Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[yevaud]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you guys can convince Yevaud that it's ok, I will post a link to the paper when it';s done and I will invite criticisms to my paper on this thread.&nbsp; I don't want to do that however is Yevaud and the other moderators are not in agreement, and I'll be happy to email you a link and you can critique it by emial if you like.</p><p><br /> Posted by <em>michaelmozina</em></DIV></p><p>Michael, the issue wasn't the physics or the science.&nbsp; In point of fact, I'm not really concerned about <em>what</em> you refer to the mechanism as.&nbsp; Call it "Ferd" for all I care.&nbsp; But the issue was you guys were sniping at each other and bickering about semantical nuances, and that was unacceptable.&nbsp; Thus I came down on the side of "call it what it's currently referred to as," not to take sides, but to force all of you to utilize common terms and end the arguing.</p><p>Certainly you can link to, and post excerpts from, an abstract or article.&nbsp; More than fine - after all, this <em>is</em> a hard science fora, and that <em>is</em> it's purpose: free debate of science.&nbsp; Just be cautious not to begin another endless series of follish arguments over irrelevancies, and all is well.</p><p>Thanks! </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, that depends entirely upon the validity of the assumptions being made and whether or not they are true.&nbsp; It's pretty clear that the "current flow density" (a better overall term to be sure) is being pinched in this process, and the diameter of the filament is expanding and contracting during this process.&nbsp; It therefore seems highly unlikely that the current density remained constant during the expansion and contraction process.<br /><p> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You're confusing me.&nbsp; Current flow and current density are two different things.&nbsp; Z-pinch is simply used to confine the plasma and, if I'm not mistaken, uniform over the entire plasma.&nbsp; This would make the current density constant over space (but not time)... at least close enough to approximate to be constant.&nbsp; I don't think the z-pinch is in one location pulsating causing a change in specification within the machine.&nbsp; </p><p>I think the sawtooth (not really clear on this) is variations in temperature of the plasma within magnetic field lines that are becoming unstable.&nbsp; I think when the magnetic field lines finally breakdown whatever uniformity they have left and the topology changes is when the magnetic reconnect events occur.</p><p>I'm clearly out of my league here, so I could just be blowing smoke out of my butt, too... <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />.&nbsp; I'm just trying to interpret what I'm reading. </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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael, the issue wasn't the physics or the science.&nbsp; In point of fact, I'm not really concerned about what you refer to the mechanism as.&nbsp; Call it "Ferd" for all I care.&nbsp; But the issue was you guys were sniping at each other and bickering about semantical nuances, and that was unacceptable.&nbsp; Thus I came down on the side of "call it what it's currently referred to as," not to take sides, but to force all of you to utilize common terms and end the arguing.</DIV></p><p>FYI, that is pretty much the whole purpose of my paper.&nbsp; I would like to see astronomers start conforming to the common terms that are used in electrical engineering and Alfven's explanation of MHD theory to describe such circuit reconnection events.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whereas Alfven used the common electrical terms "circuit" in reference to electrical reconnection events in plasma and he used the term "induction", the mainstream has renamed these same processes "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; That's a rather confusing label since we all seem to agree that magnetic lines don't actually "reconnect".&nbsp;&nbsp; It's also a highly unothodox way of describing this idea according to Alfven's explanation of MHD theory. </p><p>The same exact mathematical definitions that Priest used could and would easily be interpreted as "circuit reconnection" by an electrical engineer.&nbsp; This is certainly how Alfven referred to these current sheet transations.&nbsp; He dealt with current sheet transactions by referrencing the "particle" side and electrical aspects of MHD theory.&nbsp; He used the term "circuits" to describe the flow of particles along magnetic field lines&nbsp;&nbsp; The fact that there is a naming convention skism that has developed between electrical theory and astronomers based on exactly the same mathematical equations, is the primary cause of this inherent confusion.&nbsp; IMO it would be a lot more advantageous and productive for mainstream astronomers to simply adopt the standard naming conventions used in electrical theory and Alfven's explanation of MHD theory and just call this process 'circuit reconnection".&nbsp; Circuits can indeed "reconnect" in Maxwell's equations whereas magnetic field lines cannot. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Certainly you can link to, and post excerpts from, an abstract or article.&nbsp; More than fine - after all, this is a hard science fora, and that is it's purpose: free debate of science.&nbsp; Just be cautious not to begin another endless series of follish arguments over irrelevancies, and all is well.Thanks! <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>I'll try to hold off on further comments in this thread until I post a link to the rough draft of the paper.&nbsp; I would certainly like to get some useful critical feedback from this group before I submit the paper, so as long as it's ok by you, I will post a link to the rough draft when I'm ready.&nbsp; It will likely be Sunday or early next week.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If I start stepping on your toes at some point, just let me know. </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>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>By "assuming" that we can ignore the current density flowing through the z-pinched filament, they eliminated one viable possible way to "explain" these observations, and left only one possible explanation for the sawtooth discharge.&nbsp; That was a very critical assumption on their part.&nbsp; If they were wrong about the current density remaining constant, then the rest of their mathematical presentation is invalid.&nbsp;&nbsp; I saw no explanation of how they justified this "assumption" and the observations they report don't support that assumption IMO.&nbsp; The diameter of the filament was definitely changing during that process, so how exactly did the current density remain constant when the size of the thread increased and decreased during the discharge process? </DIV></p><p>Well, they didn't really ignore the current density, they just approximated that it is constant.&nbsp; It is a known fact that the current density is NOT constant in current sheets in question, and is often bifurcated or trifurcated or more complex.&nbsp; However, although they might not explicitly go through why this fact was unimportant in the paper, the only way they could have gotten away with making the approximation(not really the same thing as an assumption)&nbsp; is if they justified it to the referee.&nbsp; It may be something that is assumed to be common knowledge among the tokamak reactor people, I don't know.&nbsp; My point is, the approximation was not based on physically correct assumptions, but sometimes such approximations are useful in order to simplify the process, IF they can show that a non-constant profile does not significantly alter the results.&nbsp; For example, the approximation that e^x=(1+x)&nbsp; or whatever it is for very small x is not correct, but it is close enough that it doesn't really matter.&nbsp; The important part is the result in the end.&nbsp; Whether they assumed the current density was 0 or quadratic or cubic or whatever you want isn't really significant as long as you interpret the results correctly.&nbsp; They made the assumption to make a general argument which would not have changed significantly if they had used a proper current density profile. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, there are quite a few experiments done on reconnection in tokamak reactors.&nbsp; If you were going to include the experiments in the paper, it would be better to comment on the process they all use in these reactors in general, rather than a specific experiment.&nbsp; That is, explain why what they observe in Tokamaks could be supposedly explained using circuit theory.&nbsp; For example, in the Hesse/Schindler derivation they say that they don't believe reconnection can occur(basically) in toroidal magnetic field configurations due to certain instabilities, but from what I've read, the Tokamak experiments deal with toroidal magnetic fields.&nbsp; Now, I would say that Hesse/Schindler, having written the paper in 1988, may disagree with their earlier statement now given the advent of more sophisticated modeling, but it might be something you would want to look into.&nbsp; And it would give you more credibility in the eyes of the referees by including more than one mathematical derivation.&nbsp; I would say a way to certainly get some attention is show that Euler potentials can be used to describe circuit theory, but I've been trying for a couple days to understand the physics behind that derivation and I'm stumped.&nbsp; Derivations are simply not my area of expertise. &nbsp;That said, I'm not sure if the experiment should be included in your argument or not.&nbsp; On one hand, it is necessary to provide a complete argument against reconnection, but on the other hand, it is not entirely relevant to your argument.&nbsp; Perhaps just a short comment on the idea of reconnection experiments in tokamak reactors would be appropriate. &nbsp;Regardless of how I feel about all this, I do hope to see it published, if only to generate conversations with people who would normally not give this argument any time of day. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Thanks for your feedback.&nbsp; I'm not sure that necessarily helps me decide one way or the other, but I appreciate the comments.&nbsp; My gut instinct is to leave the tokamak papers for another discussion and just keep the one paper focused on the specifics that are related to Priest's mathematical and physical descriptions of this event.&nbsp; The same criticisms I have about Priest's paper would necessarily apply to all papers on the same topic, that also use Maxwell's equations so technically they would also apply to the tokamak type papers as well.&nbsp; It feels like I would just be opening up another unnecessary can of worms by focusing on any other (specific) type of paper.&nbsp; I'm tempted to keep it simple and then see what they have to say about it. </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>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for your feedback.&nbsp; I'm not sure that necessarily helps me decide one way or the other, but I appreciate the comments.&nbsp; My gut instinct is to leave the tokamak papers for another discussion and just keep the one paper focused on the specifics that are related to Priest's mathematical and physical descriptions of this event.&nbsp; The same criticisms I have about Priest's paper would necessarily apply to all papers on the same topic, that also use Maxwell's equations so technically they would also apply to the tokamak type papers as well.&nbsp; It feels like I would just be opening up another unnecessary can of worms by focusing on any other (specific) type of paper.&nbsp; I'm tempted to keep it simple and then see what they have to say about it. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Well, since you've published before I'm sure you know to expect that the referee report is likely to be fairly...harsh.&nbsp; I kind of agree that you shouldn't include the experiments, but my point was the referee might bring it up.&nbsp; I am in a similar situation where the referee is most likely going to ask why we didn't do some extra stuff, but the key is to have a response prepared as to why that is not necessary for this particular paper.&nbsp; In your case, you are not arguing against reconnection as a whole, but rather the fact that you believe the name is misleading, so experiments are not really essential to your argument.&nbsp; I think it would be beneficial to you to keep it simple and directly to the point, which is why I suggested ApJ-L.&nbsp; Are you also going to try those Plasma Physics journals a few of the papers we've been quoting are from? &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... I would say a way to certainly get some attention is show that Euler potentials can be used to describe circuit theory,...Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I'm still working slowly through that paper, but I think I can tell you that trying to get ordinary circuit theory from Euler potentials will be futile.&nbsp; Circuit theory can be derived from Maxwell's equations, but the electric field is the real driver for most of it.&nbsp; Euler potentials only relate to the magnetic field.&nbsp; They are in fact an alternate way of looking at the vector potential for the magnetic field.</p><p>Basically, what happens is this.&nbsp; If a vector field is curl free, say curl F = 0 then it follows that F is the gradient of some scalar field, called a potential.&nbsp; That potential is unique up to an additive constant.&nbsp; So in the static case the E field is derivable from a scalar potential.&nbsp; If a vector field is divergence free, like the B field always is then B is the curl of some vector field.&nbsp; So B = curl A and&nbsp;A is unique up to addition of a curl free vector field.&nbsp; A is usually called a vector potential for the magnetic field.&nbsp; Euler potentials allow the expression of A as the cross product of the gradients of two scalar fields.&nbsp; I am still trying to understand why this is more illuminating than working with the vector potential, and what to do with the fairly extreme non-uniqueness of the Euler potential functions.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh, for goodness sake DrRocket. This is why it's pointless to argue this point any further on this forum.&nbsp; I just admitted that this particular post could have been phrased better and I fully explained the rationale behind my concerns&nbsp; You then rationalize that on sloppy use of terms as some excuse to ignore the whole issue entirely.&nbsp;&nbsp; Typical.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Some day you are going to actually respond with an answer to the question posed rather than claiming that you answered it somewhere else.&nbsp; You did not.&nbsp; You did not explain any rationale in any terms that are recognizable as such.&nbsp; The authors made an assumption of a constant current density.&nbsp; You somehow managed to conclude on that basis that they were ignoring the electric field and that they failed to recognize that the phenomena with which they were dealing was induction.&nbsp; I have no idea how you reached that conclusion or how it relates to Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; If you can show the relatioinship and your rationale I would like to see that argument.</p><p>You are ducking the question as you usually do when confronted with a problem that requires a response in terms of hard physics and mathematics.</p><p>It seems that the argument is pointless only because you have no idea how to make your point. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm still working slowly through that paper, but I think I can tell you that trying to get ordinary circuit theory from Euler potentials will be futile.&nbsp; Circuit theory can be derived from Maxwell's equations, but the electric field is the real driver for most of it.&nbsp; Euler potentials only relate to the magnetic field.&nbsp; They are in fact an alternate way of looking at the vector potential for the magnetic field.Basically, what happens is this.&nbsp; If a vector field is curl free, say curl F = 0 then it follows that F is the gradient of some scalar field, called a potential.&nbsp; That potential is unique up to an additive constant.&nbsp; So in the static case the E field is derivable from a scalar potential.&nbsp; If a vector field is divergence free, like the B field always is then B is the curl of some vector field.&nbsp; So B = curl A and&nbsp;A is unique up to addition of a curl free vector field.&nbsp; A is usually called a vector potential for the magnetic field.&nbsp; Euler potentials allow the expression of A as the cross product of the gradients of two scalar fields.&nbsp; I am still trying to understand why this is more illuminating than working with the vector potential, and what to do with the fairly extreme non-uniqueness of the Euler potential functions.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>OK, thanks for clarifying that.&nbsp; I am not an electrical engineer so I am not very clear on circuit theory, I just assumed that the Euler potentials could at least be used to represent the magnetic fields produced by whatever mechanism circuit theory says they are.&nbsp; I also wasn't aware only magnetic fields could be represented in such a manner.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>My point still stands though, that if michaelmozina can show mathematically that his claims are valid then it is much more likely to be published.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..circuit theory says they are.&nbsp; I also wasn't aware only magnetic fields could be represented in such a manner.&nbsp;&nbsp;My point still stands though, that if michaelmozina can show mathematically that his claims are valid then it is much more likely to be published.&nbsp; <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Absolsutely true.&nbsp; In fact I think it likely that this condition is both necessary and sufficient.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Absolsutely true.&nbsp; In fact I think it likely that this condition is both necessary and sufficient. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law_for_magnetism</p><p>This process of a line by line evaluation of Priest's mathematical presentation has been rather revealing and a bit more complicated than it appears at first glance.&nbsp; For instance, on page 387, Priest states:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus, if the inflow field is potential, the distortion may be regarded as being produced by a series of monopole sources along the x axis between |x|=L and |x|=Le, say.</DIV></p><p>Priest then goes on to incorporate this monopole idea into the equations.&nbsp; Of course Gauss's law of magnetism doesn't allow for any such thing to occur in plasma.&nbsp; From WIKI:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Gauss' law for magnetism states that magnetism is unlike electricity in that there are not distinct "north pole" and "south pole" <em>particles</em> (such particles, which exist in theory only, would be called magnetic monopoles) that attract and repel the way positive and negative charges do. Instead, north poles and south poles necessarily come as pairs (magnetic dipoles).</DIV></p><p>In other words magnetic fields, unlike charged particles, are always treated as dipoles in Maxwell's equations and also in MHD theory the way Alfven described it.&nbsp; It seems that Priest's desire to treat the current flow as "plasma velocity" alone leads to a lot of unneccessary complications.&nbsp; More importantly it requires the use of unevidenced particles in order to work correctly.&nbsp; Since there is no emprical evidence that monopoles exist in nature or have any effect on plasma, and since this concept directly disputes Gauss's law, one would expect that they would have noticed it would be easier and more accurate to expressly consider the elecrical field aspects of these equations.&nbsp; The fact they did not do the "logical thing" makes this a much more difficult process than I originally anticiipated.&nbsp;&nbsp; It also demonstrates why it's so hard to bridge the communcation gap and theoretical gaps between electrical engineering and mainstream astronomy concepts like "magnetic reconnection'. &nbsp;</p><p>FYI, it will be awhile before I'm ready to post a link to my paper. </p><p>&nbsp;</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

I'm curious about the scientific implication of the monopole equation in Priest's presentation of "magnetic reconnection"..&nbsp; When do known "laws" of physics need to be considered? &nbsp; I'm sitting here scratching my head as to how it's "acceptable" to defy known "laws" of electrical engineering science in favor of a theory about the existence of monopoles.&nbsp; That seems beyond what I would consider "reasonable" in terms of scientific validity.&nbsp; It seems to me that "laws" are generally more important than "theories" which are in turn more important than a "hypothesis".&nbsp; Obviously the lines between a theory and a hypothesis is rather blurry and even the lines between laws and theories get blurry.&nbsp; However, the notion ot introducing a hypothetic particle to support a theory that contradicts a known law of physics seems unreasonable to me.&nbsp; What is the value of calling something a "law" if you intend to violate that law in your "theory" using a hypothetical entitiy as the basis for that process? <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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm curious about the scientific implication of the monopole equation in Priest's presentation of "magnetic reconnection"..&nbsp; When do known "laws" of physics need to be considered? &nbsp; I'm sitting here scratching my head as to how it's "acceptable" to defy known "laws" of electrical engineering science in favor of a theory about the existence of monopoles.&nbsp; That seems beyond what I would consider "reasonable" in terms of scientific validity.&nbsp; It seems to me that "laws" are generally more important than "theories" which are in turn more important than a "hypothesis".&nbsp; Obviously the lines between a theory and a hypothesis is rather blurry and even the lines between laws and theories get blurry.&nbsp; However, the notion ot introducing a hypothetic particle to support a theory that contradicts a known law of physics seems unreasonable to me.&nbsp; What is the value of calling something a "law" if you intend to violate that law in your "theory" using a hypothetical entitiy as the basis for that process? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I think they are referring more to confinement techniques rather than monopoles particles predicted by Quantum Mechanics.&nbsp; I could be wrong.</p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ssto.rept.....N</p><p><span class="a">www.ornl.gov/sci/fed/Technology/rf/rfaps2001/aps/bell.pdf</span> </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm curious about the scientific implication of the monopole equation in Priest's presentation of "magnetic reconnection"..&nbsp; When do known "laws" of physics need to be considered? &nbsp; I'm sitting here scratching my head as to how it's "acceptable" to defy known "laws" of electrical engineering science in favor of a theory about the existence of monopoles.&nbsp; That seems beyond what I would consider "reasonable" in terms of scientific validity.&nbsp; It seems to me that "laws" are generally more important than "theories" which are in turn more important than a "hypothesis".&nbsp; Obviously the lines between a theory and a hypothesis is rather blurry and even the lines between laws and theories get blurry.&nbsp; However, the notion ot introducing a hypothetic particle to support a theory that contradicts a known law of physics seems unreasonable to me.&nbsp; What is the value of calling something a "law" if you intend to violate that law in your "theory" using a hypothetical entitiy as the basis for that process? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I will hazard a guess, and it is only a guess, that he is referring to some sort of technique for exploiting a ficticous symmetry in solving a partial differential equation that is later removed in the solution process.&nbsp; I doubt that he is actually postulating the existence of monopoles.&nbsp; That sort of thing is sometimes done as a means of modeling boundary conditions -- e.g. use of reflection charges in electrostatics problems.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I will hazard a guess, and it is only a guess, that he is referring to some sort of technique for exploiting a ficticous symmetry in solving a partial differential equation that is later removed in the solution process.&nbsp; I doubt that he is actually postulating the existence of monopoles.&nbsp; That sort of thing is sometimes done as a means of modeling boundary conditions -- e.g. use of reflection charges in electrostatics problems.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>While this might be an effective way of describing reflective "charges" (IOW. "charged particles"), it's not very useful to refer to reflective charges as "monopoles" unless one is specifically trying to replace the term "charged particles" with "monopoles". &nbsp; This monopole interaction process is presumably occuring in the "diffusion region" where all the magic is presumably happening and occuring between the two circuits.&nbsp; While charged particles might indeed flow between these reconnecting circuits, or these charged particles may act as "reflective surfaces" to other similarly charged particles it's completely impossible that monopoles did this really nifty trick because nobody has ever demonstrated that monopoles exist or have any effect on plasma.&nbsp; This "monopole" process is presumably responsible for the "distortion" occuring between the two circuits in the "high interest" area in question.&nbsp; </p><p>IMO this is the type of supposed "support" for magnetic reconnection that ultimately undermines it's support entirely.&nbsp;&nbsp; While charged particles flowing in the circuits could indeed "jump circuits", and generate a "diffusion region" between two circuits, it's absolutely impossible for monopoles to have had anything at all to do with this diffusion process between the two circuits.&nbsp; Magnetic lines do not exchange monopoles.&nbsp; Electrical circuits in plamsa however do to tend to exchange charged particles when they come into contact with other circuits.</p><p>It seems to me that this is a key issue, not just something you sort of "overlook" in someone's paper on Maxwell's equations. There are known "laws" of physics that are derived from these equations.&nbsp; To then ignore these physical "laws" in favor of a of a theory about a diffisuion process that is based on breaking these same laws, seem highly dubious and more than a little suspect.&nbsp;&nbsp; No monopoles interacted in this diffusion region.&nbsp; That statement should have invalidated the paper, or at least invalidated the mathematical model that was being presented in this paper.&nbsp; The fact it passed the "peer review"process only makes me more confused.&nbsp; Wasn't the point of presenting a magnetic reconnection theory to show that magnetic reconnection theory can be derived from Maxwell's equations and the "laws" that apply to these equations? </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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>I was expecting to be able to use the equations that were presented in Priest's paper to show that the electrical field view of these same mathematical equations would reveal that this is simply a "circuit reconnection" process.&nbsp; What I didn't really expect is for his equations to include a concept that falls significantly outside of the laws of electrical engineering and magnetic field theory.&nbsp; It makes a "conversion process" more than a little difficult when the mathematical presentation that I am trying to convert is not based on known laws of physics but rather upon a theoretical distortion process that is based upon the notion of defying these same laws of physics!&nbsp; </p><p>I certainly don't see how this monopole distortion "process" is later removed from the equations.&nbsp; In fact it seems that this particular equation was being applied to the single most important "transaction process" that is being described in that type of reconnection event.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm now mystified as to how to "characterize' this particular mathematical description without coming accross, well, "irked" to say the least.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; How did that assumption even pass peer review in the first place?</p><p>&nbsp;</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

When exactly did "monopole distortion" become a part of MHD theory? <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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law_for_magnetismThis process of a line by line evaluation of Priest's mathematical presentation has been rather revealing and a bit more complicated than it appears at first glance.&nbsp; For instance, on page 387, Priest statesriest then goes on to incorporate this monopole idea into the equations.&nbsp; Of course Gauss's law of magnetism doesn't allow for any such thing to occur in plasma.&nbsp; From WIKI:In other words magnetic fields, unlike charged particles, are always treated as dipoles in Maxwell's equations and also in MHD theory the way Alfven described it.&nbsp; It seems that Priest's desire to treat the current flow as "plasma velocity" alone leads to a lot of unneccessary complications.&nbsp; More importantly it requires the use of unevidenced particles in order to work correctly.&nbsp; Since there is no emprical evidence that monopoles exist in nature or have any effect on plasma, and since this concept directly disputes Gauss's law, one would expect that they would have noticed it would be easier and more accurate to expressly consider the elecrical field aspects of these equations.&nbsp; The fact they did not do the "logical thing" makes this a much more difficult process than I originally anticiipated.&nbsp;&nbsp; It also demonstrates why it's so hard to bridge the communcation gap and theoretical gaps between electrical engineering and mainstream astronomy concepts like "magnetic reconnection'. &nbsp;FYI, it will be awhile before I'm ready to post a link to my paper. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I was simply using reflection charges as an example of a technique for solving equations in electromagnetism that is valid but is not, strictly speaking, a direct model of the original problem.&nbsp; I was not saying that you could directly apply that technique to the monopoles that Priest has in his paper.&nbsp; It was an ANALOGY.</p><p>But Priest is not stupid and I strongly doubt that he is basing his analysis on the existence of physical monopoles in his plasma.&nbsp; I strongly suggest that you dig a little deeper and understand what he is doing.&nbsp; He would not make a mistake that was quite that blatant.&nbsp; If you simply assume that he has made such a mistake and you are wrong (almost a certainty) then you will come across in your paper as foolish and will have zero chance of acceptance for publication.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was simply using reflection charges as an example of a technique for solving equations in electromagnetism that is valid but is not, strictly speaking, a direct model of the original problem.&nbsp; I was not saying that you could directly apply that technique to the monopoles that Priest has in his paper.&nbsp; It was an ANALOGY.</DIV></p><p>Ok, I buy the idea that Priest is using an analogy, but then what exactly does this monople analogy describe in terms of real physics?&nbsp; Why is the term "monopole" even being used in this paper in this way?&nbsp; I don't "get it" based on known laws of physics.&nbsp; That's the whole pont of mentioning it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But Priest is not stupid and I strongly doubt that he is basing his analysis on the existence of physical monopoles in his plasma.&nbsp; I strongly suggest that you dig a little deeper and understand what he is doing.&nbsp; He would not make a mistake that was quite that blatant.&nbsp; If you simply assume that he has made such a mistake and you are wrong (almost a certainty) then you will come across in your paper as foolish and will have zero chance of acceptance for publication. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I absolutely agree with you on this point which is why I am trying to "dig a little deeper" to understand the purpose of his statements and the explanation he offered at this point in his paper. &nbsp; When you "assume" however that his mistake cannot be "blatant", I am reminded of all the papers in astronomy that I have read over the years that are in fact based upon rather blatant assumptions just like this one.&nbsp; I'm not absolutely convinced that his monopole distortion description *must* represent something "deeper" or that there is another physical process being described by that term that is necessarily related to known physics.&nbsp; I've seen too many examples of astronomy pappers where this is simply not the case.&nbsp;&nbsp; My whole point in asking what he means by this term is to attempt to "dig a little deeper". &nbsp;&nbsp; I wouldn't have said anything if I had understood the process he is trying to describe in that paragraph.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; If it's based on actual physics, I don't really comprehend the point of using the term "monopoles" since this is like waving a red flag as it relates to laws of physics and how they apply to charged particles and magnetic fields.</p><p>Here is my dilemma:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_theory</p><p><strong>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Circuit theory</strong> is the theory of accomplishing work by means of routing matter through a loop. The types of matter used are:</p> <ul><li>In electronic or electrical circuits: electrons (and charged ions, both positive and negative)</DIV></li></ul><p>From Priests paper:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Petschek's analysis is disarmingly simple. The magnetic field <strong>decreases</strong> substantially from a uniform value (Be) at large distances to a value Bi at the entrance to the diffusion region, while the flow speed <strong>*increases*</strong> from Ve to Vi.</DIV></p><p>Emphasis mine. &nbsp; Ignoring the fact that an increase in the speed of flowing ions should *increase* the magnetic field strength in this region, the whole conversation to this point of Preist's presentation is about the flow of material in these loops.&nbsp; It describes the the physical reconnection process that these loops undergo during the reconnection process.&nbsp; In every way they are related to "circuits" involving current streams of moving charged particles.&nbsp; The reconnection process is therefore necessarily a "circuit reconnection" process.&nbsp; Understanding the meaning of his terms is critical to me being able to provide an accurate redefinition of his mathematical equation.&nbsp; I don't have a clue how to do that since he evoked a particle that defies the laws of physics as I understand them.&nbsp; My point in asking about this equation is to attempt to better understand it.&nbsp; I vaguely grasp the concept in terms of "circuit reconnection" made up of flowing ions that interact with each other, but I dont have a clue how I might convert his math since at this point in his equations.&nbsp; I'm clueless what he's trying to convey here by evoking monopoles in this diffusion region.&nbsp; There are no monopoles present in this region.&nbsp; There are only moving charged particles present.&nbsp; To then refer to "monopoles" in this diffusion region is both confusing and unnecessary as far as I can tell.&nbsp; It certainly didn't help me understand the idea he was trying to convey.</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>Here's why I'm "stuck":</p><p>At this point in Priest's paper I've been exposed to not one, but two "paradoxes" that I can't really make any sense of.&nbsp; First of all, any significant increase in the flow speed of the charged particles through the medium should result in an increase of the magnetic field strength in this region.&nbsp; Likewise any decrease in magnetic field strength should correspond to a decrease in the number of charged particles flowing through the circuit at that point.&nbsp; I therefore don't have a clue how to make sense of his claim that the magnetic field strength decreases at the entrance of the "reconnection region" while the velocity of charged particles is increasing in the same region.</p><p>I also have no clue how to explain his introduction of "monopoles" into this discussion.&nbsp; Maxwell's equations relate to only three things, the electric field, the magnetic field and the charged particle flow that creates them.&nbsp; Monopoles don't exist in nature and their existence would defy the known laws of electrical theory.&nbsp; I therefore see no point in using that term in any conversation involving plasma physics or electrical engineering.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>I freely admit that I'm stuck here because I just don't "get it".&nbsp; I don't understand the logic behind either of these two paradoxes expecially when they are being combined like this, I really don't have the vaguest idea how to make heads or tails of his comments or his mathematical presentation in terms of known physics and known laws of electrical engineering.&nbsp; It's like someone stuffing word salad into the discussion.&nbsp; I can't "convert" "monopoles" into an electrically oriented set of equations.&nbsp; They don't exist in nature or in Maxwell's equations. </p><p>&nbsp;</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>From a theoretical perspective, would it be fair of me to attempt to substitute an electron or charged ion in the place of this "monopole" concept?</p><p>I had oringally hoped that I could take the same basic equations presented by Preist and simplify them for E rather than for B and to thereby demonstrate that magnetic reconnection is a mislabeling of what is ultimately a "circuit" reconnection process.&nbsp; This particular equation that I cited however defies a simple substitution of concepts stricktly in terms of Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; That is due to the fact that Priest introduced something that does not exist in Maxwell's equations, namely a "monopole".&nbsp; I can see how charged particles can be attracted and repulsed from other charged particles.&nbsp; I can see&nbsp; how electrons could be repulsed from other electrons, and how positively and negatively charged ions can experience similar charge repulsion processes.&nbsp; I don't see how "monopoles" could do anything to anything made of plasma.&nbsp; I can therefore only "assume" that it might be "logical" for me to attempt to substitute charge repulsion where Priest is describe magnetic repulsion, but I want to be sure it's a scientifically "fair" way for me to proceed.&nbsp; In other words if Priests monopole "analogy" can be tied back to ordinary charge repulsion/attraction, then it might even strengthen my case.&nbsp; Before I go off on wild goose chase however, I want to be sure that is a valid "substitution" on my part.&nbsp;&nbsp; Comments?</p><p>&nbsp; </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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>mm,</p><p>The amount of times you talk to yourself is disconcerting....</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>If anyone has a nuclear device that can create an EMP (which I'm sure can;t exist in EU land) please shoot the sucker off!!!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>mm,The amount of times you talk to yourself is disconcerting....&nbsp;If anyone has a nuclear device that can create an EMP (which I'm sure can;t exist in EU land) please shoot the sucker off!!! <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>You need something more potent, perhaps a direct strike with the nuclear weapon itself.&nbsp; The threat from EMP is highly overrated.&nbsp;</p><p>Back on the MX missile program I was involved in some full-scale threat-level EMP testing at facilities owned by the Defense Nuclear Agency.&nbsp; One day I flew into town for some testing and when I picked up my rental car they gave me a free credit card sized calculator.&nbsp; I stuck it in my pocket and drove over to the test site.</p><p>At the site we took off rings, watches, etc. and went out to the test article -- a full-size missile mock-up under some antennas that generated a full-blown EMP pulse.&nbsp; While we were out there a few pulses were fired while we looked for sparks or other anomalies.&nbsp; Afterwards, back in the control room I noticed that the calculator was still in my pocket.&nbsp; I figured it was toast.&nbsp; But much to my surprise it fired up&nbsp;and worked just fine -- no apparent damage at all.&nbsp; Now, if it had been a valuable piece of equipment I am sure it would have been fried.</p><p>This is of course off topic.&nbsp; But you brought it up.&nbsp; And it is a lot more interesting than the general thread.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You need something more potent, perhaps a direct strike with the nuclear weapon itself.&nbsp; The threat from EMP is highly overrated.&nbsp;Back on the MX missile program I was involved in some full-scale threat-level EMP testing at facilities owned by the Defense Nuclear Agency.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>So you're the one responsible for Golden Eye...</p><p>Regarding the monopole thing, I can understand you being confused by it but it may not be as important as you think it is.&nbsp; Try replacing it with an electron because that is an electric monopole and see what happens...I doubt it would change much theoretically. &nbsp;</p><p>About the velocity issue, your answer would be in a paper detailing the method of Petschek analysis.&nbsp; As they say this drop in field strength while velocity is increasing is a result of Petschek analysis, logically to understand why this is so would be to apply Petschek analysis yourself, or at least understand why it says this. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Regarding the monopole thing, I can understand you being confused by it but it may not be as important as you think it is.</DIV></p><p>It seems to be extremely important to "magnetic reconnection" theory or they would have surely found a "better" way to express the idea *without* resorting to monopoles.&nbsp; I find it quite interesting that they even need monopoles to make it operate correctly.&nbsp; It only makes this theory seem more "fishy" in the final analysis. &nbsp; It demonstrates that the magnetic reconnection theory is not based *strictly* on a Maxwellian presentation of the idea.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is definitely something fishy happening at that point in his mathematical presenation, both in terms of the verbiage being used (monopoles), and the ideas being conveyed (lower field strength = faster velocity). &nbsp; Either there is no actual basis for these claims (which is in fact possible) or I'm simply "missing something" that is explained somewhere else (the other paper). </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Try replacing it with an electron because that is an electric monopole and see what happens...I doubt it would change much theoretically.</DIV></p><p>Actually, it would and does change everything.&nbsp; Maxwell's equations and MHD theory both allow us to simplify for E or for B and look at the problem from one perspective or the other.&nbsp; It seems that simplifying everything to a "magnetic" point of view creates some significant and profound problems when it comes to the actual plasma interaction process at the point of reconnection.&nbsp; I personally think it's dangerous to ignore either the electrical aspect of what's going on inside the plasma or the magnetic aspect since both influences are involved in this "reconnection" process.&nbsp; From a mathematical perspective, it's obviously a bit easier to look at the problem from one perspective or the other, but in doing so, it tends to give one a completely skewed notion of what's really happening inside the plasma.&nbsp; At it's most basic level, this is simply a "circuit reconnection" event and that is entirely consistent with Maxwell's equations and the laws of electrical theory. &nbsp; If we are to respect the "laws" of electrical theory, there are no monopoles involved in plasma physical processes howvever.&nbsp; From a skeptics perspective, tt seems that the only reason they need monopoles is because they are attempting to ignore the electrical aspect of the events in question.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> About the velocity issue, your answer would be in a paper detailing the method of Petschek analysis.&nbsp; As they say this drop in field strength while velocity is increasing is a result of Petschek analysis, logically to understand why this is so would be to apply Petschek analysis yourself, or at least understand why it says this. &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I'm obviously going to have to read Petschek's paper too it seems.&nbsp; Not only is Priest relying upon this paper in a key part of his presentation, he pulled two different paradoxes out of his hat in that process.&nbsp; From an electrical engineering perspective, the faster the velocity of the charged particles flowing through the circuit, the stronger the magnetic field strength around the wires.&nbsp; The fact he's suggesting just the reverse is true is confusing enough, but to then toss monopoles into the same equations makes this nearly impossible to "convert" to an electrical orientation.&nbsp; If it was only a matter of replacing monopoles with electrons, I might be able to proceed without reading Petschek's analysis. Since Priest is also claiming that the field strength decreases while the velocity of the plasma is simultaneously increasing, it's not altogether obvious how one might try to convert that idea to an electrical perspective, or that it actually *could* be converted to an electrical persepctive. &nbsp; From an electrical oriented perspective I don't even have a clue how to explain a particle flow process where the magnetic field strength is descreasing while the particle flow is simultaneously increasing in velocity.&nbsp; In theory at least, any increase in velocity should equate to an increase the strength of the magnetic field.</p><p>Many of Preists statements can be readily converted to an electrical oriented perspetive, but this particular equation defies explanation from an electrical perspective, at least as far as I can tell right now, without having read the paper in question. </p><p>Originally I 'assumed' from reading the first part of the paper that Priest was using a "standard" sort of a mathematical approach to describe 'magnetic reconnection" based only on Masxell's equations.&nbsp; As I began going through this presentation more carefully however, it's clear now that this is not the case.&nbsp; Priest's introduction of monopoles complicates this process a great deal IMO, but it's not the only "problem" with that equation from an electrical perspective.&nbsp; While I might be able to substitute eletrons for monopoles, I still have no clue how to explain an increase in particle velocity equating to a decrease in the magnetic field strength on the same circuit.&nbsp; It does not appear to relate to a coil type induction scenario where induction energy is "transfered" to another circuit, nor is the energy being preserved as far as I can tell. &nbsp; Then again, maybe circuit induction is the idea they are trying to convey, but I'll have to read the other paper to see if that is actually the case.&nbsp; It doesn't make much sense however since the rest of the magnetic field in the loop is presumably remaining relatively constant, and the change only occurs in the reconnection region.&nbsp; Suffice to say that the "Translation' of this particular equation is not simple or obvious, at least it's not obvious to me at the moment. &nbsp; </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>