<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... It's a simple question with a simple yes or no answer....Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>As I explained to you it is not, except to a simpleton.</p><p>You can call it any damn thing you want. As I said call it OSCAR. The name is not important. The concept and the relationship to Maxwell's equations are. This is not a vocabulary issue. It is PHYSICS.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How about a quote? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>How about section 139 which is where your signature quote comes from. Do you just quote Birkeland, or have you read that document?</p><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1"><p align="left">"Let us <font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">therefore </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">imagine </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">that </font></font><font face="Courier" size="2"><font face="Courier" size="2">we </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">have on </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">an </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">average </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">io </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">iron </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">atoms </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">per </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">cubic centimetre </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">in </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">empty </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">space, </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">and </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">try </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">to </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">form </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">some </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">idea </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">as </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">to </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">whether </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">such </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">a density </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">would </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">be </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">at </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">variance with </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">the </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">optical </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">properties of space, </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">and </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">in </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">the </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">next </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">place </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">whether </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">this </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">density </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">would be </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">irreconcilable </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">with </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">the </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">assump</font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">tion that </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">the </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">sun sends cathode-rays </font></font><font face="Courier" size="2"><font face="Courier" size="2">down </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">to </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">the </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">earth."</font></font></p></font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">"<font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">There </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">is </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">also </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">another </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">question </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">which </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">naturally </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">presents </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">itself </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">for investigation: </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">Will </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">the </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">assume de</font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">nsity </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">of </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">flying </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">corpuscles </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">in </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">space bring about </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">any </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">appreciable resistance </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">to </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">the </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">motion </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">of the heav</font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">ily </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">bodies?</font></font></font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1"> <p align="left">Let <font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">us look </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">at </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">the case </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">as </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">regards </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">the </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">earth, </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">when </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">it </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">was </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">assumed </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">that </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">there </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">were </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">10 </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">iron </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">atoms pe</font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">r </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">cubic centimetre </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">in </font></font><font face="Courier" size="1"><font face="Courier" size="1">space."</font></font></p></font></font></font></font><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As I explained to you it is not, except to a simpleton.You can call it any damn thing you want. As I said call it OSCAR. The name is not important. The concept and the relationship to Maxwell's equations are. This is not a vocabulary issue. It is PHYSICS. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It's not "physics" because you've never described the physical items that "reconnect" nor have you isolated the specific energy release machanism that is unique to "magnetic reconnection". It's all a bunch of word games here and not a shred of emrpical support for "magnetic reconnection". Induction is not "magnetic reconnection" and magnetic fields do not "reconnect" in the first place. </p><p>Alfven was no simpleton, and he understood "physics" better than you do. He also rejected magnetic reconnection theories rather vehemently. Get over yourself. </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'>How about section 139 which is where your signature quote comes from. Do you just quote Birkeland, or have you read that document?"Let us therefore imagine that we have on an average io iron atoms per cubic centimetre in empty space, and try to form some idea as to whether such a density would be at variance with the optical properties of space, and in the next place whether this density would be irreconcilable with the assumption that the sun sends cathode-rays down to the earth.""There is also another question which naturally presents itself for investigation: Will the assume density of flying corpuscles in space bring about any appreciable resistance to the motion of the heavily bodies? Let us look at the case as regards the earth, when it was assumed that there were 10 iron atoms per cubic centimetre in space." <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Evidently you confuse the phrase"let us imagine" with a claim of some kind. He was talking about the amount of matter we might find in the solar sytem bodies, vs. the amount of mass we might find in the plasmas between the stars! For goodness sake, he didn't make a "claim" at all, just a simple calculation based on a imagined density for purposes of demonstrating a particular point about the mass we might find inside the plasma threads between stars. </p><p>I think I've been rather specific about ideas that can be demonstrated based on in situ measurements and ones that are less easy to determine based on our limited technologies. All theories suffer from this problem. It is certainly not unique to EU theory. </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'>... Alfven was no simpleton, and he understood "physics" better than you do. He also rejected magnetic reconnection theories rather vehemently. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Alfven did not ask the question at hand. Alfven died over 13 years ago. There is more known about physics now then there was then. When the facts change intelligent people change their views. You have no idea what Alfven's view might be today.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven did not ask the question at hand. Alfven died over 13 years ago. There is more known about physics now then there was then.</DIV></p><p>Get specific. What is now "known" about magnetic reconnection that somehow validates the theory over the past 13 years?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When the facts change intelligent people change their views. You have no idea what Alfven's view might be today. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Ya right. Somehow he's going to throw out everything that he wrote about the particle aspects of MHD theory in favor of a concept that has never been emprically demonstrated? Talk about goofy rationalizations.....</p><p>You guys cannot even explain what is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection" and he slammed the idea even being associated to events inside of interplanetary space. Somehow you're sure his views would have changed without reading Cosmic Plasma, without reading the paper I cited on this exact topic and without knowing anything at all about what he wrote later in life on this topic. Talk about faith in your own belief systems..... </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'>Get specific. What is now "known" about magnetic reconnection that somehow validates the theory over the past 13 years?</DIV></p><p>Oh I don't know, maybe a series of satellite missions intended to study the magnetosphere that provided observational support for reconnection? He did not have access to LANL GEO/GOES, THEMIS, Cluster, Wind, etc. So, to answer your question, a lot has changed. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ya right. Somehow he's going to throw out everything that he wrote about the particle aspects of MHD theory in favor of a concept that has never been emprically demonstrated?</DIV></p><p>One of us is wrong here. One of is is going to have to do this. You believe your concept has been empirically demonstrated, we believe ours has. So it's not such an outlandish concept as you might think. People who WANT to learn will accept when they are proven wrong. This has not happened. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Talk about goofy rationalizations.....You guys cannot even explain what is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection" and he slammed the idea even being associated to events inside of interplanetary space.</DIV></p><p>We have in many posts. How can you claim a change in magnetic field topology is equivalent to plain old current flow? </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Somehow you're sure his views would have changed without reading Cosmic Plasma, without reading the paper I cited on this exact topic and without knowing anything at all about what he wrote later in life on this topic. Talk about faith in your own belief systems..... <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That is not the point. When we write papers about say, the orbit of the planets, do we refer back to the work of pre-Copernican scholars even though they have been proven wrong a long time ago? They were intelligent people, as Alfven was. But science changes very rapidly. 13 years is an extremely long time when you are tlaking about the progression of knowledge. </p><p> You claim Birkeland empirically demonstrated the EU solar model...no, he didn't. He may have demonstrated that certain processes work, but so did the mainstream regarding fusion-powered stars. This does not empirically prove that stars work that way. You are undermining your own theory by claiming it is only based on empirical science yet at the same time admitting that its position on galactic dynamics, which has been stated by you and other EU sources i've read, is untestable empirically. </p><p>DrRocket showed you that you were completely wrong when you state that energy cannot be stored in the magnetic field. I have not seen you address that. You say you are winning the argument because we are getting annoyed with your argument tactics. This is not because we have suddenly realized we were wrong, it is because we have made our case and you refuse to address the important aspects of it(namely, the ones that show you are wrong). Nobody is insulting Alfven except you. You are trying to portray him as a scientist set in his ways who would not be convinced otherwise by anyone. However, since he did win a Nobel Prize as you are so fond of reminding us, we know this would not be the case. REAL scientists alter their beliefs when they are provne wrong. As i've said a million times, nobody has proved reconnection wrong. Not Alfven, not Birkeland, and certainly not you. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not "physics" because you've never described the physical items that "reconnect" nor have you isolated the specific energy release machanism that is unique to "magnetic reconnection". It's all a bunch of word games here and not a shred of emrpical support for "magnetic reconnection". Induction is not "magnetic reconnection" and magnetic fields do not "reconnect" in the first place. Alfven was no simpleton, and he understood "physics" better than you do. He also rejected magnetic reconnection theories rather vehemently. Get over yourself. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Yes we did. The acceleration mechanism is Fermi acceleration. This mechanism requires reflection off of a magnetic mirror/island. The fact is you cannot and/or will not understand the explanation DrRocket gave. It is not as simple as a line being cut and reconnected. Alfven was not a simpleton, nobody is saying that. Ptolemy, Aristotle et al. were not simpletons either. Yet they rejected vehemently that the Earth could be anywhere but the center of the solar system and/or universe. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they were proven wrong. </p><p>Also, your claim that we will all feel embarased in 20 years...I know that I won't be even if EU is somehow proven correct. I made a solid argument using the best evidence I had at the time. The only one that will be embarassed is the one who never provided any solid scientific evidence for their claims. The one , through their argument techniques alienated the mainstream and referred to them as, essentially, astrologers. It is people like the one I am referring to that are keeping EU theory from ever gaining a foothold in any real scientific discussion. The onyl reason attacks are getting personal is because you think you know physics and astrophysics better than professionals. Yet when challenged to demonstrate this knowledge you talk around it or make demands for someone to answer your silly question before you answer theirs. I am not going to stop studying my "myths" as you call them because michaelmozina said so. Nor am I going to if Alfven says what I believe is wrong. Nor am I going to because astronomers such as Ptolemy would've claimed what I study is ridiculous and impossible. If EU theorists suddenly start producing convincing, modern results, then maybe I'll change my position, if they are valid studies. But this will not happen. EU proponents see themselves as persecuted martyrs, and with that attitude they will never do anything to convince the scientific community of anything. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Throughout this argument, mozina has been using a definition of reconnection that involves the "cutting and splicing" of field lines. Until now, I haven't been able to find a paper addressing the basic concept of reconnection. Here are two definitions, presented by Schindler, Hesse, and Birn in 1988. Its from a PDF so I have to type it out myself.</p><p>"1. Vasyliunas[1975] defines "magnetic field line merging or reconnection" as "the process whereby plasma flows across a surface that separates regions containing topologically different magnetic field lines." In this picture, two separatrixbranches intersect at a line called a "separator". It is argued that the plasmaflow across a separatrix requires an electric field component along the separator which in turn implies a localized violation of ideal Ohm's law. Other authors emphasize the relevance of the electric field component parallel to the separator as the fundamental agent rather than the flow across the separatrix.</p><p> 2. Axford[1984] considers the localized breakdown of the "frozen-in-field" condition and the resulting changes of "connection" as the basis of magnetic reconnection. Here "connection" means that plasma elements which are at one time connected by single magnetic field line remain connected at subsequent times."</p><p> </p><p>Note that in neither definition do they refer to "cutting and splicing" of field lines. They go on to say that definition 1 is structurally instable, i.e. whether reconnection occurs depends strongly on small modifications to the system. They argue that definition 2 is preferable, and that is what is known as "general magnetic reconnection"(the agreed upon definition that you claim doesn't exist). </p><p> In the companion paper by Hesse and Schindler http://www.agu.org/journals/ja/v093/iA06/JA093iA06p05559/JA093iA06p05559.pdf</p><p>they provide a mathematical proof that reconnection can occur using the idea of Euler potentials. You can find this proof in sections 2-3 of the paper. I'd type it out myself but I don't know how to make equations like DrRocket has been doing to post here. I think the paper is old enough so that everybody should be able to view it via that link. I read through the derivations and it gave me a headache but it does give a valid foundation for the idea of reconnection. I can see no violations of Maxwell's equations anywhere in it. I am not that great with analytical physics(derivations and the like), so maybe DrRocket would be interested in looking it over and commenting on it. </p><p>If you want a more detailed definition of reconnection, read the Axford 1984 paper. This is not empirical evidence, but it does address your requests for a mathematical foundation using Maxwell's equations, and a definition of what reconnection is and why it is not "current flow". I stumbled upon this because one of the authors(Schindler) is giving a talk on bifurcated current sheets tomorrow here and I decided to read up on what he has done. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... I am not that great with analytical physics(derivations and the like), so maybe DrRocket would be interested in looking it over and commenting on it. ..Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I don't have access to AGU papers, so I am unable to do that.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't have access to AGU papers, so I am unable to do that. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I guess it's not old enough then...I think after a certain period of time you can view papers off of ADS without a subscription. Anyways, here is a megaupload link that I uploaded the pdf to if you want: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UFWXYSOL If you don't trust it is what I say it is I understand, I just thought you would be interested as someone who seems more comfortable with this sort of thing. Also I am anticipating some questions from mozina that you'd probably be more qualified to answer. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-embarassed.gif" border="0" alt="Embarassed" title="Embarassed" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Here's what appears to be a good paper that discusses where Ideal MHD is applicable and where it is not. Discusses and references Alfven's objections. Plenty of math and text.</p><p>Looks like a paper that might be useful for this debate. </p><p>http://www.ann-geophys.net/23/2565/2005/angeo-23-2565-2005.html</p><p>Link to PDF is at bottom of abstract. </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'><br />It is interesting that despite having invented the frozenin-<br />flux concept, Alfvén himself largely rejected the notion of<br />field-line reconnection. Alfvén essentially argued that for a<br />steady electromagnetic field configuration, it is natural to<br />view the field lines as stationary: “There is no need for<br />‘frozen-in’ field lines moving with the plasma, still less for<br />‘field-line reconnection.’ The magnetic field the whole time<br />remains static, and not a single field line is ‘disconnected’ or<br />‘reconnected.’”28 Nevertheless, Alfvén was open to the possibility<br />that the concept of reconnection might be useful in<br />the context of time-dependent magnetic fields: “In the case<br />the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near neutral<br />points may change in such a way that it is legitimate to<br />speak of a ‘field-line reconnection.’ We cannot exclude the<br />possibility that some of the field-line reconnection formalism<br />may be applicable, but this remains to be proved.”28</p><p><br />How do we reconcile Alfvén’s criticism with the long<br />and productive history of steady-state reconnection theory<br />e.g., Refs. 1, 5, and 29–31? If magnetic reconnection necessarily<br />involves a change in magnetic field topology, then<br />there is no such thing as steady reconnection. Thus, it would<br />seem that in order to preserve the concept of steady reconnection,<br />we must abandon the idea that reconnection necessarily<br />involves a change in magnetic field topology. In the<br />following sections, we argue that phenomena that have been<br />experimentally identified as “reconnection” fall naturally<br />into two categories: 1 Steady or quasisteady reconnection,<br />in which plasma flows across magnetic separatrices, and 2<br />time-dependent reconnection, in which the magnetic field<br />evolution is not flux-preserving. Category 1 is a statement<br />about plasma transport and may or may not involve viola-</p><p>tions of magnetic flux conservation or changes in magnetic<br />field topology nonsmooth field line histories notwithstanding<br />, while category 2 is a statement about magnetic field<br />evolution, which is quite independent of plasma physics<br />though in a plasma physics context, changes in magnetic<br />field topology obviously impact the plasma dynamics. Examples<br />of category 1 observations, hereafter referred to as<br />“Vasyliunas reconnection,”32 include evidence from spacecraft<br />data that the magnetopause locally looks like a rotational<br />discontinuity;33,34 examples of category 2 observations,<br />hereafter referred to as “Greene reconnection,”35<br />include remote observations of changing polar cap magnetic<br />flux.36 </DIV></p><p>From http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PHPAEN000015000005056504000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes</p><p> I also just finished reading the paper they quoted Alfven from, along with 3 of his other papers the dealt with solar flares and the magnetosphere, so you can drop that argument. If you want to see their further characterization of thier definition, they explain it in the paper. I think those paragraphs speak for themselves and are an adequate response to Alfven's complaints. Also, from the same paper</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>If the magnetic<br />field satisfies Eq. 9, then points that initially define a<br />field line move along integral curves of w in such a way that<br />they define a field line at all future times Fig. 5. This idea<br />captures the intuition that topology preserving magnetic field<br />evolution can be visualized as continuous deformations of<br />the magnetic field lines i.e., deformations that do not involve<br />the “cutting” and “reattaching” of field lines. </p><p> </DIV></p><p> I think you'll find the rest of hte paper interesting, as it details the pros and cons of each definition, and presents a generalized one. The excerpts I provided though show that Alfven's views have been taken into consideration and addressed at great length. </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh I don't know, maybe a series of satellite missions intended to study the magnetosphere that provided observational support for reconnection? </DIV></p><p>What observational support? The observed "current flow" in the magnetotail and claimed "magnetic reconnection did it", even though the sequence of events falsified both of the "predicted models". How in the world do you interpret a falsification of both magnetic reconnection models as "observatational support for reconnection"? All I see is observational support of curernt flow and classic Hall signatures related to current flow.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He did not have access to LANL GEO/GOES, THEMIS, Cluster, Wind, etc. </DIV></p><p>Well, Wind simply supports his beliefs since HE+2 is 20+ times more abundant than HE+1 and Protons make up 90% of the solar wind in terms of shear numbers. I'd say all that THEMIS data demonstrates is that magnetic reconnection is 0 for 2 at making useful "predictions". GEOS would have showed him little he had not already seen from X-ray images from Skylab. I doublt that would sway him since he attributed these x-rays to "current flow discharges" through plasma. I certainly see nothing in the satellite data that he would find to be convincing evidence of "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, to answer your question, a lot has changed. One of us is wrong here. One of is is going to have to do this. You believe your concept has been empirically demonstrated, we believe ours has.</DIV></p><p>I believe that Birkeland's emprical experiments demonstrate most of the core tenets of EU theory. You're basing your belief in reconnection on one bad assumption in one "experiment", and a couple of vague idea about "magnetic islands": that you can't be sure or anything other than a z-pinched filament channel of "current flowing" particles. As far as you know all of this is current flow driven bacause all of it takes place inside an existing current stream of flowing charged particles.</p><p>Your belief are not predictated upon emprical testing, or controlled experimentation. Instead they are based on a "missed" set of "predictions" that are somehow been hocked as "verification" of this idea. You mean to tell me you really don't see any difference between an empirical set of experiments like Birkeland performed and uncontrolled observations that you "interpret" to be evidence of an idea? How would we "turn off" the magnetic reconnection process to verify it's really magnetic reconnection that has this effect? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So it's not such an outlandish concept as you might think. People who WANT to learn will accept when they are proven wrong. This has not happened. We have in many posts. </DIV></p><p>Then you should accept that PPPL has been proven wrong for "asssuming" that the electric field remained constant between equations 15 and 16. YOu will also accept that both magnetic reconenction models failed to accurately predict the observed sequence of events, and therefore they have been falsified. If you can "Verify" a theory by "predicting" something useful, then you must also accept that you can falsify the same theory for failing to accurately predict the same series of events.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How can you claim a change in magnetic field topology is equivalent to plain old current flow? </DIV></p><p>A change in magnetic field topology could in fact create an "induction" process of some kind, but induction involves no sort of "magnetic reconnection". The only way you might store energy in a magnetic field line is to amp up the current flowing through the field line and thereby increase the strength of the magnetic field that surrounds the increased flow of charged particles.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is not the point. When we write papers about say, the orbit of the planets, do we refer back to the work of pre-Copernican scholars even though they have been proven wrong a long time ago? They were intelligent people, as Alfven was. But science changes very rapidly. 13 years is an extremely long time when you are tlaking about the progression of knowledge.</DIV></p><p>It's not as long as you think. We have better satellite images to work with perhaps, but these observations were all "predicted" by Birkeland's series of emprical experiments. He had no trouble explaining solar wind acceleration or coronal loop discharges around the sun. These are things that his model "predicted" simply by changing the polarity of the outside surface of the sphere. He was obviously a bit surprised by what he 'discovered" during this experimentation process. You folks really should start with his work. It's the best example of emprical physics, in situ measurement and mathematical modeling that I've seen done by a single individual, including Alfven.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You claim Birkeland empirically demonstrated the EU solar model...no, he didn't. He may have demonstrated that certain processes work, but so did the mainstream regarding fusion-powered stars. </DIV></p><p>Um, not they didn't. The fusion folks have never explained solar wind acelleration, CME events, multimillion degree coronal loops, etc, allf of which were actually "predicted" by Birkeland's early experiments. Nothing about these events is explained by a fusion model sun where all the energy production takes place in the core and the surface radiates like a black body. Birkeland's "current flow" model suffers from none of these limitations, although you might be able to make a case that you could combine a fusion model sun with a "current flow" in the universe and thereby address all these issues. Sooner or later however the mainstream is going to have to embrace his empirical experimentation with "current flow" to explain these solar events.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This does not empirically prove that stars work that way.</DIV></p><p>It does however suggest that a sun could get some or most of it's energy in an externally driven and induction driven process. This brings us back to solar formation theory that seems to be missing a boat load of momentum when it comes to the relative spin rate of the sun. Alfven's model "predicts" that momentum is converted to electrical current over time. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You are undermining your own theory by claiming it is only based on empirical science yet at the same time admitting that its position on galactic dynamics, which has been stated by you and other EU sources i've read, is untestable empirically.</DIV></p><p>I accept that intergalactic theories are not emprically verifiable, but all of EU theories are based on known physics applied to larger scales. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> DrRocket showed you that you were completely wrong when you state that energy cannot be stored in the magnetic field. </DIV></p><p>No, what DrRocket actually demonstrated is that "magnetic reconnection" is absolutely unncessary to explain any energy release caused by changing magnetic fields. All he did was show that there are not one, but two viable and logical ways to explain particle acceleration in these conditions *without* resorting to "magnetic reconnnection". If anything his induction driven model undermines any need for "magnetic reconnection" and the mainstream is either guilty of labeling "current flow" or "induction" as "magnetic reconnection". We now know that there are at least two viable ways to explain these events *without* magnetic reconnection. Occum's razor applies, and "magnetic reconnection" is simply unnecessary.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have not seen you address that.</DIV></p><p>I've been in meetings all day. Some day's I actualy have to work at me real job. 
I started to ask him relevant questions last night, and as I mentioned last night, I've got no "beef" with induction as an energy source or as a way to accelerate particles. In no way however does induction involve "reconnecting" magnetic field lines. I've also had a chance to think about his analogy and I agree that simple induction is a viable "explanation" for turning "magnetic energy" into "current flow". We now know that there are two viable ways to explain these auroral events *without* resorting to "magnetic reconnection" and we know that "induction" does not involve any "reconnection" of magnetic feild lines.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You say you are winning the argument because we are getting annoyed with your argument tactics. </DIV></p><p>No, I'm winning the debate because you won't even bother reading the papers I have citied whereas I have debunked the PPPL paper already and I have offered you a viable way to explain a "magnetic island" as a simply filamentary process in current carrying plasma. I'm winning the debate because ThEMIS just so happened to falsify their own two best theories on magnetic reconnection. It's not a big deal however since Birkeland figured this stuff out 100 years ago. We are all playing "catch up" even now. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is not because we have suddenly realized we were wrong, it is because we have made our case and you refuse to address the important aspects of it(namely, the ones that show you are wrong). </DIV></p><p>But you guys have never showm Alfven to be wrong on this topic. All you have done this far is hand me a few papers that are actually easily debunked or easily associated with current flow in plasma filament channels. There is nothing in any of these papers that is anything like Birkeland's empirical experiments with "current flow" with spheres in a vacuum.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody is insulting Alfven except you. You are trying to portray him as a scientist set in his ways who would not be convinced otherwise by anyone. </DIV></p><p>No, I'm simply noting that he rejected the concept of magnetic reconnection for the same reasons I have specified, and even an amateur like me can see that nothing much has changed as far as supporting evidence from emprical experimentation, and all these supposed ideas take place inside of a current sheet, the one place Alfven vehemently rejected as being related to "magnetic reconnection". </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, since he did win a Nobel Prize as you are so fond of reminding us, we know this would not be the case. REAL scientists alter their beliefs when they are provne wrong.</DIV></p><p>Well, when you do that with an emprical test, let me know. So far all you folks have "proven' is that induction and curent flow are the more likely culprits in any sort of acceleration of particles in the magnetosphere. Alfven accepted both of these premises by the way, so they do not conflct with his views. He did however reject "magnetic reconection" since it was absolutely not required to explain the accleration of charged particles inside of a current sheet, or in a magnetically changed topology.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> As i've said a million times, nobody has proved reconnection wrong. Not Alfven, not Birkeland, and certainly not you. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>As I have stated many times, nobody is required to prove anything to be wrong. The one making the claim is obligated to demonstrate the validity of their theory. THEMIS falsified both magnetic reconnection theories as it relates to the order of events. There are two other more likely "causes" of "particle acceleration" in this region that have been put forth by Kristian Birkeland and now by DrRocket. There is no need to evoke 'magnetic reconnection" to explain these events. Occum's razor arguements apply and both models bit the dust as far as useful predictions go. It's time to try a new theory. I'd entertain "induction" driven theories, but the magnetic reconnection idea is totally dead in the water, expecially after that THEMIS result. </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 started to ask him relevant questions last night, and as I mentioned last night, I've got no "beef" with induction as an energy source or as a way to accelerate particles. In no way however does induction involve "reconnecting" magnetic field lines. I've also had a chance to think about his analogy and I agree that simple induction is a viable "explanation" for turning "magnetic energy" into "current flow". We now know that there are two viable ways to explain these auroral events *without* resorting to "magnetic reconnection" and we know that "induction" does not involve any "reconnection" of magnetic feild lines.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You say you are winning the argument because we are getting annoyed with your argument tactics. </DIV></p><p>No, I'm winning the debate because you won't even bother reading the papers I have citied whereas I have debunked the PPPL paper already and I have offered you a viable way to explain a "magnetic island" as a simply filamentary process in current carrying plasma. I'm winning the debate because ThEMIS just so happened to falsify their own two best theories on magnetic reconnection. It's not a big deal however since Birkeland figured this stuff out 100 years ago. We are all playing "catch up" even now. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is not because we have suddenly realized we were wrong, it is because we have made our case and you refuse to address the important aspects of it(namely, the ones that show you are wrong). </DIV></p><p>But you guys have never showm Alfven to be wrong on this topic. All you have done this far is hand me a few papers that are actually easily debunked or easily associated with current flow in plasma filament channels. There is nothing in any of these papers that is anything like Birkeland's empirical experiments with "current flow" with spheres in a vacuum.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody is insulting Alfven except you. You are trying to portray him as a scientist set in his ways who would not be convinced otherwise by anyone. </DIV></p><p>No, I'm simply noting that he rejected the concept of magnetic reconnection for the same reasons I have specified, and even an amateur like me can see that nothing much has changed as far as supporting evidence from emprical experimentation, and all these supposed ideas take place inside of a current sheet, the one place Alfven vehemently rejected as being related to "magnetic reconnection". </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, since he did win a Nobel Prize as you are so fond of reminding us, we know this would not be the case. REAL scientists alter their beliefs when they are provne wrong.</DIV></p><p>Well, when you do that with an emprical test, let me know. So far all you folks have "proven' is that induction and curent flow are the more likely culprits in any sort of acceleration of particles in the magnetosphere. Alfven accepted both of these premises by the way, so they do not conflct with his views. He did however reject "magnetic reconection" since it was absolutely not required to explain the accleration of charged particles inside of a current sheet, or in a magnetically changed topology.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> As i've said a million times, nobody has proved reconnection wrong. Not Alfven, not Birkeland, and certainly not you. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>As I have stated many times, nobody is required to prove anything to be wrong. The one making the claim is obligated to demonstrate the validity of their theory. THEMIS falsified both magnetic reconnection theories as it relates to the order of events. There are two other more likely "causes" of "particle acceleration" in this region that have been put forth by Kristian Birkeland and now by DrRocket. There is no need to evoke 'magnetic reconnection" to explain these events. Occum's razor arguements apply and both models bit the dust as far as useful predictions go. It's time to try a new theory. I'd entertain "induction" driven theories, but the magnetic reconnection idea is totally dead in the water, expecially after that THEMIS result. </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'>It is interesting that despite having invented the frozenin-<br />flux concept, Alfvén himself largely rejected the notion of<br />field-line reconnection.</DIV></p><p>Um, not just largely, "completely" unless otherwise proven wrong *in emprical testing*, not in some uncontrolled observation of distant acceleration events.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfvén essentially argued that for a<br />steady electromagnetic field configuration, it is natural to<br />view the field lines as stationary: “There is no need for<br />‘frozen-in’ field lines moving with the plasma, still less for<br />‘field-line reconnection.’ </DIV></p><p>And DrRocket showed us yet another reason why that is true. Induction would do just fine to explain plasma acceleration as would simple electrical and particle reconnection in plasma. Field lines are never "frozen" because they contain the momentum of moving charged particles that flow along the field lines. There is no "magnetic reconnection" taking place inside of a current sheet, just simply kinetic and electrical reconnection processes. At worst case you have some induction current present, but in no instance do you need or require "magnetic reconnection" to explain the acceleration of charged particles inside of a current sheet. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The magnetic field the whole time<br />remains static, and not a single field line is ‘disconnected’ or<br />‘reconnected.’”28</DIV></p><p>See that quote? Care to emprically demonstrate it is incorrect?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nevertheless, Alfvén was open to the possibility<br />that the concept of reconnection might be useful in<br />the context of time-dependent magnetic fields: “In the case<br />the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near neutral<br />points may change in such a way that it is legitimate to<br />speak of a ‘field-line reconnection.’ We cannot exclude the<br />possibility that some of the field-line reconnection formalism<br />may be applicable, but this remains to be proved.”28</DIV></p><p>It still remains to be proven, and it cannot be "included" only because it cannot be "excluded". I noticed he forgot to note that Alfven specifically rejected the notion of field line reconnection inside of a current carrying plasma. He specifically excluded that environment to support any notion of "magnetic reconnection". Simple oversight or are they just ignoring that point entirely?</p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How do we reconcile Alfvén’s criticism with the long<br /><p>and productive history of steady-state reconnection theory</DIV></p><p>What?!?!? What "long history of steady-state reconnection theory"? You mean the same theory he personally rejected, or do they mean it's somehow made a "productive" prediction? It's never enjoyed any predictive sucess, so what exactly is "productive" about magnetic reconnection theory?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>e.g., Refs. 1, 5, and 29–31? If magnetic reconnection necessarily<br />involves a change in magnetic field topology,</DIV></p><p>And so does induction, something Alfven did not critisize. What makes "magnetic reconnection" a "better" explanation for any of these field topology changing events? I don't suppose you have a working model to explain magnetic reconnection so we could compare that idea to "induction" or something that is a part of MHD theory? Nah, of course not.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>then<br />there is no such thing as steady reconnection. Thus, it would<br />seem that in order to preserve the concept of steady reconnection,<br />we must abandon the idea that reconnection necessarily<br />involves a change in magnetic field topology.</DIV></p><p>See, this is why astronomy theories are impossible to kill. Nobody commits to anything, even something that is stated in the definition of the description in many models. It's like wrestiing jello because the "predictions" keep being modified to fit "postdicted" observations that falsified the previous theories. It's also being debated even among it's proponents. There is no single definition or agreed upon physical definition of the idea so it's impossible to "prove it to be false" and the dogma lives on. If there is no change in the magnetic topology necessary, then why call it "magnetic reconnection" at all? Holy cow this is confusing to any skeptic. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In the<br />following sections, we argue that phenomena that have been<br />experimentally identified as “reconnection” fall naturally<br />into two categories:</DIV></p><p>What *experiments*? Are we talking about the PPPL experiment where they created a z-pinch filament in plasma and called it "magnetic reconnection"? Are they talking about uncontrolled observations or real emprical experiments?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1 Steady or quasisteady reconnection,</DIV></p><p><br />They don't even know if it's "steady" or not. No wonder nobody can prove it wrong. Nobody even agrees on what it is, what it does, how it operates and how it releases energy. There is no single agreed upon definiton.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>in which plasma flows across magnetic separatrices,</DIV></p><p>That's called a "z-pinch" and it's driven by "current flow" or "particle flow", not "magnetic reconnection" </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and 2<br />time-dependent reconnection, in which the magnetic field<br />evolution is not flux-preserving.</DIV></p><p>Does that mean it violates the first law of thermodynamics, or is that a fancy euphamism for "resistance in plasma"? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Category 1 is a statement<br />about plasma transport and may or may not involve viola-</p><p>tions of magnetic flux conservation or changes in magnetic<br />field topology nonsmooth field line histories notwithstanding<br />, </DIV></p><p>May or may not? Come on. They can't even agree on the basics, let alone any physical models. This whole theory stinks to high heaven just from the lack of agreement if nothing else. It just shows how little real support there is for any one single idea. It's a whack-a-mole game.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>while category 2 is a statement about magnetic field<br />evolution, which is quite independent of plasma physics</DIV></p><p>It's quite independent of any emprical support too.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>though in a plasma physics context, changes in magnetic<br />field topology obviously impact the plasma dynamics. Examples<br />of category 1 observations, hereafter referred to as<br />“Vasyliunas reconnection,”32 include evidence from spacecraft<br />data that the magnetopause locally looks like a rotational<br />discontinuity;33,34</DIV></p><p>So the best "evidence" of this theory is based on two falsified models studied by THEMIS. There goes that concept. It also shows that the term "experiment" involved no control mechanism whatsoever but rather was a simple "test" based on an uncontrolled observation that ultimately falsified the two most popular models of magnetic reconnection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>examples of category 2 observations,<br />hereafter referred to as “Greene reconnection,”35<br />include remote observations of changing polar cap magnetic<br />flux.36</DIV></p><p>In other words, it's based on another "point at the sky" excersize. I'm sure glad that Birkeland did not just point at the aurora and claim "electricity did it". He actually showed us how his theories work in real life emprical experiments, not just "point at the sky and add math" papers.</p>I'm sorry, but if this is the best evidence you folks can come up with to support this idea, you're sorely lacking in emperical support from controlled experimentation and both THEMIS magnetic reconnection models failed to accureately "predict" the observed sequence of events. It's then a pure subjective "spin" exersize to refer to these uncontrolled observations as "evidence" to support magnetic reconnection. The whole things seems to be strung together just like Chapman's arguement. It's all math, and no emprical experimentation. Chapman lost that debate and so will all proponents of "magnetic reconnection" as being related to auroral activity. They will never demonstrate that "magnetic reonnection" can generate aurora aruond spheres in a controlled experiment with real control mechanisms. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
Which of you has actually read the paper that those quotes from Alfven about magnetic reconnection come from? Which of you is willing to give us an outline of Alfven's basic arguement against magnetic reconnection for us? <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>
You know, after thinking about your induction comments last night before bed, it seems to me that you've sucessfully managed to put yet another nail in the coffin of magnetic reconnection theory by noting that standard induction events are a legitimate "preciction" of Maxwell's equations. All you actually demonstrated is that there is no logical reason for us to resort to "magnetic reconnection" to explain how energy is transfered from a magnetic field into localized particle acceleration. You've demonstrated that there are at least two viable ways to explain these acceleration events and Hall signatures without any form of magnetic reconnection required. Occum's razor arguements were strong enough when only current flow could otherwise account for these events. You however have showed us that here are not just one, but actually two different scientific ways to explain simple particle acceleraton events *without* any need for magnetic reconnection. In essense you have shown that magnetic reconnection is utterly unnecessary to explain an energy transfer event and THEMIS has demonstrated that it is utterly useless in it's predictive ablilities. Thanks. <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>
<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'> Yes we did. </DIV></p><p>No, you didn't. You came up with a couple of words, no physical explanation, and no reflection surface in any physically plausible manner. I offered you a physical explanation for a "magnetic island" in terms of flowing particles of plasma that form into a z-pinch type "thread" inside the plasma. You did not offer a physical defintion of what creates this magnetic island in terms of real physical particles or real physical models. You did provide a rather vague description that really has nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection" as far as I can tell, and everything to do with z-pinch processes in current carrying plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The acceleration mechanism is Fermi acceleration.</DIV></p><p>What exactly are the charged particles bouncing off of, and how is that "magnetic reconnection" as distinguishable from induction or some ordinary kinetic collision with a current thread?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This mechanism requires reflection off of a magnetic mirror/island. </DIV></p><p>That's exactly why I asked you to physically define this persistent "magnetic island" in terms of real physics, not just math, but actual physical models.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fact is you cannot and/or will not understand the explanation DrRocket gave. It is not as simple as a line being cut and reconnected. </DIV></p><p>Why call this transfer of energy process "magnetic reconnection" at all then? If magnetic field lines are not being "reconnected", why call it "magnetic reconnection"instead of "particle reconnection" or "electrical reconnection"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven was not a simpleton, nobody is saying that.</DIV></p><p>DrRocket was trying to suggest that standard scientific skepticism was somehow related to my personal understanding of MHD theory, or lack therof. Nothing could be further from the truth. Alfven himself rejected this very idea for the reasons I have explained to you. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Ptolemy, Aristotle et al. were not simpletons either. Yet they rejected vehemently that the Earth could be anywhere but the center of the solar system and/or universe. </DIV></p><p>And likewise I believe that current theory will have about as much credibility in another couple thousand years as Earth centric beliefs have credibility today. We live in an electric universe. The evidence of this is all around us. You can reject it as vehemently as you like, but it's not going to go away only because you don't appreciate the implications of Birkeland's work and Alfven's work.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they were proven wrong.</DIV></p><p>No, they were not "proven wrong". First of all, you can't ever actaully "prove" anything outside of a controlled test, and even that kind of evidence is not actually "proof" in the final analysis since many times these experiments require some amount of "subjective interpretation". You cartainly can "prove" anythiing from uncontrolled observation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, your claim that we will all feel embarased in 20 years...I know that I won't be even if EU is somehow proven correct. I made a solid argument using the best evidence I had at the time.</DIV></p><p>Your evidence seems more than a little weak from an emprical perspective. Chapman probably felt as you do too, but he was still wrong none the less. I'd rather be right and I'd rather put my "faith" in emprical testing. Chapman demonstrates that mathematical theories in the absense of emprical support can be highly misleading and ultimately wrong. Emprical science however has stood the test of time and that is certainly true of Birkeland's work. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The only one that will be embarassed is the one who never provided any solid scientific evidence for their claims. </DIV></p><p>Well, from my perspective, that would be you folks. I'm not claiming that magnetic reconnection occurs in nature, and we have already isolated to "better" ways to explain particle acceleration that are within the confines of MHD theory. Why resort to something we don't need in the first place?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The one , through their argument techniques alienated the mainstream and referred to them as, essentially, astrologers.</DIV></p><p>Well, from my perspective those two magnetic reconnection models were rather useless when it came to accurate predictive abilities. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It is people like the one I am referring to that are keeping EU theory from ever gaining a foothold in any real scientific discussion. </DIV></p><p>People like Alfven and Birkeland tried to help EU theory get a foothold too, but evidently it's not an easy process to convince the mainstream and the public on the legitimacy of EU theory. I'm not sure there is an "right way" to present truth. Some people take to it, others don't. You're mileage my vary. That's how I see it anyway. EU theory is enjoying a surge of support since the advent of the internet and since these theories are being discussed now in cyberspace. I'm just doing my best (as poor as that may be) to present EU ideas to the mainstream and to the public at large. Everyone gets to make they own subjective decision as to which theories are legitimate and which are not. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The onyl reason attacks are getting personal is because you think you know physics and astrophysics better than professionals. </DIV></p><p>No. I think Alfven and Birkeland knew physics and astrophysics better than the mainstream. It's an entirely egoless issue however since I don't prefess to have Alfven's math skills, nor the hard core scientific drive of Birkeland. They were both out of my league. I'm just a guy that highly respects their work and the work of many others who have written about these topics. I'm thankful for the internet and for public discusson like this one where I can "test" my beliefs and see how EU theory stacks up scientifically. Thus far it seems to have held up quite well.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yet when challenged to demonstrate this knowledge you talk around it or make demands for someone to answer your silly question before you answer theirs. </DIV></p><p>That's not true. I've answered tons of questions, and I just have a few of my own to ask. If you don't read the papers I cite however, it's not a two was discussion, it's a whack-a-mole game of paper shuffling going in one direction. I would like straight answers to some legitimate scientifci questions, like asking DrRocket if "magnetic reconnection" is in fact an "induction" event in his opinion since he claimed that induction causes particle acceleration. I asked him if he read Alfven's paper. I asked you that too. I never get a straight answer so I assume that means "no". Sometimes I drag my feet in protest when I'm doing all the work and your side of the aisle looks to be doing nothing at all but throwing papers my way and refusing to read any that I provide in rebuttal to their aruguements.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am not going to stop studying my "myths" as you call them because michaelmozina said so.</DIV></p><p>I wouldn't expect you to do that. You might however trust Alfven since he wrote MHD theory. That is rather typical until someone provides emprical support that he is wrong on the topic of magnetic reconnection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Nor am I going to if Alfven says what I believe is wrong. </DIV></p><p>So essentially it doesn't matter to you what a Nobel prize winning scientists believes, it only matter what those THEMIS folks believe? Do they even have any emprical evidence to support their claims? No, of course not. Did they falsify both magnetic reconnection models based on it failing to accurately predict the observed sequence of events? Sure. That is of course only true of you're willing to be emotionally detached from the outcome of your observational "test". If it can be "verified" by how well it predicted a series of uncontrolled observations, then it can also be falsified by failing that same "test". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nor am I going to because astronomers such as Ptolemy would've claimed what I study is ridiculous and impossible.</DIV></p><p>But astronomers who've never earned a Nobel prize and are unknown names in history are somehow a better source of information?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If EU theorists suddenly start producing convincing, modern results, then maybe I'll change my position, if they are valid studies. But this will not happen. </DIV></p><p>It's already happened. Peratt even built on of those beloved computer models and showed how ti sucessfully "predicted" a whole host of observed phenomenon. You guys would know that of course because none of you have read his work, his book, or much of anything that he's written. Even when I provide links to papers, you folks don't read them. It's definitely not going to happen if you don't read the paper I cite or the references I point you to. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>EU proponents see themselves as persecuted martyrs, and with that attitude they will never do anything to convince the scientific community of anything. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I have absolutely never been "persecuted" here on this website, nor do I have a martyr complex. I'm more the "survivor" type personally. </p><p>Frankly I come here for the interesting discussions and to find out how EU theory stacks up with current astronomy theories. Thus far I'm very happy being a supporter of EU theory and I have heard nothing here in over 2 years of discussions that would cause me to believe that EU theory is in any way inferior to current theory. It has many predictive abilities that have been sucessfully verified both emprically and observationally. Whatever it's shortcommings,I assure you that mainstream theories are not any better under scrutiny than EU theory. All astronomical theories have strengths and weaknesses. The strength of EU theory lies in it's foothold in emprical physics and it's predictive abilities as it relates to solar system activity. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p>Frankly I come here for the interesting discussions and to find out how EU theory stacks up with current astronomy theories. Thus far I'm very happy being a supporter of EU theory and I have heard nothing here in over 2 years of discussions that would cause me to believe that EU theory is in any way inferior to current theory. It has many predictive abilities that have been sucessfully verified both emprically and observationally. Whatever it's shortcommings,I assure you that mainstream theories are not any better under scrutiny than EU theory. All astronomical theories have strengths and weaknesses. The strength of EU theory lies in it's foothold in emprical physics and it's predictive abilities as it relates to solar system activity. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I guess it's not old enough then...I think after a certain period of time you can view papers off of ADS without a subscription. Anyways, here is a megaupload link that I uploaded the pdf to if you want: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UFWXYSOL If you don't trust it is what I say it is I understand, I just thought you would be interested as someone who seems more comfortable with this sort of thing. Also I am anticipating some questions from mozina that you'd probably be more qualified to answer. <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>thanks. I have downloaded the paper and will take a look at it.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here's what appears to be a good paper that discusses where Ideal MHD is applicable and where it is not. Discusses and references Alfven's objections. Plenty of math and text.Looks like a paper that might be useful for this debate. http://www.ann-geophys.net/23/2565/2005/angeo-23-2565-2005.htmlLink to PDF is at bottom of abstract. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /> Looks interesting. I will take a look. thanks <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Throughout this argument, mozina has been using a definition of reconnection that involves the "cutting and splicing" of field lines. Until now, I haven't been able to find a paper addressing the basic concept of reconnection. Here are two definitions, presented by Schindler, Hesse, and Birn in 1988. Its from a PDF so I have to type it out myself."1. Vasyliunas[1975] defines "magnetic field line merging or reconnection" as "the process whereby plasma flows across a surface that separates regions containing topologically different magnetic field lines." </DIV></p><p>Which "translates" in plasma physics to the notion that we start with two kinetically powerful streams of flowing charged particles that are flowing in opposite directions based on different electrical orientations. These streams of particles *slam* into one another and release heat and kinetically interact with one another since plasma is not a "perfect conductor". Currernt and particles are ultimately transfering the energy. This is not "magnetic reconnection". this is pure particle physics related to the kinetic and electrical properties of the flowing plasma streams. This is "particle collision"" and "electrical reconnection", not "magnetic reconnection". Not a single magnetic field line is "reconnected" in any way. It's a purely a particle physics interaction in "current flow streams". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In this picture, two separatrixbranches intersect at a line called a "separator".</DIV></p><p>AKA "Double layer" in MHD lingo.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It is argued that the plasmaflow across a separatrix requires an electric field component along the separator which in turn implies a localized violation of ideal Ohm's law. </DIV></p><p>In other words the charge flow is accross the double layer, and "particles collide" because plasma is not a "perfect" conductor, just a good one. Sometimes traffic gets really heavy during rush hour and accidents happen. They are kinetic energy transfer processes by nature, just like any car collision when two cars run into one another going 60 miles per hour in opposite directions.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Other authors emphasize the relevance of the electric field component parallel to the separator as the fundamental agent rather than the flow across the separatrix.</DIV></p><p>Well, particles will flow along the outsides of the double layer, but if the particle crosses the surface of the double layer, accidents can happen inside the highly charged double layer. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2. Axford[1984] considers the localized breakdown of the "frozen-in-field" condition and the resulting changes of "connection" as the basis of magnetic reconnection. </DIV></p><p>Alfven thuroughly debunked the "frozen field line" concept. This idea is meaningless unless you start talking about some kind of induction process between the two current streams which deflect the charged particles into or away from the opposing current stream. Again however the particle collision process and the kinetic tranfer of energy is related to the speed and angle at the time of "impact" as well as the relative charge of the particles. This is still a kinetic energy and/or induction driven process either way you look at it. In neither case is there any scientific need for a new terminology for simple kinetic energy transfers or induction driven events. These are already explained by MHD theory and in no way is magnetic reconnection required to explain current sheet transfers of energy. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here "connection" means that plasma elements which are at one time connected by single magnetic field line remain connected at subsequent times." Note that in neither definition do they refer to "cutting and splicing" of field lines.</DIV></p><p>Then why call it "magnetic reconnection' when it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "reconnection" of magnetic field lines? Talk about a confusing and misleading label. Neither of these models has anything whatseover to do with "reconnection" of magnetic field lines and everything to do with the particle collisions and/or induction type events. There is absolutely no need and no point in creating a new label to explain what is already explained in MHD theory. In science, precise language is critically important. Magnetic lines are not reconnectng in either of these models, and therefore it is pointless to call it "magnetic reconnection". It's a oxymoron from the moment they created the label.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> They go on to say that definition 1 is structurally instable,</DIV></p><p>So are z-pinch filaments inside of highly conductive double layers. The problem here is obvious. They have created a pointless and misleading label to describe what is essentially a particle reconnection and electrical reconnection process in plasma. Electrical transactions through double layers are already completely documented in MHD theory and in no way involve any sort of magnetic reconnection. It is a pointless and misleading label for current sheet transactions.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>i.e. whether reconnection occurs depends strongly on small modifications to the system. </DIV></p><p>The only modification necessary is to stop using a pointless label to describe current sheet transactions inside electrically conductive plasma. These are simple kinetic and electrical transfers of energy that in now way involve any sort of reconnection of magnetic fields. They simply aren't recognizing that the "current flow" is the energy source of these events, and they are instead calling something that it is not. It is not "magnetic reconnection". It is "current flow disruption" inside heavily electrified double layers. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I stumbled upon this because one of the authors(Schindler) is giving a talk on bifurcated current sheets tomorrow here and I decided to read up on what he has done. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Ask him if he's ever read "Cosmic Plasma". I've yet to meet anyone who's actually read that book who supports the concept of "magnetic reconnection". Anyone with some modest background in electrical engineering and/or particle physical transfers of energy understands that MHD theory describes these events *without* magnetic reconnection. </p><p>You might also ask him to derive a formula for "magnetic reconnection" from Maxwell's equations that don't *assume* that the electric field remains fixed.</p><p>The basic problem here is that the mainstream seems to lack a clear understanding of Alfven's original MHD theories. I suspect it's because few have read his actual books on this topic and fewer still have any real understanding of Birkeland's work with terellas in a vaccum. </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'> Ask him if he's ever read "Cosmic Plasma". I've yet to meet anyone who's actually read that book who supports the concept of "magnetic reconnection". Anyone with some modest background in electrical engineering and/or particle physical transfers of energy understands that MHD theory describes these events *without* magnetic reconnection. You might also ask him to derive a formula for "magnetic reconnection" from Maxwell's equations that don't *assume* that the electric field remains fixed.The basic problem here is that the mainstream seems to lack a clear understanding of Alfven's original MHD theories. I suspect it's because few have read his actual books on this topic and fewer still have any real understanding of Birkeland's work with terellas in a vaccum. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>His talk is about current sheets, not reconnection. Though his work with reconnection has been extensive. If I see him somewhere outside of the talk I may ask him some questions, but I'm not going to waste everyone's time at the talk asking unrelated questions. As for the rest of your argument, you're just talking around things again. You didn't even make a single comment about the fact that I DID read Alfven's papers yesterday(not the book, but expecting someone to read an entire book in a few days when they have a job is kind of unreasonable), or the paper that provides a mathematical basis of reconnection, deriving it from Euler potentials. You need to stop addressing these papers' arguments sentence by sentence. It is often the case that they say something that you could argue, then in a few sentences explain why that isn't true. Also, I'm not going to give you an "outline". This isn't third grade where we have to write book reports to prove we read something. I read his early papers from the 40s, and browsed over his later ones. I thought it was interesting that as time progressed you could notice him getting more and more angry/bitter with the community. </p><p>Nonetheless, reconnection is 1) proven to be a viable physical process from basic physics equations 2) backed up by observation 3) demonstrated in the lab(more people did similar but not identical things to the PPPL paper) and I have provided the major agreed upon definitions. My recent postings have been proving you wrong on numerous points(magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations, magnetic reconnection has no agreed upon definition, etc etc)...I give up. </p><p>You clearly don't understand what reconnection is. I gave you papers that would educate you on what it is, but you ignore them. If you did, you would stop asking "why call it reconnection if no lines are cut and reconnected", because the answer to that is simple: that is not what reconnection is defined as. In none of the definitions do they use those words. It is merely a simplified way of relating the concept to people unfamiliar with it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> GEOS would have showed him little he had not already seen from X-ray images from Skylab. I doublt that would sway him since he attributed these x-rays to "current flow discharges" through plasma. I certainly see nothing in the satellite data that he would find to be convincing evidence of "magnetic reconnection".</DIV></p><p>Also, I should point out that the LANL GEO satellites have absolutely nothing to do with x-rays. The GEO series of instruments measure energetic particle data, ranging from 10s of keV to a few MeV. We use this data to identify substorms. The GOES satellites measure the three components of the magnetic field, from which you can determine an angle to get a measure of how "stretched" the magnetotail is. I only point this out because those are the two satellites I work with and I know for a fact I'm not looking at x-rays. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I guess it's not old enough then...I think after a certain period of time you can view papers off of ADS without a subscription. Anyways, here is a megaupload link that I uploaded the pdf to if you want: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UFWXYSOL If you don't trust it is what I say it is I understand, I just thought you would be interested as someone who seems more comfortable with this sort of thing. Also I am anticipating some questions from mozina that you'd probably be more qualified to answer. <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p> The Hess and Schindler paper is fairly difficult to read, so what progress I have made is quite slow. I found this paper as well, and it seems a bit more clear. <br /><br />http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1990MmSAI..61..383P&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Then why call it "magnetic reconnection' when it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "reconnection" of magnetic field lines? Talk about a confusing and misleading label. </DIV></p><p>It's only confusing and misleading to someone who cooked up his own definition of reconnection which is completely, entirely wrong. The papers I quoted that defined reconnection even went out of their way to point out that they are NOT saying lines are "cut and spliced". They then go on to say(there is more to the papers than the quotes I pull from them, much more) why they define it as reconnection. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> In science, precise language is critically important. Magnetic lines are not reconnectng in either of these models, and therefore it is pointless to call it "magnetic reconnection". </DIV></p><p>Yes, precise language is extremely important. You haven't been using it. Take your own advice. Calling it "current flow" is very vague and it is quite obvious that current flow is taking place. Reconnection explains how the particles are accelerated. There is math to show how energy is transferred to the particles from the magnetic field, something you claim is impossible. The math is there, go read it like I did and as DrRocket is doing. I read through Alfven's papers for two reasons: 1) I wanted to hear his words directly and 2) I knew me reading them would not change your stance. You are even continuing to claim I didn't read them. Again, I'm in the position of meeting all of your demands, but I am getting nothing in return. You say the assumption one of hte papers made of a constant electric field is incorrect. Show me why. Show me how the model would change mathematically if you allowed E to vary. Do you really think they didn't take this into consideration? Sometimes you can make assumptions that may not necessarily be true in nature and still end up with a working model. The point is, you claim you are reading the papers and have given me alternatives t o what they say, but ALL you have done is give me a concept. You have not backed it up at all. If I tried to make claims without supporting them with a paper or some sort of mathematical basis you would tear me apart. </p><p> I don't care if you continue to believe EU theory. Nothing could mean less to me in the world. My problem is that you aren't even giving reconnection a fair chance and doing your own research because you are so convinced that your version of Alfven's work is correct. Not only are you misleading yourself, but more importantly there may be people on here that buy into the theory. I am only continuing to argue this because it is important that any observers get both sides of the argument. I have given you a true definition of reconnection, the mathematical and theoretical background of reconnection, observational evidence that supports reconnection models, lab experiments that demonstrate how reconnection accelerates particles, and you still use the same tired arguments.</p><p> Regarding the THEMIS paper, please go and read derekmcd's post. They were not trying to prove reconnection at all. All they were doing was looking for a pattern in the data that could be useful in predicting auroral substorms. They found a signature in the magnetotail, believed to be due to reconnection, that preceded the events they studied. This is what data people do. We look for patterns and then hand it over to the theorists who put this information into their models. It is the theorists who then try to predict things. Nothing about reconnection in and of itself was falsified. They showed that it is possible that reconnection isn't THE trigger for substorms, but there isn't really too much of reason why there should only be one trigger. I am trying to make a model that can predict the other type of substorm(dispersionless injections), but I am not looking for a pattern in one parameter. I am including measures of the ring current, how stretched the magnetotail is, solar wind speed, proton density, the three components of the solar wind's magnetic field, etc etc. A total of 14 different things. Substorms are not simple events. You can't describe them entirely using reconnection, and you can't describe them entirely with current flow. If you can, by all means prove it to me so I can take the rest of the summer off. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
3... 2... 1... SpaceX launches Starlink satellites on third-to-last mission planned for 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram