Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

Page 37 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

michaelmozina

Guest
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In a magnetohydrodynamic description the plasma velocity (v) and the magnetic field B are the primary variables, with the electric current and electric field deducible from them if required.&nbsp; (This is quite different from laboratory electromagnetism where E and j are primary)</DIV></p><p>It is worth noting that this was a personal choice on Priests part.&nbsp; Maxwell's equations, and MHD theory both allow for us to look at any problem from either the electric field perspective *or* the magnetic field perspetive.&nbsp; His choice of "primary" variables was entirely arbitrary and it was not related to MHD theory.&nbsp; I think he may have actually fooled himself into believing that there is some difference between plasma physics in the lab and plasma physics in space.&nbsp; That is certainly not the case.&nbsp;</p><p> Alfven often described "circuits" in MHD theory and he often insisted that the "particle" side or the electrical aspects of these events had to be taken into explicit consideration in MHD theory.&nbsp; The choice of what one calls a "primary" variable is entirely subjective.&nbsp; E and j are still "primary" variables in space plasma and in Maxwell's equations.&nbsp;&nbsp; Priest is free to simplify the equations to B if he likes, but that does not mean that E and j are still not primary forces in this reconnection process.&nbsp; I really get the feeling that astronomers actually think that special laws of physics apply to plasmas in space that do not apply to plasmas in the lab.&nbsp; Nothing could be further from the truth however.&nbsp; It should also be noted that MHD theory does not expressly ignore E or j by default. Priest's choice of what to call a "primary" variable was entirely arbitrary and has nothing whatsoever to do with MHD theory.&nbsp; It was a personal choice on his part that was unrelated to MHD theory and unrelated to Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; Either perspective is possible. Neither (singular) perspective may tell the entire story however. That's why Alfven talked about 'boundaries"and was careful about how he dealt with current carrying plasma.&nbsp; He cartainly treated E and j as "primary" variables depending on the scenario in question.&nbsp; MHD theory does not restict us to only the magnetic viewpoint, nor do Mexwell's 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>
 
S

silylene old

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you think that is disconcerting, you should listen to me write computer code some time. :)&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No thanks !&nbsp;&nbsp; :)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So you're the one responsible for Golden Eye...&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Maybe.&nbsp;But Sean Connery is the ONLY 007 that I recognize.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I think it's a rather extreme point of view to make such a claim that monopoles don't exist.&nbsp; The whole absence of evidence thing is not a good argument.</p><p>Below is a rather well written, introductory paper that even I could understand about monopoles and why their existence would not as you put it, "defy the known laws".&nbsp; He makes quite a clear and understandable case for why, if magnetism is quantized, monopoles would keep the symmetry of Maxwell's equations intact.</p><p>http://hcs.harvard.edu/~jus/0302/song.pdf&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Apparently, this isn't the first time Priest has used the term "monopoles".&nbsp; In this paper <strong>here</strong> he refers to the monopole as not true, but a representation.</p><p>I think it is pretty clear he is not referring to specific particles, but rather regions or fields that act in a "monopole-like" fashion.</p><p>I'm just guessing though.&nbsp;</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>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe.&nbsp;But Sean Connery is the ONLY 007 that I recognize. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I'll bet Q could make a magnetic reconnection gun.&nbsp;</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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
M

michaelmozina

Guest
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think it's a rather extreme point of view to make such a claim that monopoles don't exist. </DIV></p><p>Likewise I think it's an extreme point of view to claim they do exist.&nbsp; What evidence do you have that they exist in nature?&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The whole absence of evidence thing is not a good argument.</DIV></p><p>It is a good argument in *emprical physics*!&nbsp; If you don't have any evidence that they exist, then it's pretty "iffy" to be sticking them into Maxwell's equations don't you think? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Below is a rather well written, introductory paper that even I could understand about monopoles and why their existence would not as you put it, "defy the known laws".&nbsp; He makes quite a clear and understandable case for why, if magnetism is quantized, monopoles would keep the symmetry of Maxwell's equations intact.</DIV></p><p>Grrr.&nbsp; More *theory* devoid of any physical evidence and devoid of any practical application.&nbsp; For goodness sake, when did Hannes Alfven use "monopoles" to explain MHD theory?&nbsp; Since when did it become *ok* to stuff monopoles into MHD or electrical theory?&nbsp; What product can I buy that uses "monopoles" of "magnetic reconnection" to work? Next you'll be telling me that every electrical discharges is a "magnetic reconnection" event involving monopoles?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://hcs.harvard.edu/~jus/0302/song.pdfApparently, this isn't the first time Priest has used the term "monopoles".&nbsp; In this paper here he refers to the monopole as not true, but a representation.I think it is pretty clear he is not referring to specific particles, but rather regions or fields that act in a "monopole-like" fashion.I'm just guessing though.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I'm guessing that he can't emprically demonstrate that monopoles exist in nature, and neither can you.&nbsp; I'm guessing that the only valid reason for sticking them into this discussion is to try to get magnetic fields to do what only charged particles can do.</p><p>The problem with all of the metaphysical ideas related to astronomy (including monopoles) is that they utterly lack any sort of emprical support in a controlled experiment.&nbsp; They only seem to show themselves in "point and claim" type "tests". &nbsp; Coincidence?&nbsp; I think not.</p><p>Nowhere in any of the writings I have read about MHD theory from Hannes Alfven did he ever include any mention of "monopoles" in relationship to MHD theory.&nbsp; Why should I now believe that monopoles are in any way related to MHD theory or electrical theory?&nbsp; What about the laws of electrical engineering?&nbsp; We just toss them out now in favor of something you can't emprically demonstrate to exist in nature?</p><p>It's certainly possible to *dream up* all sorts of things that don't exist in reality.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO you're now abandoning emprical physics in favor of *faith* in something you can't emprically demonstrate.&nbsp; That's religion, not science.&nbsp; Each has it's place of course, but we shouldn't be confusing them in the classroom.&nbsp; Supposedly Guth "solved" the "missing monopole problem" with inflation, and now you're telling me they exist in mass quantities in ordinary plasma interactions inside our solar system?&nbsp; How does that rationalization work exactly?</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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p>From that paper you cited Derek. </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The first comment that can be made about a magnetic monopole is that it has not been observed experimentally.</DIV></p><p>Then it ain't "physics".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nevertheless, as Ed Witten once asserted in his Loeb Lecture at Harvard, almost all theoretical physicists believe in the existence of magnetic monopoles, or at least hope that there is one.</DIV></p><p>Almost all? What "scientific study" shows that "almost all" theoretical physicists believe in magnetic monopoles?&nbsp; Hope is not "science".&nbsp; Hope is "faith".&nbsp; Science is something we teach in the classroom. Faith is something we teach in church. </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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p>Let's tackle the absense of evidence issue. </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On the other hand, the lack of experimental evidence of magnetic monopoles has led to their blind rejection by many eople who are not really familiar with the underlying physics and mathematics.</DIV></p><p>Underlying "mathematics", yes. Underlying "physics", no.&nbsp; There is no underlying "physics" behind "monopoles" that has ever been emprically demonstrated. All you have are mathematical constructs that are devoid of emprical support.&nbsp; Understanding the mathematical models and undestanding physical definitions does not guarantee that they exist in nature.&nbsp; There is no correlation between understanding the theory and their existence.&nbsp; This is a weak argument that seems to suggest every critic is ignorant.&nbsp; Sorry, but that simply doesn't fly.&nbsp; There are many reasons why someone might reject the idea, lack of empirical support being the obvious reason. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Outside the realm of theoretical physics, the bsence of evidence has been mistranslated as an evidence of absence, and the current educational system reflects this nfortunate fact.</DIV></p><p>Keep in mind that Rumsfeld used this same exact argument in the weapons of mass destruction claim.&nbsp; He claimed that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. The problem however is obvious.&nbsp; Nobody can demonstrate a negative.&nbsp; I cannot hope to prove that they don't exist.&nbsp; Someone has to demonstrate that they do exist.&nbsp; Sadam could not demonstrate he did not have any weapons of mass destruction.&nbsp; It was our duty to show that he did have them.&nbsp; We didn't do that and look at the mess we created in the process!&nbsp; This is a terrible arugment particularly when applied to physics and real life in general.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For example, it is typically taught in high school or introductory physics classes that magnetic monopoles do<br />not exist.</DIV></p><p>Um, my high school physics class didn't have anything in the cirruculum about "monopoles".&nbsp; In fact the first time I heard of them was in relationship to Guth who claimed he solved the missing monopole problem.&nbsp; I may have been exposed to the idea in college in electrical engineering, but I frankly don't recall anyone mentioning it.&nbsp; I do recall them mentioning that magnetic fields are without beginning and without end, but monopoles weren't really discussed much in class.&nbsp; I don't even recall reading about them until reading Guth's comments and how he solved the missing monopole problem with inflation.&nbsp;&nbsp; Now I'm to believe that the Guth was wrong about that too? :)</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not surprisingly, we have discovered through a short survey that the response of the general public, when asked on he subject of magnetic monopole, dominantly falls into two categories: &ldquo;What is a magnetic monopole?&rdquo; and &ldquo;It doesn&rsquo;t exist.&rdquo; It thus seems that many people have been wrongly taught what to think by the absolute prejudgment of the skeptics on he matter and have been misled into thinking that they know what they do not know. </DIV></p><p>Ya, and Rumsfeld used that same argument in his weapons of mass destruction compaign.&nbsp; We didn't "know" that he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction so we should *assume* that he has them?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is clearly illogical to argue absolutely that magnetic monopoles do not exist merely based on the<br />absence of evidence.</DIV></p><p>It is equally illogical to argue that they do exist merely based on the same absense of evidence and a little math.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>After all, most profound aspects of nature are not manifest, and open-mindedness and unceasing curiosity are what have allowed the astonishing progress in the 20th century physics.</DIV></p><p>That same logic started a war in Iraq over something that didn't actually exist.&nbsp; Fear and hope are not a valid measure of emprical science.&nbsp;&nbsp; Emrpical science requres "duplication" under controlled conditions so that we aren't "guessing" about the validity of something.</p><p>Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense, but without evidence it's not emprical physics.&nbsp; I can't prove that monopoles do not exist, but the industry of astronomy can't even seem to make up it's mind if they exist now or they do not.&nbsp; According to Guth he "solved" the "missing monopole problem".&nbsp;&nbsp; Twenty five years later you're trying to tell me that all solar discharge events involve them. Which is it? Did Guth solve this issue with inflation or do they exist in massive quantities?&nbsp; If they exist in ordinary plasma interactions, why can't they be emprically demonstrated?</p><p>If it weren't for that last Gulf war, this argument might seem rational.&nbsp; As it stands, this is the same rationale that was used to start a war and nothing was ever found.&nbsp; If fail to see how it's a good arugment to claim that absense of evidence isn't enough for a skeptic to favor some other brand of emprical science (like electrical theory for instance) rather than believe in something that has never been shown to exist in nature. </p><p>Alfven never mentioned monopoles in relationship to MHD theory.&nbsp; When did they slip in the back door? </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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law_for_magnetism</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In physics, <strong>Gauss' law for magnetism</strong> is one of the four Maxwell's equations which underlie classical electrodynamics. It states that the magnetic field <strong>B</strong> has divergence equal to zero, in other words, that it is a solenoidal vector field. It is equivalent to the statement that magnetic monopoles do not exist. Rather than "magnetic charges", the basic entity for magnetism is the magnetic dipole. (Of course, <strong>if</strong> monopoles were ever found, the law would have to be modified, as elaborated below.)</DIV> </p><p>Notice the word "if" in the last sentence (emphasis was mine by the way)?&nbsp; *If* any evidence of monopoles are ever found *then* the "law" would have to be modified.&nbsp; As it stands it's a "law" for a very good reason.&nbsp; No monopoles have ever been found and electrical theory works and produces consumer products like your computer that work as predicted by these laws.&nbsp; To simply dismiss these laws on a whim (without emprical evidence) is to ignore everything that we understand about physics and science. </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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
Priest's use of "monopoles" in his mathematical definitions did in fact violate the laws that govern Maxwell's equations so I was right all along.&nbsp; The whole theory of magnetic reconnection is predicated upon a gross violation of Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; Priest's definition of "magnetic reconnection" is a direct violation of Gauss's law.&nbsp; <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>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p>I think you just broke your own record for logical fallacies per minute.</p><p>Congratulations!!!</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/4/13/14a67733-6137-4d3d-8d2c-23795b778320.Medium.gif" alt="" /><br />&nbsp;</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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think you just broke your own record for logical fallacies per minute.Congratulations!!! &nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I don't know Derek.&nbsp; The more I peak under the hood at the theory of magnetic reconnection, the more it seems to be held together with bubble gum (non emprically demonstrated) concepts like monopoles, wrapped up in bailing wire math formulas.&nbsp; I mean the math looks interesting up to a point, but when they start to stuff monopoles into MHD theory and Maxwell's equations, I start to cry fowl.&nbsp; Alfven never once mentioned a monopole in connection with MHD theory, and the laws that govern Maxell's equations expressly forbid them.&nbsp; We're no longer talking physics anymnore, just faith in things that have nothing to do with Maxwell's equations or MHD 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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p>Below is a link to the paper I cited earlier on threads in space. </p><p>http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/science_paper/heic0817_paper_accepted.pdf</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The variation in projected radial velocity along the filaments is about 100&mdash;200 km s-1 (ref. 4). If<br />we assume that after correction for projection the velocity shear is about 300 km s-1 then,<br />considering the whole structure out to a radius of 50 kpc, it must be 1&mdash;2&times;108 yr old. Individual<br />filaments may be in ballistic motion, falling back in for example, but to retain their structure over<br />this time means that something must balance gravity or at least tidal gravitational forces. For a<br />filament of radial length l at galaxy radius R the gravitational acceleration g ~ v2/R, where v is the<br />velocity dispersion in the potential (about 700 km s-1 at that radius as inferred from the X-ray<br />measured temperature of the intracluster medium8) at radius R ~ 25 kpc; tidal acceleration is smaller<br />by 2l/R. The most likely force to balance a filament against gravity is that due to the tangential<br />component of a magnetic field, as suggested by the filamentary morphology.</DIV></p><p>Why would a filamentary morphology favor anything other than EU theory?&nbsp;&nbsp; This threaded filamentary morphology is a fairly critical "prediction" of EU theory.&nbsp; I don't grasp how they are trying to suggest the whole thing is anything other than a "current carrying filament" as Alfven predicted.&nbsp; They describe the velocity of the current flow and everything.&nbsp; The ongoing nature of the "structure" seems to fit pretty well with all of Alfven's papers and Peratt's papers.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>I get the feeling that astronomers want to attempt to explain *everything* in plasma in terms of the magnetic component and yet totally disreguard the importance and significance of the "current flow" that generates these magnetic fields in the first place. &nbsp;</p><p>How are these observations of threaded current channels in plasma anything other than strong confirmation of Alfven's plasma cosmology theories? </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>
 
U

UFmbutler

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Priest's use of "monopoles" in his mathematical definitions did in fact violate the laws that govern Maxwell's equations so I was right all along.&nbsp; The whole theory of magnetic reconnection is predicated upon a gross violation of Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; Priest's definition of "magnetic reconnection" is a direct violation of Gauss's law.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Not so fast.&nbsp; Priest's definition may or may not violate Maxwell's equations with that particular statement, but Priest's definition isn't the only one.&nbsp; The other paper claims to be THE foundation for the theory of reconnection.&nbsp; If you want to claim "The whole theory of magnetic reconnection is predicated upon a gross violation of Maxwell's equations" you should be looking at the only paper that claims to "be" the whole theory.&nbsp; They don't use monopoles, by the way. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Not so fast.&nbsp; Priest's definition may or may not violate Maxwell's equations with that particular statement,</DIV></p><p>It clearly does.&nbsp; Monopoles were never a part of MHD theory, nor will they ever be.&nbsp; Using them in Maxwell's equations is a gross violation of Guass's law of magnetism.&nbsp; I even identified the "law" that it broke. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but Priest's definition isn't the only one.&nbsp; The other paper claims to be THE foundation for the theory of reconnection.&nbsp; If you want to claim "The whole theory of magnetic reconnection is predicated upon a gross violation of Maxwell's equations" you should be looking at the only paper that claims to "be" the whole theory.&nbsp; They don't use monopoles, by the way. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>So does that mean that you're admitting that there isn't just "one* theory of magnetic reconnection? How many of them do I have to "debunk" by the way?&nbsp; </p><p>I suppose that I will have to take a look at some other paper because there is no logical way to proceed to attempt to move forward with Preist's paper now that we all can see that Preist's presentation of magnetic reconnection is not predicated upon Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; Rather it's predicated upon the premise that the laws that govern Mazwell's formulas are false and wrong, and that monopoles exist in large quantities in our solar system.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven' never once mentioned a monopole as being related to MHD theory, and Gauss's law specifically forbids them, so Priest's definition of magnetic reconnection is not rooted in either Maxwell's equations or MHD theory.&nbsp; In fact it is predicated on the assumption that both of these fields of science are utterly wrong and that monopoles exist and have some affect on nature.&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>
 
U

UFmbutler

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It clearly does.&nbsp; Monopoles were never a part of MHD theory, nor will they ever be.&nbsp; Using them in Maxwell's equations is a gross violation of Guass's law of magnetism.&nbsp; I even identified the "law" that it broke. So does that mean that you're admitting that there isn't just "one* theory of magnetic reconnection? How many of them do I have to "debunk" by the way?&nbsp; I suppose that I will have to take a look at some other paper because there is no logical way to proceed to attempt to move forward with Preist's paper now that we all can see that Preist's presentation of magnetic reconnection is not predicated upon Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; Rather it's predicated upon the premise that the laws that govern Mazwell's formulas are false and wrong, and that monopoles exist in large quantities in our solar system.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven' never once mentioned a monopole as being related to MHD theory, and Gauss's law specifically forbids them, so Priest's definition of magnetic reconnection is not rooted in either Maxwell's equations or MHD theory.&nbsp; In fact it is predicated on the assumption that both of these fields of science are utterly wrong and that monopoles exist and have some affect on nature.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>While Priest's paper is a useful interpretation and much can be learned from it, the rigorous, hard foundation of the theory is given by Hesse and Schindler in 1988 along with the companion paper(Schindler, Hesse, Birn) of the same year.&nbsp; Priest is using this theory in his paper.&nbsp; There is only one agreed-upon version of the theory.&nbsp; The math may be difficult to wade through, but that is often the case with hard mathematical proofs.&nbsp; Hesse and Schindler and the companion paper make no mention of magnetic monopoles.&nbsp; I'm not sure why Priest used them, but I'm sure he had a valid reason.&nbsp; The only thing I can think of is this assumption didn't really have a major effect on the end result, otherwise the referee wouldn't have allowed it to pass.&nbsp; Any referee would surely at least comment on the use of monopoles, and if their comments were not answered to their satisfaction, the paper would not have been published.&nbsp; Unfortunately it is often the case that the justification given to the referees is not always included in the paper, but I am confident that there is a valid reason for using monopoles in his argument.&nbsp; If you really want to discredit a theory, you have to attack its base.&nbsp; The series of papers from 1988 claim to be this foundation and are widely considered by the mainstream to be the best explanation mathematically of the idea.&nbsp; I've heard Priest's name thrown around a lot but I never heard his mathematical derivation referenced, so I'm not sure what to say about it.&nbsp; My point is, you can't discredit the entire theory based on one person's interpretation of it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It clearly does.&nbsp; Monopoles were never a part of MHD theory, nor will they ever be.&nbsp; Using them in Maxwell's equations is a gross violation of Guass's law of magnetism.&nbsp; I even identified the "law" that it broke. So does that mean that you're admitting that there isn't just "one* theory of magnetic reconnection? How many of them do I have to "debunk" by the way?&nbsp; I suppose that I will have to take a look at some other paper because there is no logical way to proceed to attempt to move forward with Preist's paper now that we all can see that Preist's presentation of magnetic reconnection is not predicated upon Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; Rather it's predicated upon the premise that the laws that govern Mazwell's formulas are false and wrong, and that monopoles exist in large quantities in our solar system.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven' never once mentioned a monopole as being related to MHD theory, and Gauss's law specifically forbids them, so Priest's definition of magnetic reconnection is not rooted in either Maxwell's equations or MHD theory.&nbsp; In fact it is predicated on the assumption that both of these fields of science are utterly wrong and that monopoles exist and have some affect on nature.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>First, let me just say that your claim that monopoles don't exist because the have yet to be observed is just a silly argument.&nbsp; If monopoles are found to exists, nothing changes.&nbsp; Maxwell's equations will still be Maxwell's equation. &nbsp; The existence of monopoles do NOT violate anything.&nbsp; Gauss' Law simply doesn't include them.&nbsp; If they are found, you add them to the equation and adjust the rest of the equations to maintain their symmetry.&nbsp; Predicting the existence of monopoles does NOT mean maxwell's equations are wrong.&nbsp; It would only mean they were not complete. </p><p> Our current understanding of the universe, both large and small, will not change.&nbsp; The only theories that require monopoles are GUT theories, AFAIK.&nbsp; Whether they exist or not changes nothing.&nbsp; You are over analyzing and over emphasizing... again.</p><p>A few pages ago you brought up the monopole issue and I mentioned it had to do with containment techniques and DrRocket mentioned it as an analogy.&nbsp; You seemed willing to accept the analogy angle and the fact Priest is not referring to monopole particles.&nbsp; A couple pages later, you are arguing against the monopole particle angle again.</p><p>Do a google search on "monopolar vortices mhd".&nbsp; It's pretty clear they are not referring particles.&nbsp; I have no clue what they are talking about, but even as much of an idiot I am on the subject, I can tell they are not talking about particles.&nbsp; My interpretation is the "distortion" he is regarding as "being produced by a series of monopole sources" is related to these monoplar vortices which can be created in plasma containment machines that manipulate plasma sizes, shapes, temperatures, speeds, etc.&nbsp; </p><p>Much like yourself, I don't get it, but apparently, there is a fairly large community of plasma physicists that do "get it".&nbsp; I, completely ignorant of how tokamaks work, only needed 10 minutes of research on the Intrawebz (royalties to ALP for use of the term) to figure out the usage of the term "monopole" is not a reference to particles.</p><p>Don't you think all these folks writing papers that "violate" laws and Maxwell's equations would be getting rejected?&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>I hate to say, but if you submit a paper using these arguments, you might be rejected in record time.</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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><br /><br /><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...A few pages ago you brought up the monopole issue and I mentioned it had to do with containment techniques and DrRocket mentioned it as an analogy.&nbsp; You seemed willing to accept the analogy angle and the fact Priest is not referring to monopole particles.&nbsp; A couple pages later, you are arguing against the monopole particle angle again....Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;I think I am being misunderstood a bit.&nbsp;&nbsp;What I said is that Priest is not stupid one ought not jump to the conclusion that he is invoking the existence of a particle that has never been seen, and that would be rather revolutionary and require modification of Maxwell's equations if it were ever found.&nbsp; I then suggested that he might be using monopoles as a device in the solution of Maxwell's equations and I drew the analogy with the fictitious reflection charges that are sometimes used in the solution of electrostatics problems.&nbsp; It would be rather foolish to jump to the conclusion that a serious physicist is assuming the existence of magnetic monopoles.</p><p>Now I had a bit of time an took a look a the offending paragraph in the paper.&nbsp; What Priest is saying is</p><p><img style="width:302px;height:109px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/6/ab53259b-f616-4e88-b62b-87f0a3a56684.Medium.bmp" alt="" width="269" height="116" /></p><p>Note that he is looking only at the case where the field is a potential field, curl free, and he is discussing Petschek's analysis.&nbsp; In&nbsp;this case I think he is merely using ficticious monopoles as a way to impose the boundary conditions that would create the assumed field.&nbsp; That is somewhat different from assuming the existence of monopoles as actual particles.&nbsp; </p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I think I am being misunderstood a bit.&nbsp;&nbsp;What I said is that Priest is not stupid one ought not jump to the conclusion that he is invoking the existence of a particle that has never been seen, and that would be rather revolutionary and require modification of Maxwell's equations if it were ever found.&nbsp; I then suggested that he might be using monopoles as a device in the solution of Maxwell's equations and I drew the analogy with the fictitious reflection charges that are sometimes used in the solution of electrostatics problems.&nbsp; It would be rather foolish to jump to the conclusion that a serious physicist is assuming the existence of magnetic monopoles.Now I had a bit of time an took a look a the offending paragraph in the paper.&nbsp; What Priest is saying isNote that he is looking only at the case where the field is a potential field, curl free, and he is discussing Petschek's analysis.&nbsp; In&nbsp;this case I think he is merely using ficticious monopoles as a way to impose the boundary conditions that would create the assumed field.&nbsp; That is somewhat different from assuming the existence of monopoles as actual particles.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Michael</p><p>If you are gong to write a paper that is basically a critique and rebuttal of a paper like that&nbsp;of Priest that has been through peer review and has been published, then you had better make sure that you completely understand what the author is saying.&nbsp; If, for instance, you start out by claiming that Priest has assumed the physical existence of magnetic monopoles, when he in fact has not, then you won't even through the door with your submittal.&nbsp; It will be rejected out of hand, perhaps without even being sent to a referee.&nbsp; These papers are written for specialists by specialists and they will make short shrift of a paper that starts out by missing key points.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
If light waves/photons loose energy when they interact with matter/electrons, why is this not called a Redshift ?
Replies
17
Views
4K
Astronomy
jhixon
J
saraerdmann
Question Re: Innovative idea for using the Earth's magnetic field to propel spacecraft
Replies
3
Views
3K
Space Travel & SpaceX
billslugg
billslugg
S
Question How does Earth have a magnetic field when it doesn't meet the electromagnetic requirements (an iron core is insufficient)?
Replies
28
Views
4K
Cosmology
Classical Motion
Classical Motion
A
We have the capability now, why aren't we shooting for observations at 13.8 - to 14-billion light years from Earth?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Astronomy
Gibsense
Gibsense
Greenlight
Question Why is the horizon of the observable universe?
Replies
13
Views
3K
Cosmology
Atlan0001
A

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom