the “displacement current” and this term is usually omitted from the equations. Now, the question is, under what circumstances can this term be neglected?</DIV></p><p>Well, the obvious answer is it can only be neglected when current flow is not present. The momet the current flow is large (like in a lightening bolt), you can no longer neglect it. When protons and electrons and charged charged particles are whizzing through at a million miles an hour or more, it can no longer be neglected. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In the MHD regime one is looking at processes that are long with respect to the gyration time of the ions and on scales that are larger than the gyro radius of the ions. Basically, one is describing the plasma with the “guiding centre approach.” <br /> <br /> Now we consider the low velocity approach, i.e. we look processes in the plasma with plasma speeds much smaller than the light speed (v << c). Assume that we are looking at a system with characteristic length scale L and a characteristic time scale T, then we can find from Faraday’s law:<br /> <br /> E ~ L B / T<br /> <br /> Now that we have this proportionality between E and B from Faraday, we can take a look at Maxwell, which shows that the last term, describing the displacement current is of the order:<br /> <br /> L<sup>2</sup> / c<sup>2</sup> T<sup>2</sup><br /> <br /> Which is a very small number in MHD problems, and thus Maxwell’s law turns into:</DIV></p><p>Woah! In a discharge event like a coronal loop, it's not a "very small number" at all. It's a *huge* number. The one thing our friend did not mention is that this is only applicable in instances that do not exist in space. Inside the heliosphere, charged particles are whizzing through everthing at a million miles an hour. Inside an atmospheric disscharge the current flow is the "guiding center. The magnetic field is simply along for the ride. None of this stuff is even applicable unless the conditions are satisfied. Those conditions cannot be satisfied in the corona where discharge current is the driving process that accelates charged particles to a million miles an hour! Bah! If that's his best argument, he's toast. He simply *assumed* condtions where current flow is not a factor and than tried to justify his statement by claiming it's a small number. It's not a small number in space, it's always a relevant number. The change in the electrical field will have a direct and significant effect on the process inside the plasma. You can't just ignore the current and say "It's always a small number". It's only a small number *if* you have no signifiant current flow involved. If you assume a scenario (like an atmospheric discharge), you can't simply ignore it. Inside *any* current sheet energy exchange you can't ignore it. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
which I could not find unfortunately. The last term in Maxwell’s law is the “displacement current” and this term is usually omitted from the equations. Now, the question is, under what circumstances can this term be neglected?</DIV></p><p>Well, the obvious answer is it can only be neglected when current flow is not present. The momet the current flow is large (like in a lightening bolt), you can no longer neglect it. When protons and electrons and charged charged particles are whizzing through at a million miles an hour or more, it can no longer be neglected. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In the MHD regime one is looking at processes that are long with respect to the gyration time of the ions and on scales that are larger than the gyro radius of the ions. Basically, one is describing the plasma with the “guiding centre approach.” <br /> <br /> Now we consider the low velocity approach, i.e. we look processes in the plasma with plasma speeds much smaller than the light speed (v << c). Assume that we are looking at a system with characteristic length scale L and a characteristic time scale T, then we can find from Faraday’s law:<br /> <br /> E ~ L B / T<br /> <br /> Now that we have this proportionality between E and B from Faraday, we can take a look at Maxwell, which shows that the last term, describing the displacement current is of the order:<br /> <br /> L<sup>2</sup> / c<sup>2</sup> T<sup>2</sup><br /> <br /> Which is a very small number in MHD problems, and thus Maxwell’s law turns into:</DIV></p><p>Woah! In a discharge event like a coronal loop, it's not a "very small number" at all. It's a *huge* number. The one thing our friend did not mention is that this is only applicable in instances that do not exist in space. Inside the heliosphere, charged particles are whizzing through everthing at a million miles an hour. Inside an atmospheric disscharge the current flow is the "guiding center. The magnetic field is simply along for the ride. None of this stuff is even applicable unless the conditions are satisfied. Those conditions cannot be satisfied in the corona where discharge current is the driving process that accelates charged particles to a million miles an hour! Bah! If that's his best argument, he's toast. He simply *assumed* condtions where current flow is not a factor and than tried to justify his statement by claiming it's a small number. It's not a small number in space, it's always a relevant number. The change in the electrical field will have a direct and significant effect on the process inside the plasma. You can't just ignore the current and say "It's always a small number". It's only a small number *if* you have no signifiant current flow involved. If you assume a scenario (like an atmospheric discharge), you can't simply ignore it. Inside *any* current sheet energy exchange you can't ignore it. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p>http://creme96.nrl.navy.mil/20Jan05/</p><p>http://creme96.nrl.navy.mil/20Jan05/Fig7_RHESSI_timelines_revised.jpg</p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The interpretation of the RHESSI observations has undergone considerable change since initial reports last year. Gerry Share writes:<br /> <blockquote><br /> “The 2005 January 20 solar flare produced one of the hardest gamma-ray spectra ever observed. This is evidenced by the weakness of the nuclear de-excitation lines relative to the 511 keV annihilation and 2223 keV neutron capture lines, the nuclear continuum, and the strong continuum above 10 MeV. If this high-energy continuum is due to production of neutral and charged pions, as our data suggest, then accelerated protons impacting the Sun reached energies of at least several hundred MeV. There is evidence in the data for two components of accelerated particles that interacted at the Sun. One exhibits an impulsive profile, marked by production of nuclear de-excitation lines, that peaks at ~06:47 UT and falls exponentially on a time scale of about 5 minutes. The second appears to have a much flatter time profile that exhibits strong gamma-ray emission />10 MeV, consistent with production of pions. Work is in progress to determine the spectral characteristics of these two components and their relationship to the particles observed in space.”</DIV></blockquote><blockquote> </blockquote><blockquote>It's just not realistic or reasonable to treat light, hot, electrically active atmospheric plasma as though it is devoid of electrical current. Only electrical current has been documented to have produced gamma rays, neutron capture signatures, bremsstrahlung flux, etc in conditions like we find in the solar atmosphere. </blockquote><blockquote> Hannes Alfven was very aware of the electrical discharge nature of such events and he described these as current flow driven processes. The speed of propogation of these charged particles can sometimes reach a significant portion of the speed of light. It therefore makes no sense at all to treat any of these plasmas as "frozen". One must understand that current flow plays a huge role in such events to begin to explain such events. We point Rhessi at the earth and we observe gamma rays comming from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. We point the same gear at the solar atmosphere, and we also observe gamma rays from discharges in the solar atmosphere. These are current sheet events. They are kinetic and electrical "reconnection" events that have absolutely nothing to do with "frozen" magnetic field lines or "magnetic reconnection". These are current driven events, every single one of them.</blockquote><blockquote> The only thing that prevents the mainstream from understanding these events is their reluctance to embrace the electrical nature of the universe itself. As long as they ignore the current flow and try to explain everything in the absense of current flow, none of these events make any sense. The moment we recognize that Birkeland's work and Alfven's work is applicable, none of these events is really all that mysterious. They are discharge related activeiy as Bruce documented over 50 years ago. <br /></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0390</p><p>This recent paper caught my eye today. It's another great example of the mainstream fishing for the single most complicated possible solution to a simple problem rather than taking the simplest and easiest path to a logical solution. If you read the paper and refer to figure 1 at the bottom of the page, you'll find the "helix" shape they are trying to explain.</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/14/ff308743-5d1c-47b0-be2a-a70eeaa2e38d.Medium.png" alt="" /><br /> </p><p>This is WIKI's diagram of a "Birkeland Current". These are identical helical shapes in terms of the magnetic field. The most obvious solution to these helix shaped structures we observe in Hinode images is found in a simple Birkeland current. There is nothing mysterious about a helix shape in plasma. It is literally a "classic" plasma threading process that is directly related to current flow in plasma. It is also current flow that has produced neutron capture signatures in plasma, gamma radiation from plasma, x-ray radiation from plasma, and million (accually billion) degree temperatures in plasma. The only obvious solution to all these "perplexing" mainstream enigmas is found in current flow. Discussing electricity is however the one unforgivable "sin" in astronomy circles, so astronomers dream up the most elaborate, least plausible scenarios imaginable in an effort to explain a simple physical process related to electrical current. Somewhere in this process someone has to point to Occum's Razor arguments and note that there are "simple" and "likely" explanations, and then there are "less plausible" and less "simple" solutions that probably are not correct because they are not nearly as simple as the other plausible alternatives.</p><p>A helix shape in plasma is easily explained by the introduction of currents inside the plasma. Currents also produce gamma rays as we observer in Rhessi images. Currents produce x-rays as we observe in Hinode images. Currents produce Bennet Pinches in plasma that pinch free neutrons from plasma. Coincidently, we observer neutron capture signatures in Rhessi images too. Current has been known to create million degree temperatures in plasma. We observe these high temperatures in the solar atmosphere. Charge separation has been shown to accelerate charged particles and we do see solar wind particles accelerate as they leave the photosphere. All of these enigmas are easily explained by current flow. They are not caused by "kinks" in magnetic fields. They are all caused by "current flow in plasma". </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4854</p><p>I think I'll start picking a few key lines from some of these magnetic reconnection papers to demonstrate how dogma has replaced emprical science in the mainstream publications.</p><p>Let's start with this little gem:</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The study of the energetic particle acceleration process during solar flares still<br />remains an open and challenging problem for solar physics. Solar flares are the<br />manifestation of the energy release process in the solar corona and atmosphere.<br /><strong>It is well established that during this energy release process the free magnetic energy<br />is converted, through magnetic reconnection</strong>, into heating, bulk motion of the flaring<br />plasma and particle acceleration.</DIV></p><p>Emphasis mine.</p><p>Now of course it may be well established "dogma" in some astronomy circles that "free magnetic energy" is converted via "magnetic reconnection" into a miracle explanation that does everything that current flow can do, but this is not established emprical fact. Electical engineers like Dr. Scott has vehemently denied any such thing occurs in nature. This is "established" dogma, not emprically demonstrated fact. Nobody has ever demonstrated that "magnetic reconnection" even occurs in nature, let alone that it does any of the things that these authors have claimed. Particles have kinetic energy. They can "reconnect" electrically and kinetically, but magnetic fields do not "reconnect", nor release energy via magnetic reconnection. "Magnetic reconnection" is not "established" in any emprical sense, it is simply "alledged" to be "established" dogma. It's ultimately nothing more than an appeal to popularity fallacy.</p><p> While electrical current has been *emprically* shown to heat plasma, pinch neutrons from plasma, generate gamma rays from plasma, and cause ""flaring" in plasma, nobody has emprically demonstrated that "magnetic reconnection" is anything other than standard electrical and kinetic interactions in plasma.</p><p>Who actually edits these papers anyway?</p><p>I'll skip the part where the authors point out that they don't even agree on what is going on in "magnetic reconnection" and no scientist on the planet can seem to isolate the specific energy release mechanism that is unique to "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>I will however comment on this line:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In order to model the burst effects many authors incorporate a time dependent<br />electric field in X-points (Hamilton et al. 2003; 2005; Petkaki and MacKinnon 1997;<br />2007) or adopted a numerical code as Tajima et al. (1987).Wood and Neukirch (2005)<br />adopted an X-point with a nonhomogeneous electric field that was stronger at the<br />center of the X-point.</DIV></p><p>I will point out that Alfven explained the energy release events inside of a current sheet *without* any form of "magnetic reconnection", so inside of a current sheet with time dependent electric field, it is absolutely unnecessary to even introduce "magnetic reconnection" to explain such "flaring". These would be *kinetic and electrical* in nature, not "magnetic". This whole line of reasoning shows just how illogical this whole idea really is. Alfven actively called this sort of "magnetic reonnection" theory "pseudoscience". It is in fact just that. These are nothing more than simple particle and electrical interactions inside of plasma, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. </p><p> In order to get plasma to do these nifty flaring tricks, these other authors desparately needed electrical current. They stuffed the current sheet full of moving charged particles and then they have the audacitiy to call it "magnetic reconnection". Come on! Alfven was right, all such theories should be ignored. They are not worth consideration according to Alfven because the curl of B is not zero and charged moving particles are doing all the work. </p><p>He're another gem that explains the whole problem in a single line...</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> In the solar corona, large-scale and long lasting current sheets, in which a large<br />number of particles could be accelerated, are unlikely to be present.</DIV></p><p>According to whom? They are not only likely to be be present, they are present around every large object in the solar system. The evidence of their presense in the solar atmosphere is unmistakable to any EU proponent including Birkeland and Alfven who both "predicted" not only the presense of lasting currents, but also 'predicted" the effects of these currents on planets and the solar atmosphere.</p><p>Here we have what can only be considered a pure mistatement of fact. Not only are the current sheets long lasting, they are virtually "ever present". The few times they have not been present in a highly consistent manner, the solar wind came to a near standstill. These kinds of papers are factually misleading and they make false *assumptions* from the start. The moment you toss out that one single assumption, or your question tha assumption, the whole rest of the arguement falls apart.</p><p>I rarely find a lot of trouble with the mathematical presentations in these kinds of papers, it's always the funky assumptions that are made in these papers that make the paper questionable. Their *assumption* that these are not current carrying events shoots their theory in the foot and makes the mathematical presentation rather pointless, regardless of how nice the math might look. </p><p>They literally "assumed" that no currents were present ----- therefore...... they looked for a much more complicated solution to what is really a simple problem. The easily solution is the very same one that Kristian Birkeland proposed over 100 years ago. The complex solution suggested by these authors has never been emprically demonstrated in a lab like Birkeland did, and yet it is now being refered to by these authors as "well established" (dogma).<br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/2/95e8d931-b55b-4877-b2fd-9bb3767ce7e3.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /> </p><p>Birkeland understood the value and importance of emprical experimentation rather than simply fooling around with math formulas on paper. He built real physical (emprical) experiments to show the connection between solar events and "current flow". Nobody has ever done such a thing with "magnetic reconnection". Magnetic reconnection is mainstream misrepresentation of MHD theory and a gross misrepresentation of electrical theory and energy theory in general. There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection". Magnetic field lines form as a complete and full continuum. They don't make and break connections like particles and electrical circuits. They don't release energy by "reconnecting" with other magnetic field lines. Alfven called such ideas "pseudoscience", but alas, the mainstream has obviously never bothered to read his most important work.</p><p>Birkeland not only "predicted" flares and coronal loops, he "simulated" them in emprical experimentation, and he explained them mathematically. Alfven improved on his math. 100 years have gone by and the mainstream is still mystified by the simple things that Birkeland easily understood, and they have forgotten the difference between emprical experimentation and mathematical conjecture. A computer simulation is not an acceptable alternative to emprical experimentation. There is no valid substitute for emprical testing to be found in a computer model. Emprical tests show us how reality actually functions whereas computers can create virtual worlds that have completely different rules than reality. </p><p>These "magnetic reconnection" theories should be demonstrated in a lab like Birkeland did with his theories, and Alfven did with all other MHD theories. Current sheets do not "magnetically" reconnect. They "kinetically" and "electrically" reconnect and the magnetic field changes as a result. </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The example that we are now going to look at is interesting, we will compare the displacement current with the conduction current, that appear in Maxwell’s law, under the condition that the conductor is submitted to an AC electric field described by:<br /> <br /> <strong>E</strong> = <strong>E</strong><sub>0</sub> cos ω t</DIV></p><p>I'm afraid that our friend continues to select very specific MHD scenarios that have absolutely no rational or logical application in space plasmas. Nobody has proposed that the currents in space are "AC". Why even bother discussing it? </p><p>The only instance where we can safely neglect dE/dt in MHD theory is in *non current carrying plasma*. Period. Unfortunately for our friend, every area of space that is currently accessable to us has million mile per hour particles whizzing through it, and it contains DC currents, not AC currents. Since this is the case, any notion of 'frozen" magnetic fields becomes moot. The danger of neglecting dE/dt is that any change in the electical field will also be neglected, and any process that is caused by a change in the electric field will be an enigma to anyone who thinks that there is no current flow involved in that process. Our friend is making exactly the same mistake as the authors of the last paper I cited made. He is *assuming* that no currents are present and therefore he neglects them at his own peril. There is no mystery as to why such individuals are perplexed by solar atmospheric activity since they are neglecting the most important influence in that process, namely the current flows to produce them.</p><p>The only scenario where dE/dt can be neglected is in dense, cold, non current carrying plasma. Spacetime however is filled with light, hot, current carrying plasma, and therefore these special scenarios are inapplicable to discussions about plasmas in space. </p><p>Tusenfem's position is typical of the mainstream position. The mainstream is ignorant of the current flows that cause these high energy observations to occur. As a result they remain "mystified" by simple discharge related events. Birkeland was not mystified by these bahaviors, in fact he "predicted" them based on emprical experimentation. He could easily have explained the helix shape in Hinode images. He could have easily explained tusenfem's mistake. As long as the mainstream ignores dE/dt, they will forever remained perplexed by current driven events in plasma. It's really that simple. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Would it be possible for you, just once, to drop the word salad and explain your position using the physics that everyone agrees on, namely Maxwell's equations ? In other words, might we direct the discussion away from semantics and towards physics ?</p><p>Just as a reminder, here they are.</p><p><img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/8/2/f8254d80dd83f4ab12187af1a2d6b450.png" alt=" abla cdot mathbf{E} = rac { ho} {epsilon_0}" /></p><p> <img style="width:85px;height:16px" class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/7/6/57619c6a86c79e56ac806faf21502c90.png" alt=" abla cdot mathbf{B} = 0" width="103" height="25" /></p><p><img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/c/a/9cab6787646062d6e658cd1e83ad468f.png" alt=" abla imes mathbf{E} = -rac{partial mathbf{B}} {partial t}" /></p><p><img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/3/4/b34a1a09a308b90bbc6218fdd2e3157a.png" alt=" abla imes mathbf{B} = mu_0mathbf{J} + mu_0 epsilon_0 rac{partial mathbf{E}} {partial t} " /></p><p> </p><p>And I'll throw in the Lorentz force equation so that you can easily explain helical currents.</p><dd><img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/8/c/58c2b8b14b73d2bafeaaafb80b4a5491.png" alt="mathbf{F} = q (mathbf{E} + mathbf{v} imes mathbf{B})," /> </dd> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Would it be possible for you, just once, to drop the word salad and explain your position using the physics that everyone agrees on, namely Maxwell's equations ? In other words, might we direct the discussion away from semantics and towards physics ?Just as a reminder, here they are. And I'll throw in the Lorentz force equation so that you can easily explain helical currents. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Did you have a specific problem in mind?</p><p>Let's start with a few observations. There's a basic problem here with *assuming* that every problem one might make is related to their *mathematical presentation*. In my experience that is almost never the case in astronomy. Astronomers tend to weed out math problems from their work, but they never weed out bad ideas. </p><p> For instance, "inflation" used to work out beautifully on paper to show how we got a homogeneous layout of matter. The problem is that inflation doesn't exist in nature, and now we know that matter is not homogenously distrubuted. It doesn't matter how much math you might look at, the problem is not related to the math in the first place. The problem is related to the *idea* that the math is being applied to. </p><p>How does that relate to MHD theory? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do agree that one must be careful with how to apply certain approximations.</DIV></p><p>Our friend "agrees" that we must be careful on how we apply our math and our approximations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is why Alfven got “angry” and claimed that frozen in field does not exist, because, when it was first revealed, everybody just used it without thinking, fortunately, that stage has passed (mostly) and scientists are aware of the limits that are put to the theory that they are working on.</DIV></p><p>He now makes a claim that happens to be false. Every single paper written about "magnetic reconnection" fails to be "careful" about where they attempt to apply their ideas. They *assume* that no currents exist in the phenomenon they are studying, or they *assume* that "magnetic reconnection" occurs in a current sheet, or both. They are not "careful" in the least about determining where we might try to apply these ideas and where we should abandon them entirely. Alfven got upset when folks tried to apply these ideas to "light plasma" and to current sheets, but that has not stopped the mainstream from making exactly the same mistakes today that they made in his time.</p><p>Alfven specifically attacked the notion of magnetic reconnection where the "curl" of B was not 0. He specfically claimed you could not apply these ideas to a current sheet. The mainstream still does these things on a regular basis. In fact the whole of interplanetary space is a bad place to attempt to desribe "frozen" field lines of plasma because solar wind and highly charged partcles are accelerating and moving through all surface planes at over a million miles per hour. That has never stopped the mainstream from trying to apply these ideas to interplanetary conditions however.</p><p>Most papers on "magnetic reconnection" present a mathematical model. The question is not whether or not that model has any mistakes, but whether it actually occurs in nature, and whether it should be applied in this instance. The mathematical calculations that you and tusenfem might come up with will be "fixed" as people from the peanut gallary begin to comment on whatever calculations you two might post. What won't be "fixed" however is the fact that the plasmas of space are not "neutral", but rather they are "current carrying" plasma. It's not that the math is wrong, it's that the math is inaplicable, or that the idea itself is false.</p><p>Alfven very carefully explained exactly why "magnetic reconnection" could not be applied to a current sheet. He carefully explained why it could not be applied to current carrrying events in general. That has never stopped the mainstream from doing these things anyway. They are making exactly the same mistakes today that they have been making since the very start. They have treated "light" plasma as "frozen", and they continue to misrepresent "magnetic reconnection" as being a part of MHD theory when Alfven himself completely rejected the concept, particularly and most specifcally in the conditions in which it is still being applied.</p><p>In short DrRocket, it's not tusenfem's math that is incorrect, it is his *premise* that is false. The *only* time you can ignore E is if E is non existent. In interplanetary space, E is never non existent. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>So when is it definitely not appropriate to discuss "magnetic reconnection"? What does Hannes Alfven have to say about it?</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES<br />What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume<br />only if no electric current crosses the surface . In the terminology of the magnetic field<br />description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume<br />only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface.<br />All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy<br />this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention .</DIV></p><p>It just so happens that inside of interplanetary space, charged particles are whizzing through all the points on all the surfaces at approximately a million miles per hour! There is essentially no place inside of interplanetary space where this condition could possibly be satisfied. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1I .6 .3. ENERGY RELEASE IN DOUBLE LAYERS<br />If a double layer has been formed by a current I, energy at a rate P=IV(D)<br />is released in the double layer . This energy is mainly used for accelerating charged particles<br />. A small fraction is usually dissipated as noise . Of course, the accelerated particles<br />interact with the plasma and produce a number of secondary effects so that the released<br />energy fmally is dissipated as heating and radiation . Again, it should be mentioned that<br />there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of "magnetic<br />merging' or of magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which<br />implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration (II.33, II.53). In the<br />region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is<br />almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects<br />of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).</DIV></p><p>So why are astronomers still trying to associate current sheet electrical interactions with "magnetic reconnection"? The curl is not ever zero in such events, and Alfven specifically rejected such ideas in exactly these same conditions. Why then is tusenfem claiming that they are doing things right now, when clearly they are making exactly the same mistakes today that they were making during his lifetime? That stage hasn't "passed", it's still continuing to this very day. MHD theory in no way supports the idea of "magnetic reconnection". Hannes Alfven specifically rejected the idea in the conditions in which it is claimed to occur (inside of a current sheet). Why then should I believe that this phase has "passed", when they are clearly doing exactly what he claimed you could not do with magnetic reconnection theories. MHD theory is *NOT* congruent with "magnetic reconnection", certainly not in the conditions it is being associated with. Alfven himself rejected these ideas very specifically. Although Alfven himself has "passed", the mistakes and problems associated with "magnetic mergring" have not. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
How about you ask tusenfem to describe a scenario in space for us where he believes it is appropriate to discuss magnetic reconnection theory. Have him show us how "magnetic reconnection" actually releases energy in plasma using wihatever mathematical model he want's to use. Maybe then we can look at the mathematical process in question and see if there is actually any error with his math, or whether it's just an error in his basic assumptions, but one of the two must be occuring. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, let’s get to the crux, the definition of MHD, is the definition of MHD that the displacement current is negligible? No, it is not.</DIV></p><p>So far, so good.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In MHD, the plasma is viewed as a fluid; the orbit of the particles is averaged out by integrating over it, which means that MHD is only valid at time scales larger than the gyration time of the ions and on length scales larger than the gyration radius.</DIV></p><p>I'm not quite sure what he's trying to say here, other than "particles move" and timescales are important. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Furthermore, it is assumed that there is (quasi)neutrality and that the differences in the mean velocities of the individual species are small with respect to the fluid velocity.</DIV></p><p>See, here is where the *assumptions* we make can play a significant role, and can have a greater effect sometimes than the actual math. If one *assumes* that the velocites of the particles are small, one might try one mathematical approach. If we *assumed* a large current flow however, we might try a completely different approach. Math errors tend to get weeded out whereas these assumption based errors never seem to get weeded out. Inside of a current sheet there there is plenty of kinetic energy to accelerate particles that have nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you look at such a system, you cannot but find that the displacement current is negligibly small.</DIV></p><p>But when you have million mile per hour particles whizzing by, it's not "negligibly small" anymore. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This does not mean that is does not exist, but any effects that it will have are of order (v/c)<sup>2</sup>. And from ideal MHD follows directly the frozen in condition.</DIV></p><p>While plasma is a *great* conductor, it is never an ideal one, so any idealized notion of "perfection" is never going to actually apply anywhere, ever. This "let's set E=0" idea is false everywhere inside interstellar space, so any application of this theory inside the solar system is necessarily false as well. You can't simply ignore the momentum and kinetic energy of million mile per hour particles all call it's effect "negligibly small" anymore. </p><p>I have no idea how to proceed to debunk tusenfem's magnetic reconnection diagram without a solid example (in space or in an experiment) of where he thinks it actually applies. We can then look a where Alfven's claims it should *not* apply and eleminate anything that Alfven rejected. Assuming he passes these tests, then we might take a gander at his math. My guess is that he attempts to apply this idea to something that is completely illogical given the physical conditions in space or given the physical conditions of the experiment. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 177
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
-
-
Blue Origin stacks huge New Glenn rocket ahead of 1st launch (photo)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
Question Educating Space to Toddlers to Pre-Adolescence?
- Started by NeoViking
- Replies: 10
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram