<p>I've been reading more into the Nature article I posted and it seems to be as close to a valid physical explanation that I can find. The original article I posted is the presentation of the theory that energetic electrons are accelerated to suprathermal energies via Fermi reflection, where, in basic terms, the electron bounces between a large number of these magnetic "islands". The Fermi mechanism was studied independently of the parallel electric fields associated with magnetic reconnection to verify that they are capable of such acceleration(they call them "squashed flux bubbles" in this case). In the paper they provide a number of equations that describe the energy gain associated with these islands as well as the associated magnetic fields. The paper goes on to make predictions regarding the implications of such a model and requests verification from satellite missions. In the 2008 Asnes paper I mentioned before, they mention this model in passing, stating that their observations may support it in paragraph 27. When I noticed that I didn't think that was a strong enough foundation for this argument so I chose not to get further into it.</p><p> However, I was directed to another 2008 article in Nature(Chen et al.) where they present more solid evidence of the concept of magnetic islands. I was frankly a little surprised to see that they start out by saying that electric fields are the primary mechanism for electron acceleration at the so-called "X-line", based on particle-in-cell(PiC) simulations. However, they go on to say</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The PIC simulations, although fully self-consistent, are two dimensional. It is difficult to see how the mechanism of electron acceleration identified by these simulations can account for the large number of accelerated electrons in solar flares, because the volume over which reconnection electric fields are operative is only a small fraction of the total flare volume.</p><p> In this letter, we report the observation of a series of coherent magnetic structures, which show signatures of magnetic islands when viewed along the one-dimensional spacecraft trajectories. Each of these magnetic structures (hereafter referred to as magnetic islands) has its corresponding energetic electron burst, according to data from the four Cluster spacecraft<sup>14</sup> during a near-Earth reconnection event. The high-time-resolution data reveal that energetic electron fluxes peak at the sites of density compression within islands, a new feature that is so far not explained by existing theories.</p><p></DIV></p><p> Here is a figure they use that provides a visual explanation of these islands and the terms such as X-line etc. </p><p> http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/5621/nphys777f1ps7.jpg <--EDIT: i'm not sure why this won't appear as a clickable link...</p><p> They go on to say</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The electron density is highly compressed within islands (black curves in Fig. 3c,f,i, and l). Such density compression, bipolar <em>B</em><sub><em>z</em></sub> and single-peaked and double-peaked <em>B</em><sub><em>y</em></sub> are all features of the observed islands (Fig. 3m–p show a multispacecraft view of a three-dimensional island). These features are generic signatures of two-dimensional magnetic islands, as demonstrated by our Hall magnetohydrodynamic simulations of collisionless reconnection (Fig. 4), and PIC<sup>11, </sup><sup>17</sup> and hybrid simulations<sup>18</sup>. High-time-resolution data of the electron fluxes (16 times higher resolution than those shown in Fig. 3a,d,g,j) for energies greater than 50 keV reveal that energetic electron fluxes (red curves in Fig. 3c,f,i,l) peak at the density compression sites within islands (dotted cyan lines mark seven magnetic islands that have the strongest density compression and corresponding energetic electron fluxes). This key finding establishes a direct link between energetic electrons and magnetic islands, and suggests that the dominant acceleration mechanism and the physics that causes density compression within islands are intimately related. Note that the electron energization region is more localized than the density compression region, and stronger density compression does not necessarily correspond to higher fluxes of energetic electrons, indicating that the energetic electrons are not produced simply by a compression of the background electrons.</p><p> Our results indicate that quantitative knowledge on the formation and dynamics of magnetic islands is essential in developing a complete picture of electron acceleration during reconnection. The multispacecraft observations presented above not only provide evidence for the link between energetic electrons and magnetic islands, but also constrain the spatial extent of magnetic islands and their corresponding electron bursts. The structure of the observed islands necessitates a three-dimensional description. In the realm of solar flares, structures that are consistent with multiple magnetic islands in current sheets above flaring arcades have been reported</p><p> </DIV></p><p> The main point is that they have identified in the data signatures(such as the bursts of electrons and density enhancements and so on) that support this mechanism of electron acceleration, and claim that electric fields cannot be the primary factor. They also make a claim that, while they don't state it explicitly, this idea does not violate Maxwell's equations, since the electrons gain energy through Fermi reflection(or acceleration as it is also known) rather than by the actual reconnection event. You can find a very basic description of Fermi acceleration on wikipedia(ugh), and find a numerical description in the Drake paper. </p><p>While this is not as solid/empirical as Birkeland's experiments, it is quite interesting and is a promising theory that still appears to be undergoing refinement. However, the basic concept has been observationally confirmed, and it seems to address at least some of the issues you have brought up. I understand it will take some time to read through it all, but feel free to ask anything regarding the basic overview of what I found until then and i'll answer it to the best of my abilities. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Before I do anything, could you clarify whether you desire something along the lines of the governing equations utilized in the numerical simulations dealing with reconnection, or a mathematical derivation from basic principles that shows reconnection can occur? I'm not sure if the latter exists or if we are relying on numerical MHD simulations backed up by observation. I sent an email to J. Borovsky(if you have the time look up some of his papers, he works extensively with magnetic reconnection models) since he doesn't appear to be in today asking for an explanation of why reconnection is believed to be physically valid, so hopefully he can help. I'll update you as I get more information...as I am still just a grad student this is also a learning experience for me, I don't claim to be an expert on this topic or anything, I am just using the resources I have to hopefully help put this argument to rest, to some extent. <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I think that what we are talking about here is a mathematical description of magnetic reconnection in which one can clearly see that there either is or is not a violation of Maxwell's equations. Whether or not magnetic reconnection actually occurs is a slightly different question from whether it is forbidden by Maxwell's equations. Numerical simulations would address the issue of the dynamics that describe an event but not whether it is in principle allowed.</p><p>As I understand it magnetic reconnection is nothing more than a topoligical change in a magnetic vector field such that the energy in the field is less following the change than before. Conservation of energy then implies that the energy lost in the field is found elsewhere, in this case in the plasma. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only thing the he actually "discovered" is that both of the magnetic reconnection models failed to accurately predict the order of events in the energy transfer process that generates aurora.When the principal investigator is saying things that are obviously not true, I really start to wonder about rest of the "interpretations" we might hope to get from this THEMIS mission. They falsified both models. That's all that they actually "discovered".Which is exactly why I listened to the entire audio interview and I read the materials he wrote before commenting on his statements.This notion of "stretch" is really misleading since "flow" would actually be a better term for the energy exchange process. It's never ending. Here by the way is a really good link to daily MHD simulation movies of this energy exchange process.http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/home.html It's not simply an induction driven "snap" like process. They used a rubber band analogy during the interview whereas they should have used a "river" or current "flow" analogy. The energy exchange is constant, it simply varies substantially from time to time both in terms of speed and density as the solar wind varies in speed and density. Here is a statement of faith, since it is certainly not a statement of fact. How exactly does a magnetic field (made of very light plasma) "store" energy exactly? This notion of magnetic fields "storing"" energy was repreated throughout the presentation, but then no one bothered to explain how energy is "stored" in magnetic field is that essentially composed of moving charged particles. Care to explain that storage process in some detail and explain how this "magnetic reconnection" process might be any different than say "induction" which is a better understood physical process related to electromagnetism?This is quite a "who's who" of scientists. Not one of them bothered to mention that Alfven was a critic of magnetic reconection theory or that Birkeland offered a competing model.Birkeland demonstrated that a "flowing" bombardment of a metallic magnetic sphere in a vacuum with "electrons" does indeed produce the patterns we observe in aurora. He also showed that it required constant current flow to generate this event. When did these folks do that with "magnetic reconnection" before making this bold and rather unbelievable (certainly unsupportable) statement? A simple "flinging" or "snapping" effect would not result in a steady stream on energy that is necessary to power aurora for hours and days. Like DrRocket's coil analogy, you might get some sort of temporary induction process inside the plasma from a collapse in the current flow from the sun and the "snap" in the magnetosphere that might result from the change in the field. They did however fail to demonstrate that a collapsing magnetic field releases a unique form of energy called "magnetic reconnection" that is somehow indistinguishable from ordinary plasma interactions. When was that ever done?Yes, but then they clearly don't understand the unique physical mechanism behind the energy release process of "magnetic reconnection". They don't seem to understand what powers the solar wind. What in the world could make you have faith that they understand this energy release process when it defied both of their "magnetic reconnection" models? That charged particle process was due to sustained current flow in Birkeland's experiments and he could vary the current flow to make the field glow brighter and even go away (at least in visible light) by decresing the flow of electrons. Never did these guys do such a thing with "magnetic reconnection". No, he is claiming that he has "discovered" that "magnetic reconnection" accelerates charged particles and that the magnetic reconnection process causes the aurora. He cannot support either claim based on these observations. Yes but Birkeland used a continously flowing cathode ray as the energy source of his aurora, and he stored and used "electrical energy" to sustain this auroral process for as long as he wanted, not "magnetic reconnection". This group never demonstrated any sort of physical or predictive link betwween auroral events and "magnetic reconnection", in fact they blew both of their own magnetic reconnection models out of the water.Fine. Let's focus on what they did claim and let's take a cold hard honest look at what they actually "discovered".They are attempting to "sterilize" an obviosly *electromagnetic* process and misrepresent it as a "magnetic reconnection" event. They may have "confirmed" that kinetic electrical energy flows through the aurora, but they never demonstrated two of their claims that A) "magnetic reconnection" accelerates plasma and/or charged particles, or that B) that process is somehow related to auroral activity.What? I could have picked every statement he made apart, but I chose to focus on the most important statments he made which are incorrect. They falsified both models they presented. They provided zero in the way of supporting evidence that magnetic reconnection did anything to anything during these observations. Yes there is. The "trigger" of the Northern Lights is *electrical flow*. It is in no way related to "magnetic reconnection" even if there were some kind of induction process going on due to changing *electro*magnetic fields. There is no emprically establsihed link between "magnetic reconnection" and auroral activity. When did they duplicate Birkeland's experiments using "magnetic reconnection" as the powers source? How did they "store" their energy source and how did they sustain this process for hours on end?What? This is a demonstratably false statement. They falsified both models. All they know is that the "event" began in the tail, they certainly don't know the "cause" or the "trigger" as you are calling it. And neither of those things occured in the order they predicted, even though they covered half of the possible combinations. Case closed. Magnetic reconnection "failed" to accurately predict the order of energy exchange event process and therefore these observations can in no way support the notion that "magnetic reconnection" is responsible for these events. PERIOD.No. It could only be "confirmed" by having correctly guessed the next sequence of events, otherwise it's just a "lucky guess", and not even a lucky guess in the final analsys. They could not have missed with both models on the first event since they covered both external bases with two different models. It wasn't a lucky guess, they actually hedged their bets. The only way to "confirm" this energy release proces is related to "magnetic reconnection" rather than some unrelated theory is to accurately predict the sequence of events and they didn't do that. The "trigger" is not determined by the fact that they saw an energy release process ocruring in back of the magnetotail. That is expected in EU theory too and it might be expected in any number of possible theories related to aurora. That is not "confirmation" of anything related to "magnetic reconnection". The only way that they could have confirmed their theory is to have accurately predicted something. They did not. They hedged their bets and took two theories and covered both possible external energy release points so there was no way for both of them to be incorrect both models as long as the Earth is not it's own energy source for aurora. No externally driven theory "predicts" that to be true. They could not have been wrong about which point released energy first since they covered both options and hedged their bets in such a way that the first "prediction" had to match one of the two models. You have conveniently and repeatedly ignored their comments about discovering a "pattern" in these events which they never did. Why did you fail to address this point?It wasn't a "surprise", it was a outright falsification of the second model! If you live by the pure observational sword (test), then you have to be willing to die by it too. That "surprise" demonstated that both popular magnetic reconnection theories were useless at predicting events in space. In fact they couldn't even decide on which model might be right before hand, and both of them were wrong, so the predictive power of this theory is 0 for 2 and has no predictive value and therefore no scientific value whatseover. They "spun" the "suprise" and then claimed it was "evidence" to support "magnetic reconnection". Come on. That "surprise "falsified" the second theory. End of story.The energy had to have originated *somewhere* and they covered both external options. The charged particle entry point is perfectly congruent with Birkeland experiments and a relatively negatively charged heliosphere theory. It is also contruent with the observation of acceleration of solar wind particles and Birkeland's model that dumps huge amounts of electrons into the Earth's atmosphere. How did they then decide that this entry location had anything whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection"? That model also bit the dust in the only real "prediction" that was related to "magnetic reconnection". What now? EU theory "predicts" a current flow can originate from the heliosphere and flow into the Earth's magnetotail. How do we decide whether Birkeland's original auroral model is correct or if "magnetic reconnection" was involved in this process? What useful "prediction" did "magnetic reconnection" really make when they couldn't actually "miss" on the first guess on the entry point of the energy? Note that Birkeland's model has several clear advantages already. It explains the acceleration process of those million million mile per hour charged particles that continiously accelerate from the sun. It explains the selective acceleration of HE+2 over HE+1 and explains why protons HE+2 and HE+1 are the most prevelelant ions in solar wind and in that specific order. Note too that the electrons are already in motion in Birkeland's model so no "induction" or "magnetic reconnection" event is necessary to explain the influx of electrons in the magnetotail, and it won't run out of energy once that magnetic field has changed to it's new postiion. Birkeland's model also explains the longevity of these events far better than an induction driven process or a magnetic reconnection driven process. Birkeland's model wins the Occum's razor arguement hands down because it's been emrically demonstrated in controlled conditions, and it requires no new exotic forms of energy to work.The only thing they actually "figured out" is the mechanics of the energy transfer process. They did not "discover" that "magnetic reconnection" was involved in this energy transfer process since both models failed to accurately predict these events.Why? Please explain "why" they believe they have achieved this?Well, Alfven wasn't able to kill of this particular Beast of the theory, so I certainly realize that I'm fighting an uphill battle on this subject. I'm also quite sure that they are busy already working on "posdicted" new set of "predictions" for their next model of "magnetifc reconnection" theory so they can claim that it accurately "predicts" future events. It's rare that we find such a blatent falsification for a theory being "spun" as some kind of "validation", or a clear movement of the goal posts. This one is simply over the top in terms of flaws and misrepsentations of the data and the meaning of these observations.They could not have "missed" on the first "prediction" of the magnetic reconnection models. One of their two models had to match or be close enough to be considered a "correct prediction" unless the Earth itself is the power source of aurora and nobody believes that. The only real "useful" "prediction" then of either model is how accurately it "predicts" the next sequence of events. Both models were falsified by the "surprise" they are talking about. The real "surprise" is that they then turned around and refered to this "surprise" as some kind of "evidence" of magnetic reconnection. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything they demonstrated the magnetic reconnection is *not* involved in this event since they falsified both popular models. The fact they couldn't even pick on to work with in the first place shows that they really don't know how it works and they can't predict much of anything with this theory. I have never seen a worse paper on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" nor have I seen one so easily picked apart in such a visual way using their own graphs and models. Three simple graphs which they themselves provide, show us that both models were falsified by the results of their observations. The rest of their presentation was pure spin, pure misrepresentation of the "evidence" and just plain bad science IMO. I'm embarassed for them. I've found flaws in papers and presentations before but this is like shooting fish in a barrel. Both models bit the dust. Both failed to provide useful predictions about energy flow. They never established the "cause" or the "trigger" as you call it of these events. They only "discovered" (actually observed) a series of events that "surprised" them because none of their magnetic reconnection models models panned out or correctly predicted the outcome. That's why they were "surprised". What's really hard to believe is the number of misleading and obviously false statements that they made on the website about finding "patterns" that somehow support "magnetic reconnection". The only "pattern" of energy flow that they observed did not match with their pattern of predictions so in no possible way could this data be considered "evidence" in support of magnetic reconnection theory. If anything, it damages the theory significantly. Birkeland's model also predicts that electrons will enter the magnetotail and sometimes Earth could even be hit from the front in his model by a cathode beam depending on the direction of the cathode rays coming back from the sun. In no way did these folks falsify Birkeland original aurora model which was powered by external electrical currents. The teardrop shape of the sun's heliosphere also supports Birkeland's theory, as does the solar wind acceleration and the selective acceleration of light highly positively charged ions in the solar wind. All of these energy "trigger" (observed) events are entirely consistent with EU theory so the first observation of energy transfer in the magnetotail cannot possibly rule out Birkelands basic EU theory in favor of "magnetic reconnection" theory.I'm not the one trying to "sell" a "surprise" as a "verification" based on a "pattern" that didn't match the "prediction" in a "test" without a control mechanism.It's also common knowledge that electrical currents heat plasma to million degree temperatures but the temperature and behaviors of of coronal loops mystify these guys. It's also common knowledge that electrical discharges release gamma reya. x-rays, and pinch neutrons from plasma, and we observe such events in the solar atmosphere which "surprise" them too. It's common knowledge that charge separation can selectively accelerate charge particles and sustain that acceleration over long periods of time, just like we observe in the solar wind, but the solar wind process mystifies them too. It's common knowledge that auroral events can be "triggered" by electron flows, but they keept trying to call it "magnetic reconnection". It's common knowledge that Alfven rejected the idea of "magnetic reconnection" yet they attempted to associated his name with this topic and not one of them bothered to mention that small point. They falsified both models and then made wild claims that are extremely easy to pick apart and that are not supported by their own data! I've honestly never seen a sloppier or more flaw riddled and embarassing paper and presention in my whole life. This was not just a bad presentation, it was a terrible one. I can't believe you're actually defending it frankly. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That is a huge wall of text that barely addresses any of the points I made. I think our debate has reached its end.</p><p>I have presented what I consider to be a logical, well defined argument that supports the finding of the paper that has been published. I'm sure you consider your argument and rebuttals well defined as well.</p><p>At this point, I'm confident my case, as I have presented it, is more than sufficient that any readers of this thread (if there are any left) will be capable of making a judgement for themselves who has presented a better case that they may choose to follow up with.</p><p>If you think I have neglected to address anything, feel free to point it out (with context)... I will address it.</p><p>This thread is, thankfully, taking a turn to the more technical aspects of magnetic reconnection for which I, freely admitting, am not up to par on. </p><p>From here, I will step aside and let those more inclined to address said aspects do so without me diluting the signal to noise ratio with our attempts at logic.</p><p>Of course, I will gladly continue to follow the thread and chime in should I see what I consider illogical attempts at refutations and rebuttals. </p><p>And, Michael, I added a brief description <strong>here</strong> to the THEMIS wiki page concerning these recent findings. It's only a few sentences, but I think it is a fair assessment. Here's what I added:</p><p><em>On 26 February 2008, THEMIS probes were able to determine, for the first time, the triggering event for the onset of magnetospheric substorms <sup class="reference">[8]</sup>. Two of the five probes, positioned approximately one third the distance to the moon, measured events suggesting a magnetic reconnection event 96 seconds prior to Auroral intensification<sup class="reference">[9]</sup>. Dr. Vassilis Angelopoulos of the University of California, Los Angeles, who is the principal investigator for the THEMIS mission, claimed, "Our data show clearly and for the first time that magnetic reconnection is the trigger."<sup class="reference">[10]</sup>.</em></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>As you must know by now, I have a great deal of respect for you on many levels, but IMO you simply demonstrated why WIKI is not actually a very trustworthy source of hard core scientific information on particular topics of interest. You openly admit that you are not on par with this conversation, but you still went out of your way to repreat a statement on WIKI that is being hotly contested the very first week of it's publication. I've yet to see any of the authors of this paper or the panel members of that audio interview come over here to defend themselves on the points that I have made (I did email the lead author by the way), nor did you address the points that I made in a straight forward, non emotional, head on emprical manner. In short, your WIKI addition is premature IMO since both of their magnetic reconnection models were in fact falsified by their findings. </p><p>At no single point in this short duration event did their actual predictions match with real life observation at a level that is statisically higher than pure random probability, and both of their magnetic reconnection models ultimately failed to accurately predict the observed chain of events.. The point of entry of the electron flow (we all seem to agree that there is current flow involved, and there is a current sheet involved in this particle acceleration process) would be located in exactly in the same location in's Birkeland's basic EU theory. Wheither this was a simple influx of electrons along the magnetic flow lines or some new form of exotic paritcle accleration remains to be seen. Certainly no one eliminated Birkeland's basic EU "current flow"" model by these observations. No one has yet explained how "magnetic reconnection" is sustained for hours and days or how it is actually a unique form of energy release and different from ordinary (Alfven described) electircal reconnections and kinetic particle interactions in plasma. IMO should have at least waited to see how this discussion played out before deciding to add coments to WIKI. I think you'll ultimately regret that move. I learned a long time ago that WIKI is both a useful resource and also ao wealth of misinformation depending on the topic. I'm personally far more concerned about NASA's website than WIKI. NASA usually requires much higher standards.</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'>I've been reading more into the Nature article I posted and it seems to be as close to a valid physical explanation that I can find. The original article I posted is the presentation of the theory that energetic electrons are accelerated to suprathermal energies via Fermi reflection, where, in basic terms, the electron bounces between a large number of these magnetic "islands". The Fermi mechanism was studied independently of the parallel electric fields associated with magnetic reconnection to verify that they are capable of such acceleration(they call them "squashed flux bubbles" in this case). In the paper they provide a number of equations that describe the energy gain associated with these islands as well as the associated magnetic fields. The paper goes on to make predictions regarding the implications of such a model and requests verification from satellite missions. In the 2008 Asnes paper I mentioned before, they mention this model in passing, stating that their observations may support it in paragraph 27. When I noticed that I didn't think that was a strong enough foundation for this argument so I chose not to get further into it. However, I was directed to another 2008 article in Nature(Chen et al.) where they present more solid evidence of the concept of magnetic islands. I was frankly a little surprised to see that they start out by saying that electric fields are the primary mechanism for electron acceleration at the so-called "X-line", based on particle-in-cell(PiC) simulations. </DIV></p><p>This is the sort of "revelation" that worries me frankly. I'm sure that a change in the electric field at the end of the magnetotail (or an X-point in a current sheet) will certainly result in a change in the energy flow at that location and that could easily result in particle acceleration. Such statements would in fact suggest to me that "magnetic reconnection" is nothing more than "current flow" with a fancy and misleading name. I'm concerned here with physical and mathematical details because "magnetic reconnection" looks every bit like "electrical activity" as far as I can tell. It certainly walks like an elecrical duck in the sense that it takes place inside of a current sheet. It quacks like an electrical duck by accelerating charged particles like ordinary electricity, and it has all the same exact features of some sort of "duck turbulance" that might be observed due to a large flow of electrons into an electrically interacting current sheet event in plasma. Without physical and mathmatical models to differentiate this presumed "magnetic goose" from ordinary changes in the electrical "duck" field, I see no way to falsify the concept of magnetic reconnection and it still looks like a simple current flow event based on the necessary changes in the electric field. </p><p>I really need to do some reading before I comment much further on the "islands" of magnetism idea. Magnetic fields and electric fields are directly related to each other, particularly inside of current sheet in plasma. Alfven talks about how you can treat the event in terms of the magnetic or the electric field in such events and he points out where one has to be careful in trying to apply each of them. He roughly equates the magnetic way of looking at it as the "wave" or "field" method of energy flow whereas he refers the electrical methods as a "particle" method of describing energy transfer events and he moves back and forth between them with the grace of a real MHD expert. He does however spend a great deal of time in his book Cosmic Plasmas explaining magnetosphere events in terms of electrical field changes, so this idea that the electrical field is doing the real work seems congruent with everything he said, and it looks then like the term "magnetic reconnection" is simply a slang term for "current sheet acceleration" or "changes in the electric field". This isn't making me any more comfortable about the concept of magnetic reconnection being a unique form of energy transfer. FYI, Alfven wrote all about these very topics in that paper I cited for you, and I need to also refresh my memory on that paper as well before we proceed.</p><p>I do not have a problem with the idea of high energy particle acceleration in a curernt sheet since the Rhessi satellite has shown that electrical discharges on Earth emit gamma rays, and coincindently it also observes gamma rays from the sun's atmosphere as well. I'm certain that both events are current sheet driven events. I'm just trying to figure out a logical way to "test" for a unique form of energy release called "magnetic reconnection", particularly if the electrical field is doing all the real work. </p><p>IMO Birkeland's model is still far superior because it has not only been "tested" by these same observations, he built true emprical experiments to show the connection between electircal field changes and aurora. There is no doubt in my mind that sustained electrical fields can cause auroral events. I simply doubt that magnetic reconnection is a truly unque form of energy release and the more I'm reading, the more evidence i see that they may be exactly the same thing "electrical flow' with two different names. </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'>He does however spend a great deal of time in his book Cosmic Plasmas explaining magnetosphere events in terms of electrical field changes, so this idea that the electrical field is doing the real work seems congruent with everything he said, and it looks then like the term "magnetic reconnection" is simply a slang term for "current sheet acceleration" or "changes in the electric field". This isn't making me any more comfortable about the concept of magnetic reconnection being a unique form of energy transfer. FYI, Alfven wrote all about these very topics in that paper I cited for you, and I need to also refresh my memory on that paper as well before we proceed.I do not have a problem with the idea of high energy particle acceleration in a curernt sheet since the Rhessi satellite has shown that electrical discharges on Earth emit gamma rays, and coincindently it also observes gamma rays from the sun's atmosphere as well. I'm certain that both events are current sheet driven events. I'm just trying to figure out a logical way to "test" for a unique form of energy release called "magnetic reconnection", particularly if the electrical field is doing all the real work. IMO Birkeland's model is still far superior because it has not only been "tested" by these same observations, he built true emprical experiments to show the connection between electircal field changes and aurora. There is no doubt in my mind that sustained electrical fields can cause auroral events. I simply doubt that magnetic reconnection is a truly unque form of energy release and the more I'm reading, the more evidence i see that they may be exactly the same thing "electrical flow' with two different names. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> You are leaving out the part where I mention they discredit the idea that electric fields are the primary mechanism. The electric field was only shown by simulations to be the primary acceleration mechanism in a 2D simulation. As they say, in 3D the area that the electric field dominates is a small fraction of the total flare volume, so they conclude something else has to be responsible. Regarding your interpretation that this island idea is another way of saying current flow...well, it is. The question is how the current flow gets accelerated. I am not arguing or not recognizing that electric fields and magnetic fields are intimately connected, that fact has been driven into anyone's head who has ever taken a basic physics class. The acceleration does occur in a current sheet, that is not being debated. The theory presented by Drake is unique and has unique signatures which have been detected, so i'm not sure how that doesn't fit your desire "' just trying to figure out a logical way to "test" for a unique form of energy release called "magnetic reconnection"". These papers explain and support a theory of particles being accelerated in a magnetic nature without, as far as I can tell, violating any laws of physics. This debate can't procede any further until you read through the papers, so i'll let this go until then. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You are leaving out the part where I mention they discredit the idea that electric fields are the primary mechanism. The electric field was only shown by simulations to be the primary acceleration mechanism in a 2D simulation. </DIV></p><p>If you've already pinned the "cause" in 2D, what makes you think it changes in 3D?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As they say, in 3D the area that the electric field dominates is a small fraction of the total flare volume, so they conclude something else has to be responsible.</DIV></p><p>Well, this was simply a false assumption from the start. The coronal loops are electrified current carrying threads, much like you might find in an ordinary plasma ball, only scaled over many orders of magnitude. A solar "flare" is a direct result of an *electrical* reconnection event where the current carrying channels connect with other current carrying channels, or directly to the heliosphere. Their *assumpions* as simply false, and therefore their simulations don't work out right. </p><p>Here's where I see this conversationi headed. You're attempting to use the Hall effect to support this idea, but the Hall effect is a classic sign of "current flow", not a sign of 'magnetic reconnection". This "magnetic reconection" supposedly takes place inside the x-point of a current sheet, a location that certainly going to have a variable electrical field. Alf of these event's *require* the flow of current, and we should expand our defintion of "current flow" to include the movement of all types of charged particles, not just electrons. The kinetic energy of the movement of these changed particles occassionally interact with moving charged particles in the other current stream and that is ultimately the release of energy you are observing from these plasma events. With enough current, plasma forms filament channels like that ordinary plasma ball, or those powerful coronal loops. The kinetic energy combined with the "pinching" effect from the magnetic field can even be shown to pinch neutrons from plasma. Indeed, Rhessi observes these signatures, along with gamma ray signatures from the sun's atmosphere.</p><p>All of these are current driven events, along with the acceleration of the solar wind. The movement of charged particles is called "current flow", not "magnetic recnnection".</p><p>Hannes Alfven expressly rejected any concepts related to "magnetic reconnection" in current carrying plasma and called these theories misleading. He suggested that we pay no attention to them. The power source is the electric field, not "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>What's never explained in these magnetic reconection theories is how magnetic fields might "store' energy. That can only occur by increasing the speed of the charged particle movement inside the current carrying thread. </p><p>All of this comes back to electricity and the topic of this thread. For whatever reason this industry just has a tough time accepting that we live in an electric unverise. Birkeland had no such trouble, nor did Bruce or Alfven or any number of EU proponents. As a result Birkeland was able to build real physical experiments to test his ideas and show how aurora were related to electircal current flows. He talked about the movements of charged particles and he simulated coronal loops in his lab, as well as planetary rings and other phenomenon we observe in space.</p><p>The only reason that I can see that this energy release process inside of a curernt sheet is being called "magnetic reconnection" is because nobody in the industry wants to say "current flow" for fear of being ostricized and being cut off from the publishing world.</p><p>These "magnetic reconnection" events won't work without current flow. They are current flow driven events. The only physical experiments related to magnetic reconnection took place inside a current sheet and all the energy was stored and delivered to the point of interest in the form of electrons. IMO this definition of "magnetic reconnection" is simply "current flow" by a misleading name.</p><p>I find myself in the strange position of defending Alfven's rejection of this idea when this speicfiic idea was never physical demonstreted in the first place. It's completely backwards from how MHD theory was put together, and how science is supposed to work. While some concepts in astronomy are tough to simulate in a lab, this one should not be since it's supposedly happening all the time around our planet. Why hasn't this idea been emprically demonstrated? How do we distinguish this energy release process from ordinary collisions in current flow streams? </p><p>The way I see things, this specific definition is physically indistinguishable from "electricity", the one forbidden topic of astronomy. That's why it's being called "magnetic reconnection". 
</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> <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 you've already pinned the "cause" in 2D, what makes you think it changes in 3D?</DIV></p><p> 2D simulations are typically used as approximations when 3D simulations would be too time-consuming or unnecessary. If the results are different when you add another dimension, then i'd say it is pretty darn necessary to perform them and figure out why they differ. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>. Alf of these event's *require* the flow of current, and we should expand our defintion of "current flow" to include the movement of all types of charged particles, not just electrons.</DIV></p><p>And...flowing current is associated with magnetic fields. Nobody is arguing that current flow isn't occurring. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What's never explained in these magnetic reconection theories is how magnetic fields might "store' energy. </DIV></p><p>Now you're arguing semantics...the papers I provided give both a mathematical and physical explanation of how the particle gains energy as it bounces among these magnetic islands without referring to it as energy storage. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only reason that I can see that this energy release process inside of a curernt sheet is being called "magnetic reconnection" is because nobody in the industry wants to say "current flow" for fear of being ostricized and being cut off from the publishing world.These "magnetic reconnection" events won't work without current flow. They are current flow driven events. </DIV></p><p>First of all, I know many people whose entire career is based on the idea of magnetic reconnection...trust me, they believe it and aren't just scared they won't get published anymore. Also, once again I NEVER said that current flow does not occur in these events. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IMO this definition of "magnetic reconnection" is simply "current flow" by a misleading name.I find myself in the strange position of defending Alfven's rejection of this idea when this speicfiic idea was never physical demonstreted in the first place. It's completely backwards from how MHD theory was put together, and how science is supposed to work. </DIV></p><p>It would be nice if the scientific community had the time to prove the invalidity of any and all opposing theories. The way the world works, the onus is on the opposition to prove the "accepted" theory wrong. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> While some concepts in astronomy are tough to simulate in a lab, this one should not be since it's supposedly happening all the time around our planet. Why hasn't this idea been emprically demonstrated? How do we distinguish this energy release process from ordinary collisions in current flow streams? The way I see things, this specific definition is physically indistinguishable from "electricity", the one forbidden topic of astronomy. That's why it's being called "magnetic reconnection". <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I feel in this post you are returning to the form I observed before I entered the conversation...by continuously bringing up the work of Birkeland and Alfven as you have 100 times already you sound more and more like a disgruntled scientist who is getting frustrated that nobody is listening to them. However, I alluded to before and will say again that I find no fault in Alfven's work or Birkeland's experiments...what the magnetic island theory is describing is how the particles get accelerated. Seeing the end result, whether it be simulated aurorae or say, the decay rate of a radioactive sample, is much much easier than proving the mechanism empirically. It took the work of Bohr et al who created many theories of the atom to determine the mechanism which reproduced the observed results. You say it should be easy since its always happening...is it easy to simulate weather accurately, or the flow of a river? It can be done, but through the use of computer modelling. You seem to have no respect for results obtained via computer simulations...yet at the same time you pick something they say(regarding electric fields being the mechanism in 2D) that was determined via a simulation. Do you believe them or only when they support you? </p><p>The bottom line is that I am done with this conversation until you give the papers a fair chance and address ALL the points they make, not just the ones that you can twist to support your argument. This conversation has been fairly reasonable but it is turning more into me trying to convince someone who is covering their ears and repeating the same arguments again and again. I have presented a new theory that is both modern and accepted by the community(Nature is a very prestigious journal). Please try to read it without bias and don't just stop reading and say "Alfven said this cant be true" and throw it away the moment they mention magnetic reconnection. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I feel in this post you are returning to the form I observed before I entered the conversation...by continuously bringing up the work of Birkeland and Alfven as you have 100 times already you sound more and more like a disgruntled scientist who is getting frustrated that nobody is listening to them. However, I alluded to before and will say again that I find no fault in Alfven's work or Birkeland's experiments...what the magnetic island theory is describing is how the particles get accelerated. Seeing the end result, whether it be simulated aurorae or say, the decay rate of a radioactive sample, is much much easier than proving the mechanism empirically. It took the work of Bohr et al who created many theories of the atom to determine the mechanism which reproduced the observed results. You say it should be easy since its always happening...is it easy to simulate weather accurately, or the flow of a river? It can be done, but through the use of computer modelling. You seem to have no respect for results obtained via computer simulations...yet at the same time you pick something they say(regarding electric fields being the mechanism in 2D) that was determined via a simulation. Do you believe them or only when they support you? </p><p>The bottom line is that I am done with this conversation until you give the papers a fair chance and address ALL the points they make, not just the ones that you can twist to support your argument. This conversation has been fairly reasonable but it is turning more into me trying to convince someone who is covering their ears and repeating the same arguments again and again. I have presented a new theory that is both modern and accepted by the community(Nature is a very prestigious journal). Please try to read it without bias and don't just stop reading and say "Alfven said this cant be true" and throw it away the moment they mention magnetic reconnection. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> ... I have presented a new theory that is both modern and accepted by the community(Nature is a very prestigious journal). <strong>Please try to read it without bias and don't just stop reading and say "Alfven said this cant be true" and throw it away the moment they mention magnetic reconnection</strong>. <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Emphasis mine.</p><p>I think there are quite a few of us who would like to see this happen. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
[<br /><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 2D simulations are typically used as approximations when 3D simulations would be too time-consuming or unnecessary. If the results are different when you add another dimension, then i'd say it is pretty darn necessary to perform them and figure out why they differ.</DIV></p><p>Sure. I absolutely agree with you on that point, but then again, emprical testing is also required to verify why that might be, not simply a computer model. If they resloved the problem in 2D to "current flow" as Birkeland "predicted", what makes you think that the a well written 3D model will never resolve to current flow?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And...flowing current is associated with magnetic fields. Nobody is arguing that current flow isn't occurring. </DIV></p><p>Since this event presumably takes place inside of a current sheet, we need a logical way to eliminate kinetic energy and electrical energy as the "cause" of these acceleration events. Only a real experiment with real control mechnisms can do that, not just a computer model. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now you're arguing semantics...the papers I provided give both a mathematical and physical explanation of how the particle gains energy as it bounces among these magnetic islands without referring to it as energy storage. </DIV></p><p>First of all, from my perspective at least, the mainstream is guilty of agruing semantics since the term "magnetic reconnection" seems to be one and the same thing as "current flow". None of their magnetic reconnection models seems to work without it. Secondly, it is unclear to me how you expect to end up with persistent "magnetic islands" in the middle of a current stream of moving charged particles. What's making these "islands" stay put without "electricity" running through them? I'm not even clear why this particular theory is called magnetic reconneciton, because it's not clear to me that any magnetic lines are actually "reconnecting" at all.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First of all, I know many people whose entire career is based on the idea of magnetic reconnection...trust me, they believe it and aren't just scared they won't get published anymore. </DIV></p><p>Some folks may in fact believe it, but that doesn't mean everyone believes it, or that there there is no publishing bais going on out there. If you doubt that there is a publishing bias, show me even one EU theory published by a mainstream publication over the past 3 years. That lack of acceptability and lack of publication of EU theoreis has a direct effect on "beliefs" and it has an effect on what people write about and try to get published.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, once again I NEVER said that current flow does not occur in these events.</DIV></p><p>I think then that magnetic reconnection proponts are beholded to demonstrate that these are not ordinary kinetic and electrical "reconnection" events and these possibilites must be eliminated from considering in some emrpical manner. We all seem to agree that currrent flows ultimately genrates aurora. We do not all agree that "magnetic reconnection" is capable of accelerating charged particles. That's the claim that must be emprically demonstrated.<br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It would be nice if the scientific community had the time to prove the invalidity of any and all opposing theories. The way the world works, the onus is on the opposition to prove the "accepted" theory wrong.</DIV></p><p>No one can prove a negative, so the mainstream is beholden to demonstrate their point empirically. They didn't do that. Their THEMIS observations didn't even match the patterns predicted by their two different magnetic reconnection models. Why then are they claiming that "magnetic reconnection" was involved in the auroral process? Where's the evidence of this claim?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I feel in this post you are returning to the form I observed before I entered the conversation...by continuously bringing up the work of Birkeland and Alfven as you have 100 times already you sound more and more like a disgruntled scientist who is getting frustrated that nobody is listening to them.</DIV></p><p>I think you're missing a key issue here. I refer to Birkeland's work because I personally respect his work, the mainstream respects and accepts his work, and Birkeland showed an emprical link between "current flow" and auroral events around a sphere in a vacuum. Magnetic reconnection theory as you presented it also requires current flow so you also need his work to support your theory as much as I do. I only mention Alfven because these papers keep mentioning his name even though he was a harsh critic of magnetic reconnection theory. It's all about respect and the situation. I'm not disgruntled in the least, I'm just absolutely amazed (appauled) at the scientifically sloppy nature of the recent paper from the THEMIS group. They falsified both of their magnetic reconnection models and then called a falsifying set of obserations a "verification" of magnetic reconnection theory. Politicians engage in that type of behavior all the time, but scientists typically don't engage in such behaviors.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, I alluded to before and will say again that I find no fault in Alfven's work or Birkeland's experiments..</DIV></p><p>Nor do I. Thats why I fully believe that "current flow' can generate aurora. Birkeland's experiments "stored energy" in "electrons", it didn't store anything in the magnetic field that wasn't ultimately kinetic and electrical in nature. The themis team claimed that magnetic fields "Stored" energy in their interview, but they never explained how that energy was "stored".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.what the magnetic island theory is describing is how the particles get accelerated. </DIV></p><p>It's more than a bit confusing too. How *exactly* (be specific) are the particles being accelerated and how is that a "magnetic reconnection" event which is different from standad kinetic energy transfers? What powers these magnetic islands and keeps the there? How do they remain stable inside of a moving stream of charged particles? There are a lot of important and unanswered questions to deal with before I just sign off on this theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Seeing the end result, whether it be simulated aurorae or say, the decay rate of a radioactive sample, is much much easier than proving the mechanism empirically. </DIV></p><p>That's what makes Birkeland's work so impressive to me. He did emprically demonstrate the link between current flow and auroras. He did the hard part. He didn't just write down some math formulas, he showed that his ideas had emprical support in the real world in real experiments.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It can be done, but through the use of computer modelling. You seem to have no respect for results obtained via computer simulations...</DIV></p><p>The debate between emrpical physics and mathematicel modelling alone has been going on since the very start of EU theory. Chapman's elegant mathematical models were "popular" for more than 60 years until satellites in space verified that Birkeland was correct and Chapman was wrong. Mathematical models (computer variation or paper variations) alone cannot tells us how the real world operates. It wiill allow us to falsify theories, but they do not provide emprical support for any idea. Math alone can be and has been misleading over the course of history. FYI, Chapman spend his whole career on his ideas and he believed in them too. Belief and effort don't necessarily equate to "truth" unfortunately, and mathematical modeling (or computer modeling) cannot provide emprical support for an idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>yet at the same time you pick something they say(regarding electric fields being the mechanism in 2D) that was determined via a simulation. Do you believe them or only when they support you?</DIV></p><p>Of course not. If however the 2D simulation resolves itself to "current flow" just as Birkeland "predicted", then I also have confidence that a well written (correct) 3D model would do so as well. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The bottom line is that I am done with this conversation until you give the papers a fair chance and address ALL the points they make, not just the ones that you can twist to support your argument. </DIV></p><p>And indeed, I still have some reading to do.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This conversation has been fairly reasonable but it is turning more into me trying to convince someone who is covering their ears and repeating the same arguments again and again.</DIV></p><p>That's not fair. I could suggest the same thing about your as well, but it would not be correct. We're both listening to each other, even if we aren't agreeing on things. I'm trying to understand the basis for your personal brand of "magnetic reconnection' theory. The more I learn about it however, the less I am confident that there is any actual difference between "current flow" and "magnetic reconnection" other than the name it is being given. </p><p>The magnetic island idea does seem to be unique to 'magnetic reconnection" theory, but then we have to explain what makes "magnetic islands" form inside a flowing current of charged particles. We need to know what keeps it stable and how it "accelerates" the particles exactly. There are lot of questions yet that remain unanswered and I'm just getting started. I will continue to listen to you and I will continue to be responsive to your points, but as of this moment in time I still do not agree with you that any of these acceleration events are "cause" by "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>I have mentioned before and I'll mention again that I appreciate your efforst and the answers you have provided thus far. I am even more impressed with your level of maturity and your professional attitude. Keep in mind that ideas and belief systems change over time but your inner maturity is something you will always have and it will always benefit you regardless of what happens to your various belief systems over time. I do appreciate your work and your style. As much as I might like to agree with you from a personal perspective, this is ultimately a scientific issue that must be resolved to a scientific answer. I wish I were not a critic of this idea, but I can't simply change my opinions without emprical evidence to cause that change to occur. I'm not tyring to be "difficult", just "scientifically honest". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have presented a new theory that is both modern and accepted by the community(Nature is a very prestigious journal).</DIV></p><p>Yes, and that community preferred Chapman's ideas over Birkeland's ideas for many decades. Unfortunately popularity and prestigue are not a valid barometer of "truth". I realize that magnetic reconnection theory is "popular'. That was not ever in doubt.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please try to read it without bias and don't just stop reading and say "Alfven said this cant be true" and throw it away the moment they mention magnetic reconnection. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I am doing that and I will continue to do that, but you must also try to put yourself into the shoes of a skeptic of this theory. Alfven rejected any notion of "magnetic reconnection" inside of a current carrying plasma. Even still, I am personally trying to give your "magnetic island" concept a fair shake. I still am skeptical of the idea and there are many questions that remain unanswered, but I'm not simply writing off the idea because Alfven said I should. I still can't ignore what he said, and I can't deny that his statements do have merit and they come from a reliable source. </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'>Emphasis mine.I think there are quite a few of us who would like to see this happen. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The easy way to convince me that he was wrong is to produce a controlled experiment that proves that he was wrong. Since none of you can do that, I'm not sure how you intend to even support the idea scientifically. let alone get me to change my opinion on this topic. Why would a skeptic believe in any scientific theory that wasn't emprically demonstrated in some way?</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>Re: your second to last post</p><p>The answers you seek(how the magnetic islands accelerate particles, and so on) are in the papers(see the extensive discussion on Fermi acceleration in the Drake paper). Every theorist's dream is to have a way to empirically prove their theory correct, because nothing is more convincing. However, I don't see how proving magnetic reconnection wrong is impossible. Many people have proven a negative(Earth is not the center of the solar system/universe, and so on...there are countless examples of people saying things are one way and someone else coming along and saying "no they aren't (and, here's the important part) and here's why". I am pretty sure you will claim Birkeland already proved this, and while he was correct in saying that current flow produces aurora, it does not prove that magnetic reconnection or some variation of the theory was the mechanism which accelerated the electrons to begin with. For the other people who may be reading this(who knows if anyone still is, but it appears at least DrRocket is keeping up with it), I'd like to address at least one of your questions regarding the nature of these islands. Here is a quote from the Drake paper that provides some of the information you want:</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Islands therefore should be volume filling in a region around a large-scale X-line (Fig. 4a). In such a picture, islands form, grow and contract. After contraction, the magnetic energy having been released, the island merges with a neighbour (lower current layer in Fig. 1b), completing its life cycle. Particles gain energy through Fermi acceleration in a sequence of islands.</DIV></p><p>You also asked how this takes magnetic reconnection into account or something along those lines...it begins by assuming the particles are in a current sheet produced by magnetic reconnection. That is what they input into the computer model and that is what they base the physics on. I do admit the theory sounds a bit off the wall, and I was questioning of it given that they provide sort of a disclaimer at the end saying that people should begin searching for the signatures they predict under this model. The 2008 nature paper is the verification they wanted. There is now evidence that magnetic islands do exist and can accelerate electrons during reconnection events. </p><p>More evidence is needed to prove the finer details of the theory, but they have passed the level where they have observational support of their theory, a point where many theories never get. If it were possible to create a reconnection event in the lab, i'm sure someone would have done it. Just as i'm sure if someone could have simulated the formation of a star or the creation of the solar system, they would have. We are limited by our intellectual abilities as well as our lab technology. Just because nobody has been able to recreate something in the lab does not mean it is false. </p><p>And I don't feel i've been repeating myself. In each post i've either been answering your questions or posting a new paper every time. We all have our biases, and I would be more than happy to rethink my position if solid, modern evidence was revealed supporting EU theory. There isn't a conspiracy against EU. The reason we have refereed journals is to prevent information from being presented without a convincing argument backed up with good evidence. That could include anything from empirical evidence to a computer model. Has there been any significant developments in EU theory since Birkeland and Alfven? Or has everything you have read just been a rehash of what they did? If it is the latter, there's the reason it isn't published. Magnetic reconnection is being rethought and refined frequently as new data continues to come in. However, the basic concept has endured the test of time, and will be the prevailing thought until the other side proves them wrong...not even empirically, but with models and data. </p><p>Perhaps you could clarify things...Assume for the moment that magnetic reconnection does occur as the community believes. Why do you feel it is not possible for current flow to exist under such a system? If it could, then there should be no reason why you would disagree with it, since there is empirical evidence that current flow does produce aurorae. Magnetic reconnection addresses the mechanism, not really the event itself. Without using a magnetic reconnection model, can you explain why the z component of the magnetic field suddenly reverses in what they believe are reconnection events? Why do you feel Hall current is not related to reconnection despite the fact that models have shown that it is? How can you account for the signatures predicted by the magnetic island theory that were observed? These questions have all been addressed by studies through observation or modelling showing that they are physically valid. Yes models can be wrong, but you refer to a rather old model...the modelling techniques used now are extremely sophisticated. They can still be incorrect, but the way things work now, they are generally assumed to be the way things work(in some cases they oversimplify things) if they can reproduce the observed results. It is the responsibility of the skeptics to provide counter evidence, such as a valid model that makes a different claim or shows that the other model is invalid. What you are asking of the holders of the majority opinion is to do what you yourself say is impossible...that is, prove a negative(i.e. that their theory is not wrong). </p><p>Whoever is correct remains in the air...but as things are now, there is a much larger volume of evidence supporting reconnection, while EU relies primarily on the work of two esteemed, revered, yet unfortunately dead scientists. Without their presence, it is difficult to have an argument, since it is a bit one-sided. As of yet nobody has stepped up to take their place as the advocate of EU theory. I realize I may be entirely wrong, but as an aspiring professional scientist who wants to get into theoretical work(if you can't tell i'm a believer in computer simulations and that is what I will be doing my Ph.D. work on), I must believe the theory that has provided the most compelling evidence. In this case, I feel it is magnetic reconnection. Please don't interpret my words as anger, it is just frustrating me that you are trying to poke holes in a theory that i've merely provided an overview of. I'd much rather wait and hear what you have to say after reading it through and giving it some thought. Only then can this conversation proceed without it devolving into a back-and-forth "You're wrong" " No you are" "NO YOU"and so on and so on.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Re: your second to last postThe answers you seek(how the magnetic islands accelerate particles, and so on) are in the papers(see the extensive discussion on Fermi acceleration in the Drake paper). </DIV></p><p>I'll let you know when I've finished reading it and/or if I have any more questions. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Every theorist's dream is to have a way to empirically prove their theory correct, because nothing is more convincing. </DIV></p><p>Indeed. That is why EU theory is so convincing to me in fact. Every core tenet on which it is built is based on emprically supported statements of fact. It enjoys not only a strong mathematical foundation, but more importantly and impressively, it's been simulated down to incredible detail, including coronal loops, auroras, planetary rings, high energy discharges, etc. There is no guess work involved and it is a form of pure emprical physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, I don't see how proving magnetic reconnection wrong is impossible.</DIV></p><p>There may a dozen variations on "magnetic reconnection" theory and thousands of opinions about how it works. Those ideas may change over time. I can't falsify an infinite possible number of varying versions of "magnetic reconnection" theory. It is up to proponents of that theory to use that theory to simulate the same things that Birkeland was able to do, otherwise Birkeland's "current flow" theory will forever remain superior to this theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Many people have proven a negative(Earth is not the center of the solar system/universe, and so on...there are countless examples of people saying things are one way and someone else coming along and saying "no they aren't (and, here's the important part) and here's why". I am pretty sure you will claim Birkeland already proved this, and while he was correct in saying that current flow produces aurora, it does not prove that magnetic reconnection or some variation of the theory was the mechanism which accelerated the electrons to begin with. </DIV></p><p>Well, you correctly guesed my response by the way. Birkeland showed that an *external* (to the solar system) energy source could have these important atmospheric effects (aurora, rings, coronal loops, "jets", etc) on spheres in a vacuum. You (they) are trying to show that you/they can somehow generate all this elecrical flow from some kind of "magnettic reconnection" that is evidently different from induction or any current flow process. That's the part that remains undemonstrated. The other common statement that was made by the Themis panel is that magnetic fields "store" energy that is "snapped" back into the aurora. How is that energy stored, or are you taking my side in that particular debate? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For the other people who may be reading this(who knows if anyone still is, but it appears at least DrRocket is keeping up with it), I'd like to address at least one of your questions regarding the nature of these islands. Here is a quote from the Drake paper that provides some of the information you want:You also asked how this takes magnetic reconnection into account or something along those lines...it begins by assuming the particles are in a current sheet produced by magnetic reconnection.</DIV></p><p>There is a "chicken or the egg" question here. Is the current sheet already there, or is produced by the "magnetic reconnection" event? Birkeland's "current flow" model required a steady external bombardment of electrons in order to work. It was not a "one time" event. He varied the visible light around the aurora by changing the amount of current that passed through the system. When he cranked up the current flow, the aurora lit up brightly. When he turn them down it would would still experience current flow, but not much visible light came from the poles. </p><p>When he changed the relative charge of the exterior of the sphere from negative to positive, he created powerful coronal loop discharnges around the exterior of the sphere. He created "cathode ray beams" that emitted "jets" of plasma that came flowing off the sphere. We see all of these same events in Yohkoh, Hinode, SOHO, Trace, solar images of the sun </p><p>Every vital aspect of Birkeland's current flow model was simulated in his experiments, He left nothing to chance. It was all shown to have an emprical relationship to "current flow". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is what they input into the computer model and that is what they base the physics on. </DIV></p><p>The problem is that Chapman's theories worked well on paper, and they would have worked well in computer modeling too. They didn't work well in the real world however and in science we wish to know how the real world actually functions. Math and computers are not a valid substitute for sweat equity experimentation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do admit the theory sounds a bit off the wall, and I was questioning of it given that they provide sort of a disclaimer at the end saying that people should begin searching for the signatures they predict under this model. </DIV></p><p>The problem is that Hall signaturea are directly related to Birkeland's work because they are emprically and directly related to current flow events. It is a classic signature of Birkeland's current flow model. This is not evidence of "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>In the Themis paper, the only thing that could have been useful was their "prediction" of events as the current flow began. Since both of their models failed to accurately predict the sequence of events, normally this would be considered a falsification of the theory. In their case they called it evidence in favor of magnetic reconnection theory and that doesn't even make logical sense.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The 2008 nature paper is the verification they wanted. There is now evidence that magnetic islands do exist and can accelerate electrons during reconnection events.</DIV></p><p>One cannot verify a theory like this emprically with uncontrolled observations from space. One could only demonstrate this in the old fashion way, the way that Birkeland did it, in a lab, with controlled experiments. If these folks have a valid alternative to Birkeland's current flow model, let me see them reproduce his experiments with "magnetic reconnection" as the energy source. This would necessarily need to be a constant and ongoing process, not a one time inducution "snap" type of an event. I know of no way to "store" energy in magnetic field lines without a lot of current flow inside the plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>More evidence is needed to prove the finer details of the theory, but they have passed the level where they have observational support of their theory, a point where many theories never get. </DIV></p><p>What exactly (be specific) are you suggesting is "observational support" in that Themis paper that I have been criticizing?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If it were possible to create a reconnection event in the lab, i'm sure someone would have done it. </DIV></p><p>Princeton "claims" to have done it (sort of), but then all the events took place inside of a current sheet that was created by "storing electrons" which were then pumped through a coil to create movement in the plasma (current flow). In that case, the current flow definitely came first, so it's not "magnetic reconnection" as you describe it.</p><p>Keep in mind that in interplanetary space, charged particles are whizzing by at over million miles per hour, and by definition, a moving charged particle is a form of "current". You would never actually be able to demonstrate that magnetic reconnection came first and then current flow began form that event because current flow was always present throughout the entire event. </p><p>I need to take a call, so I'll stop here for now, but I will answer your other questions when I get some free time. </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>
Birkeland showed that an *external* (to the solar system) energy source could have these important atmospheric effects (aurora, rings, coronal loops, "jets", etc) on spheres in a vacuum. You (they) are trying to show that you/they can somehow generate all this elecrical flow from some kind of "magnettic reconnection" that is evidently different from induction or any current flow process. That's the part that remains undemonstrated. The other common statement that was made by the Themis panel is that magnetic fields "store" energy that is "snapped" back into the aurora. How is that energy stored, or are you taking my side in that particular debate? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For the other people who may be reading this(who knows if anyone still is, but it appears at least DrRocket is keeping up with it), I'd like to address at least one of your questions regarding the nature of these islands. Here is a quote from the Drake paper that provides some of the information you want:You also asked how this takes magnetic reconnection into account or something along those lines...it begins by assuming the particles are in a current sheet produced by magnetic reconnection.</DIV></p><p>There is a "chicken or the egg" question here. Is the current sheet already there, or is produced by the "magnetic reconnection" event? Birkeland's "current flow" model required a steady external bombardment of electrons in order to work. It was not a "one time" event. He varied the visible light around the aurora by changing the amount of current that passed through the system. When he cranked up the current flow, the aurora lit up brightly. When he turn them down it would would still experience current flow, but not much visible light came from the poles. </p><p>When he changed the relative charge of the exterior of the sphere from negative to positive, he created powerful coronal loop discharnges around the exterior of the sphere. He created "cathode ray beams" that emitted "jets" of plasma that came flowing off the sphere. We see all of these same events in Yohkoh, Hinode, SOHO, Trace, solar images of the sun </p><p>Every vital aspect of Birkeland's current flow model was simulated in his experiments, He left nothing to chance. It was all shown to have an emprical relationship to "current flow". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is what they input into the computer model and that is what they base the physics on. </DIV></p><p>The problem is that Chapman's theories worked well on paper, and they would have worked well in computer modeling too. They didn't work well in the real world however and in science we wish to know how the real world actually functions. Math and computers are not a valid substitute for sweat equity experimentation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do admit the theory sounds a bit off the wall, and I was questioning of it given that they provide sort of a disclaimer at the end saying that people should begin searching for the signatures they predict under this model. </DIV></p><p>The problem is that Hall signaturea are directly related to Birkeland's work because they are emprically and directly related to current flow events. It is a classic signature of Birkeland's current flow model. This is not evidence of "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>In the Themis paper, the only thing that could have been useful was their "prediction" of events as the current flow began. Since both of their models failed to accurately predict the sequence of events, normally this would be considered a falsification of the theory. In their case they called it evidence in favor of magnetic reconnection theory and that doesn't even make logical sense.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The 2008 nature paper is the verification they wanted. There is now evidence that magnetic islands do exist and can accelerate electrons during reconnection events.</DIV></p><p>One cannot verify a theory like this emprically with uncontrolled observations from space. One could only demonstrate this in the old fashion way, the way that Birkeland did it, in a lab, with controlled experiments. If these folks have a valid alternative to Birkeland's current flow model, let me see them reproduce his experiments with "magnetic reconnection" as the energy source. This would necessarily need to be a constant and ongoing process, not a one time inducution "snap" type of an event. I know of no way to "store" energy in magnetic field lines without a lot of current flow inside the plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>More evidence is needed to prove the finer details of the theory, but they have passed the level where they have observational support of their theory, a point where many theories never get. </DIV></p><p>What exactly (be specific) are you suggesting is "observational support" in that Themis paper that I have been criticizing?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If it were possible to create a reconnection event in the lab, i'm sure someone would have done it. </DIV></p><p>Princeton "claims" to have done it (sort of), but then all the events took place inside of a current sheet that was created by "storing electrons" which were then pumped through a coil to create movement in the plasma (current flow). In that case, the current flow definitely came first, so it's not "magnetic reconnection" as you describe it.</p><p>Keep in mind that in interplanetary space, charged particles are whizzing by at over million miles per hour, and by definition, a moving charged particle is a form of "current". You would never actually be able to demonstrate that magnetic reconnection came first and then current flow began form that event because current flow was always present throughout the entire event. </p><p>I need to take a call, so I'll stop here for now, but I will answer your other questions when I get some free time. </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'>As you must know by now, I have a great deal of respect for you on many levels, but IMO you simply demonstrated why WIKI is not actually a very trustworthy source of hard core scientific information on particular topics of interest. You openly admit that you are not on par with this conversation, but you still went out of your way to repreat a statement on WIKI that is being hotly contested the very first week of it's publication. I've yet to see any of the authors of this paper or the panel members of that audio interview come over here to defend themselves on the points that I have made (I did email the lead author by the way), nor did you address the points that I made in a straight forward, non emotional, head on emprical manner. In short, your WIKI addition is premature IMO since both of their magnetic reconnection models were in fact falsified by their findings. At no single point in this short duration event did their actual predictions match with real life observation at a level that is statisically higher than pure random probability, and both of their magnetic reconnection models ultimately failed to accurately predict the observed chain of events.. The point of entry of the electron flow (we all seem to agree that there is current flow involved, and there is a current sheet involved in this particle acceleration process) would be located in exactly in the same location in's Birkeland's basic EU theory. Wheither this was a simple influx of electrons along the magnetic flow lines or some new form of exotic paritcle accleration remains to be seen. Certainly no one eliminated Birkeland's basic EU "current flow"" model by these observations. No one has yet explained how "magnetic reconnection" is sustained for hours and days or how it is actually a unique form of energy release and different from ordinary (Alfven described) electircal reconnections and kinetic particle interactions in plasma. IMO should have at least waited to see how this discussion played out before deciding to add coments to WIKI. I think you'll ultimately regret that move. I learned a long time ago that WIKI is both a useful resource and also ao wealth of misinformation depending on the topic. I'm personally far more concerned about NASA's website than WIKI. NASA usually requires much higher standards. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The only person I see "hotly contesting" this is you. All I added to Wiki were the accurate statements... nothing debatable about them.</p><p>According the paper, it seems the two probes nearest to the event measured simultaneous changes in the current flow which is suggestive of a changing topology due to reconnection. Have you actually read the paper or are you just going off the NASA site which is nothing more than a simplified presentation for the layman?</p><p>You can claim that the sequence of events falsifies reconnection all you want, but you are quite simply wrong. </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>I believe you mentioned something about Princeton claiming to provide empirical evidence of reconnection. Is this what you were referring to? </p><p>http://w3.pppl.gov/theory/bin/PAPERS/paper1994g.pdf</p><p>I am not well-versed in laboratory physics, but it seems as though similar things were reproduced in these "tokamak" reactors. See</p><p>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v86/i14/p3036_1</p><p>http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PFBPEI000004000002000413000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes</p><p>They all demonstrate similar things: that electrons can be heated(accelerated) by driven magnetic reconnection. I am certain you will have some problem with these experiments...I can't guess what it is this time though, so please explain. The first one is unlicensed so everyone reading can look it over. The latter two are very similar studies done by Russia and England, respectively, so this is not just a Princeton claim. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>1. Kristian Birkland emprically demonstrated that "current flow" powers the aurora around spheres in a vaccuum (some plasma present of course). Current flow theory has been emprically demonstrated in controlled conditions.</p><p>2. "Magnetic reconnection" presumably generates "current flow". In other words "Magnetic reconnection" is nothing more than a theoretical 'method" to generate current flow and the acceleration of charged particles.</p><p>3. It therefore becomes a "chicken or the egg" question as it relates to whether or not "magnetic reconnection" generated the movement of charged particles or whether the current flow came first. Did magnetic reconnection generate the "current flow', or did the 'current flow" come first? That's really the core question as it relatss to this specific issue. One glance at those million mile per hour charged particles blowing through and around the entire magnetosphere clearly demonstrates that "current flow" came first, and "current flow" has been present for as long as the sun has been shining.</p><p>4. Maxwell's equations do not allow for the cutting and splicing of magnetic field lines and thereby releasing energy.</p><p>5. Hannes Alfven wrote a whole paper on this exact topic of magnetospheric activity, and attributed the energy release process to "current flow" in a manner that was consistent with Birkeland's emprical experiments and consistent with Maxwell's equations.</p><p>6. Hannes Alfven wrote another paper that was highly critical of "mangetic reconnection" ideas in these very same exact circumstances for the reasons outlined above.</p><p>7. Both of the magnetic reconnection models were falsified in the THEMIS observations. It is zero for 2 in "predictive" ability. </p><p>That nearly constant million mile per hour "current flow" from the sun blows this concept completely out of the water. The kinetic energy of charged particles was always present and it continues to be present inside of interplanetary space. Induction currents are being generated as moving charged particles run into the magnetosphere. Current flow has been ever prresent in interplanetary space, and current flow is causing electrical activity to occur at some level or another on pretty much every conducting body inside of interplantary space.</p><p>There is no such thing as magnetic reconnection. It is an unnecessary and surperflous concept as it relates to magnetospheric activity. It is completely unnecessary to resort to mangetic reconnection to explain current flow since "current flow" is already present within, around and through these events. Occum's razor says it is not required and therefore it has to go. </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'>There is no such thing as magnetic reconnection. It is an unnecessary and surperflous concept as it relates to magnetospheric activity. It is completely unnecessary to resort to mangetic reconnection to explain current flow since "current flow" is already present within, around and through these events. Occum's razor says it is not required and therefore it has to go. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Explain the experimental empirical results I posted without invoking magnetic reconnection. You are again claiming reconnection violates Maxwell's equations. I think that stems from an incomplete understanding of what magnetic reconnection is, judging by the fact that you continue to use loaded and not entirely accurate words like "cutting and splicing". I've given you all that you've asked for...mathematical models of the acceleration mechanism, observational evidence of it occurring, and now empirical demonstrations of its ability to accelerate electrons. You still have not commented in depth on anything i've posted. Until you do that, I am no longer going to post in this thread and let the readers decide who has put forth a more convincing argument. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I believe you mentioned something about Princeton claiming to provide empirical evidence of reconnection. Is this what you were referring to? http://w3.pppl.gov/theory/bin/PAPERS/paper1994g.pdfI am not well-versed in laboratory physics, but it seems as though similar things were reproduced in these "tokamak" reactors. Seehttp://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v86/i14/p3036_1http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PFBPEI000004000002000413000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yesThey all demonstrate similar things: that electrons can be heated(accelerated) by driven magnetic reconnection. I am certain you will have some problem with these experiments...I can't guess what it is this time though, so please explain. The first one is unlicensed so everyone reading can look it over. The latter two are very similar studies done by Russia and England, respectively, so this is not just a Princeton claim. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>All of these so called "magnetic reconnection" events take place inside of a "current sheet" full of moving charged particle that have emormous amounts of kinetic energy and that "reconnect" within the experiments. These are pure plasma physics events where physical turbulance becomes a huge factor. Alfven described all such events in terms of pure plasma physics. Again, the whole notion of "magnetic reconnection" becomes unnecessary to explain these current sheet events. I suspect that is why Alfven specifically rejected any concept of magnetic reconnection because it was unnecessary to explain z-pinch turbulance and high energy discharges with "magnetic reconnection" since it was easily explained by standard plasma physics. Z-pinch processes in plasma are known to release neutrons. Discharges in the Earth's atmosphere have been observed to emit gamma ray emissions. Both of these processes have been observed in the solar atmosphere and the propagations speed of events in the solar atmosphere matches lightening leader discharge events here on Earth.</p><p>All of these "current flow" events were explained by Hannes Alfven. He explained Bennet's z-pinch process in great detail and also the concept of turbulance inside of plasma.</p><p>Keep in mind that all of this comes back to the "chicken or the egg" question. Did "magnetic reconnection" cause the acceleration of charged particles or did the current flow come first. As it relates to localized acceleration processes inside of a "current flow", is that related to a z-pinch process, or something else, and how do you eliminate the former option when making up your mind? Keep in mind that if we looked at a cross section of plasma with a z-pinched like filament (like a plasma ball filament) running through it, it might very well look like there is a "magnetic island" that is sitting in the middle of the plasma sheet. That 'magnetic island" might even reflect charged particles. It is however a moving column of charged particles that are "pinched' together into tornado like column of flowing plasma. It is a "current flow" process from beginning to end, including the acceleration of charged particles that might reflect off the column, or even pick up energy from the moving column. The whole thing is however a "current flow" process from beginning to end. Alfven describes this process in terms of pure plasma physics based on the movement of charged particles, in other words "current flow". </p><p>None of these events are really that mysterious when you study Alfven's work. They are rather mystifying if one is not familiar with Alfven's work. Unfortunately I've never met a single astronomer that has ever read "Cosmic Plasma" when I first asked them about it, so I'm sure these processes seem rather mystifying to these folks.</p><p>Birkeland showed us that there is an emprical link between aurora and current flow. Magnetic reconnection is presumed to simply accelerate charged particles like that "island" we created with our current filament inside the cross section of the plasma sheet we looked at. The question then is only whether current flow came first or magnetic reconnection came first and since current flow is ever present inside of interpanetary space, we absolutely know that as it relates to auroral events, the currrent flow comes first. Any acceleration of charged particles can be explained by looking at a cross section of plasma when it contains a plasma filament. There is absolutely no need for "magnetic reconnection" to explain these events, and Occum's razor arguments therefore apply. "Off with it's head". </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><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'> Explain the experimental empirical results I posted without invoking magnetic reconnection. </DIV></p><p>I did that for you in the post you probably had not read yet. If you simply took the cross section of a plasma ball with a current filament running through it, those "magnetic islands" that you see are tornado like columns of moving plasma that emit charged particles and reflect charged particles. I can even explain those "magnetic islands" in terms of curernt flow. There is no need for "magnetic reconnection" to explain magnetic islands that accelerate charged particles. It is simple plasma physics that anyone can understand just by studying an ordinary plasma ball and some of Alven's MHD theory. No form of magnetic reconnection is required.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are again claiming reconnection violates Maxwell's equations. I think that stems from an incomplete understanding of what magnetic reconnection is, judging by the fact that you continue to use loaded and not entirely accurate words like "cutting and splicing". </DIV></p><p>That is because this theory, like all astronomy theories is presented by many different individuals in many different ways. There is no "consensus" on how it actually works from a physics perspective. There is no single way to explain it. The term itself however is entirely misleading to begin with because magnetic fields never "reconnect" in the first place. The choice of terms was poor to begin with. </p><p>You totally neglected by the way the whole presentantion was given by NASA. The THEMIS people stated that magnetic fields "stored" energy that "snapped" back into the aurora. They descried this process in great detail and certainly did describe it in terms of "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've given you all that you've asked for...mathematical models of the acceleration mechanism, observational evidence of it occurring,</DIV></p><p>And I have provided you with a current flow method to explain the accleration method from your paper *without* any form of 'magnetic reconnection". All you need is a plasma thread running through a plasma sheet and we can easily explain "magnetic islands" that acclerate charged particles *without* any form of magnetic reconnection. Occums' razor applies now.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and now empirical demonstrations of its ability to accelerate electrons.</DIV></p><p>Z-pinch processes in a current sheet would explain such acceleration observations without magnetic reconnection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You still have not commented in depth on anything i've posted. Until you do that, I am no longer going to post in this thread and let the readers decide who has put forth a more convincing argument. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>You know, that's unfair. I've spend a long time trying to understand how to "explain" those "magnetic islands" of yours and I gave everyone involved in the process the benefit of the doubt. I simply assumed that everyone was acting in good faith, and this "magnetic island" idea must resolve itself to a current flow process. I have explained that acceleration process to you now and I never once critized any of the authors of the papers you cited while I did it.</p><p>Here are some other things you need to address, not necessarily to me, but to yourself.</p><p>1. Rhessi has observed gamma rays from current flow discharges in the Earth's atmosphere and also from the solar atmosphere.</p><p>2. z-pinch forces can "pinch" free neutrons from plasma and these signatures have also been observed by Rhessi.</p><p>3. Birkeland simulated coronal loops, aurora and rings with "current flow". Current flow theory is emprically supported by active experimentation, and mathematical modeling.</p><p>4. Both magnetic reconnection models failed to accurately predict the sequence of observed events.</p><p>5. Dr. Charles Bruce has demonstrated the link between the propogation speeds of lighening on Earth and atmospheric changes in the solar atmosphere.</p><p>All of these observations resolve themselve to one simple premise: Currents flow through our solar system. </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'>...5. Dr. Charles Bruce has demonstrated the link between the propogation speeds of lighening on Earth and atmospheric changes in the solar atmosphere.All of these observations resolve themselve to one simple premise: Currents flow through our solar system. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Now come on Michael, you are holding back. He is new to the thread. You also ought to tell him (so he doesn't have to search back through nearly 30 pages) that, in your model, the sun is powered, not by fusion, but by these extermanly driven currents that flow through the solar system, which among other things cause the photosphere, which you believe to be largely neon, to glow. Let him understand your big picture. Remember that he is an astrophysics student -- discovery of the giant extension cord connected to the sun would be a major find, and certainly cap off a dissertation nicely. </p><p>http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/</p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.livescience.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/7/6b262e1b-608e-4e06-b7a6-4df0b5e8e9a5.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I did that for you in the post you probably had not read yet. If you simply took the cross section of a plasma ball with a current filament running through it, those "magnetic islands" that you see are tornado like columns of moving plasma that emit charged particles and reflect charged particles. I can even explain those "magnetic islands" in terms of curernt flow. There is no need for "magnetic reconnection" to explain magnetic islands that accelerate charged particles. It is simple plasma physics that anyone can understand just by studying an ordinary plasma ball and some of Alven's MHD theory. No form of magnetic reconnection is required.</DIV></p><p>The papers I posted with the experiments have nothing to do with magnetic islands. They were conducted as early as 12 years before the theory of magnetic islands was proposed. They addressed the question whether reconnection is capable of accelerating electrons to suprathermal energies. They created a reconnection event using a tokamak reactor and proved that reconnection is capable. I suppose you are arguing that they didn't create magnetic reconnection in their experiments, but I really don't understand how that argument holds any water. Using magnetic fields they were able to accelerate electrons to suprathermal energies. How is this not empirical evidence of the role magnetic fields/reconnection plays in accelerating electrons? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> </p><p>That is because this theory, like all astronomy theories is presented by many different individuals in many different ways. There is no "consensus" on how it actually works from a physics perspective. There is no single way to explain it. The term itself however is entirely misleading to begin with because magnetic fields never "reconnect" in the first place. The choice of terms was poor to begin with. You totally neglected by the way the whole presentantion given by NASA. </DIV></p><p>You are referring to the dumbed-down presentation they gave to the public. I read through that and have no comment except that it is often difficult to translate real science to the public. I have the actual paper the press conference wa sbased on in front of me and I have read through it many times. I see no problem with what they are saying. All they say in the paper is that reconnection events were noted on the order of minutes before a substorm occurred. They didn't falsify anything. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> </p><p> The THEMIS people stated that magnetic fields "stored" energy that "snapped" back into the aurora. They descried this process in great detail and certainly did describe it in terms of "magnetic reconnection". And I have provided you with a current flow method to explain the accleration method from your paper *without* any form of 'magnetic reconnection". All you need is a plasma thread running through a plasma sheet and we can easily explain "magnetic islands" that acclerate charged particles *without* any form of magnetic reconnection. Occums' razor applies now.Z-pinch processes in a current sheet would explain such acceleration observations without magnetic reconnection.</DIV></p><p>Please read through the paper and don't use a press conference as your source. If you look at even the abstract of the paper, all they say is "These results demonstrate that substorms are LIKELY(capitilization mine) initiated by tail reconnection." The paper does not use those words. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You know, that's unfair. I've spend a long time trying to understand how to "explain" those "magnetic islands" of yours and I gave everyone involved in the process the benefit of the doubt. I simply assumed that everyone was acting in good faith, and this "magnetic island" idea must resolve itself to a current flow process. I have explained that acceleration process to you now </DIV></p><p>You have not done so in a convincing manner using mathematical models or observational results. All you have said is that Birkeland demonstrated that current flow can produce aurorae, which nobody is disputing. He did not prove that magnetic reconnection isn't responsible for the acceleration of the electrons involved in real aurorae. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I never once critized any of the authors of the papers you cited while I did it.</DIV></p><p>Nor did I, unless you consider disagreeing with them as criticism. Any scientist, regardless of their prestige and reputation, is open for criticism. You even said yourself that just because journals such as Nature are prestigious does not mean we have to agree with everything they publish. The difference between you and the scientific community is you are not producing any new results to counter the current arguments. You will never convince anybody that your theory is correct until you provide a valid modern working model of your idea. You can't just keep referring to Alfven and Birkeland's work. I am quite sure someone has at least tried to put Alfven's ideas into a modern computer model...if they had succeeded, you would be able to quote me the paper they wrote about it. The point being, nobody is going to believe you if you can't produce modern, convincing arguments based on good science. You have the overwhelming task of disproving countless papers and science results that support magnetic reconnection theory. It can be done, but so far you haven't given solid arguments against any of the ideas presented. You say magnetic islands can be explained by plasma threads in a sheet etc. OK, prove it as they did. Refute their specific claims. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All of these observations resolve themselve to one simple premise: Currents flow through our solar system. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You say this as if it is some amazing revelation. Of COURSE it does. When an electron moves, that is current. Nobody is saying electrons remain stationary everywhere but on Earth's surface. We are not arguing that(at least, i'm not), we are arguing how the current gets accelerated to the levels it does in our magnetosphere. The person I got the lab result papers from told me I'm wasting my time and should just read them for my own benefit, because he saw the claim of magnetic reconnection being a myth so ludicrous that it is not worthy of consideration. I have tried to take a mature approach to it by giving the idea a chance(the only way science can advance is if people challenge existing theory/thought). However, I have come to the conclusion that there is a massive, overwhelming amount of evidence saying you are wrong in claiming that reconnection doesn't exist. Scientists must believe the argument with the most compelling evidence. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now come on Michael, you are holding back. He is new to the thread. You also ought to tell him (so he doesn't have to search back through nearly 30 pages) that, in your model, the sun is powered, not by fusion, but by these extermanly driven currents that flow through the solar system, which among other things cause the photosphere, which you believe to be largely neon, to glow. Let him understand your big picture. Remember that he is an astrophysics student -- discovery of the giant extension cord connected to the sun would be a major find, and certainly cap off a dissertation nicely. http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/ <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Given that my specialty is the theory of star formation and that is what my PhD work will concern, after glancing over that website my only reaction is "WHAT???" I can understand not accepting magnetic reconnection entirely...it is a theory that is still undergoing refinement. However...ugh it is giving me a headache thinking of where to start with this electric star garbage. If I told my supervisor I have changed my ways and now believe that the sun is not powered by fusion, I'd be thrown out of the PhD program in a second. I do not plan to address this star nonsense because I'd have to explain star formation beginning at the fundamentals(only through a misunderstanding of the fundamentals could you come to the conclusion that stars are not powered by fusion), which would take ages. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now come on Michael, you are holding back. He is new to the thread. </DIV></p><p>I merely mention Princeton's experiment and he had no trouble finding it. It doesn't seem like I need to hold his hand much as it relates to hunting down matieral that he is actually interested in finding. I probably should have cited his work howvever.</p><p>http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm</p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You also ought to tell him (so he doesn't have to search back through nearly 30 pages) that, in your model, the sun is powered, not by fusion, but by these extermanly driven currents that flow through the solar system, which among other things cause the photosphere, which you believe to be largely neon, to glow. Let him understand your big picture. Remember that he is an astrophysics student -- discovery of the giant extension cord connected to the sun would be a major find, and certainly cap off a dissertation nicely. http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/ <br /><p> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I don't see how any of that is actually related to the topic at hand. I really resent when you of all people build strawmen of my statements. I never claimed that no fusion occurs on the sun, and I have actually written a paper about fusion in the solar atmosphere. </p><p>Since the recent conversation has been on the topic of magnetic reconnection and magnetospheric theory, I don't see how any of this is imporant to him/her as it relates to this topic. My solar model is pretty much an exact replica of Birkeland's original solar model. It has a outer metallic sphere covered by many layers of "glowing' plasma and it electrically interacts with the universe in much the same manner as Birkeland "predicted". So what? Please don't change ths subject only because you're getting uncomfortable with the implications of EU theory and how it relates to "magnetic reconnection". Have you even read either of Alfven's papers on this topic yet?</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'>Given that my specialty is the theory of star formation and that is what my PhD work will concern, after glancing over that website my only reaction is "WHAT???"<br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>LOL!!! Welcome to the Electric Universe. </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'>Given that my specialty is the theory of star formation and that is what my PhD work will concern, after glancing over that website my only reaction is "WHAT???" I can understand not accepting magnetic reconnection entirely...it is a theory that is still undergoing refinement. </DIV></p><p>Refinement isn't the word. Magnetic reconnection theory going to need to undergoe wholesale changes as it relates to "magnetisphereic events" due to all the "surprises" they "discovered"" while trying to "verify" magnetic reconnection theory. I don't see why it's even necessary to explain acceleration in a current sheet in the first place and neither did Alfven.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However...ugh it is giving me a headache thinking of where to start with this electric star garbage.</DIV></p><p>You know, I've specfically resisted using a lot of inflamtory language in my scientific rebuttal of the information you have personally presented thus far. If you have a specific scientific criticism on my solar theory, put on the table, otherwise it's pretty much the same model that Birkeland used to explain solar activity. The sun's atmosphere is certainly "electric". Please post your solar theory comments in the solar theory thread that I created on this topic. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If I told my supervisor I have changed my ways and now believe that the sun is not powered by fusion, I'd be thrown out of the PhD program in a second. </DIV></p><p>I would chastize you as well since we don't know all the energy sources that power a star and I have written a paper on fusion processes in the solar atmosphere. The question is whether or not *all* the energy flowing from the sun comes from fusion, and clearly it does not. Some of that energy comes from electrical currents that flow through our solar system.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do not plan to address this star nonsense because I'd have to explain star formation beginning at the fundamentals(only through a misunderstanding of the fundamentals could you come to the conclusion that stars are not powered by fusion), which would take ages. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>FYI, I have a specific thread devoted the topic of solar theory. I would prefer we keep that discussion limited to that thread. If you really want to discuss solar theory, post your comments in the thread on that topic that I started several years ago. I'd be happy if you or anyone else just explained that very first LMSAL "running difference" image on my website. The "fundamentals" of star formation theory have a "fundamental" problem by they way. They fail to account for all the spin momentum that should be found inside the sun. Alfven's unipolar induction model suggests that some of the spin momentum is conversted into electrical current, and Alfven's model was not even solar theory dependent in the first place. Solar theories and magnetic reconnection theory are unrelated topics unless you can physically demonstrate some connection between these two ideas. I'd prefer that we discuss solar theory in the appropriate thread and keep this thread focused on this topic. </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>
I don't see why it's even necessary to explain acceleration in a current sheet in the first place and neither did Alfven.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However...ugh it is giving me a headache thinking of where to start with this electric star garbage.</DIV></p><p>You know, I've specfically resisted using a lot of inflamtory language in my scientific rebuttal of the information you have personally presented thus far. If you have a specific scientific criticism on my solar theory, put on the table, otherwise it's pretty much the same model that Birkeland used to explain solar activity. The sun's atmosphere is certainly "electric". Please post your solar theory comments in the solar theory thread that I created on this topic. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If I told my supervisor I have changed my ways and now believe that the sun is not powered by fusion, I'd be thrown out of the PhD program in a second. </DIV></p><p>I would chastize you as well since we don't know all the energy sources that power a star and I have written a paper on fusion processes in the solar atmosphere. The question is whether or not *all* the energy flowing from the sun comes from fusion, and clearly it does not. Some of that energy comes from electrical currents that flow through our solar system.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do not plan to address this star nonsense because I'd have to explain star formation beginning at the fundamentals(only through a misunderstanding of the fundamentals could you come to the conclusion that stars are not powered by fusion), which would take ages. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>FYI, I have a specific thread devoted the topic of solar theory. I would prefer we keep that discussion limited to that thread. If you really want to discuss solar theory, post your comments in the thread on that topic that I started several years ago. I'd be happy if you or anyone else just explained that very first LMSAL "running difference" image on my website. The "fundamentals" of star formation theory have a "fundamental" problem by they way. They fail to account for all the spin momentum that should be found inside the sun. Alfven's unipolar induction model suggests that some of the spin momentum is conversted into electrical current, and Alfven's model was not even solar theory dependent in the first place. Solar theories and magnetic reconnection theory are unrelated topics unless you can physically demonstrate some connection between these two ideas. I'd prefer that we discuss solar theory in the appropriate thread and keep this thread focused on this topic. </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: 178
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
-
Europe's Hera asteroid probe heads for Mars after engine burn
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Next Blue Origin space tourism flight will launch 'Space Gal' Emily Calandrelli
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Question Educating Space to Toddlers to Pre-Adolescence?
- Started by NeoViking
- Replies: 17
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram