<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I think I am being misunderstood a bit. 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,</DIV></p><p>First of all, there is no one to one correlation between intelligence and postulating something that has never been seen. Astronomers postulate inflation all the time and I have never doubted their intelligence. Guth evoked inflation to resolve a missing monopole "problem", and I never doubted his intelligence either. I do however doubt the existence of both inflation and monopoles. The fact that someone invokes a non emprically demonstrated idea does not make them "stupid". it makes their cleim "questionable", but it doesn't make they stupid. This is bad strawman on your part.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and that would be rather revolutionary and require modification of Maxwell's equations if it were ever found. </DIV></p><p>Yes, but he stuck them in there anyway.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>Sounds like a great rationaliztion and all, but what does it have to do with him stuffing monopoles into an otherwise perfectly good use of Maxwell's equations? Even if it was some sort of "ficticious poetic device" of some kind, the only thing it could possibly equate to in real life are moving charged particles because only they exist in plasma and monopoles do not.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It would be rather foolish to jump to the conclusion that a serious physicist is assuming the existence of magnetic monopoles.</DIV></p><p>Er, Derek's last paper claimed that "almost all" theoretical physicists believe in them. Why should I "assume" anything other than what the author actually says?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now I had a bit of time an took a look a the offending paragraph in the paper. 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. In this case I think he is merely using ficticious monopoles as a way to impose the boundary conditions</DIV></p><p>Um, from a skeptics perspective that's like trying to create boundary conditions from invisble elves! You can't do that! Monoples don't exist and they don't create any "boundary conditions".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that would create the assumed field.</DIV></p><p>Monopoles don't create magnetic fields or boundaries in plasma. Only moving charged particles do that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That is somewhat different from assuming the existence of monopoles as actual particles. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You're splitting hairs as best as I can tell and making excuses where none should be required. MHD theory says nothing about "monopoles". It doesn't require them, nor do they exist. Stuffing them into a math formula is therefore ridiculous for any reason. They don't exist. They can't create boundary conditions or pass descrete units of magnetic energy. IMO this is a bad rationalization and a bad way to attempt to support magnetic reconnection theory via Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations don't require monopoles, in fact Gauss's law of magnetism explicitly forbids them. It is therefore irrational to insert monopoles into Maxwell's equations or to use them in any discussion about circuit/magnetic reconnection.</p><p>The only reason to use them as some sort of literary device is if one is blatently attempting to ignore the role of electricity in current carrying plasma. Charged particles "reconnect". Magnetic fields and monopoles do not reconnect.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MichaelIf you are gong to write a paper that is basically a critique and rebuttal of a paper like that 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. 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.</DIV></p><p>Did Priest insert the term "monopole" into his paper, yes or no? Did I just make it up, or did he actually use that word? Why use that word if you don't believe monopoles exist or should be used in conjuction with Maxwell's equations?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It will be rejected out of hand, perhaps without even being sent to a referee. These papers are written for specialists by specialists and they will make short shrift of a paper that starts out by missing key points. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Every paper written on magnetic reconnection that I have been through to this point in time has passed the peer review process and has contained serious errors and/or unsupported assumptions. Peer review isn't the be-all-end-all of "truthiness" I'm afraid. </p><p>I can't read minds DrRocket. I can only go by what the author writes and puts into his paper. If the author is not using monopoles in his argument then he has no particular reason to use that term in the first place. If the author inserts that term into the paper, and uses the concept in a math formula in some way, I can't simply *assume* he doesn't really believe in them! I didn't insert that term into his paper, he did that all by himself. Why didn't one of the peer reviewers of Preists paper point that out to him and ask him to remove it from his paper or to rephase the concept without using the term "monopole"?</p><p>I don't really see it an an accident that he is resorting to "monopoles" in a paper about "magnetic reconnection". It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of "trickery" one needs to make an arguement that anything other than charged particles are "reconnecting".</p><p>I think I gave Priest far too much credit frankly, expecially after he evoked both monoples and the concept of acceleartion of charged particles while the magnetic field *weakened# at the same time. There just a bunch of monkey business being stuffed into that equation. I can't even logically convert it to an electrical viewpoint because even if the charged particles were the objeects he's referring to as "monopoles", the fact they accelerate would only cause the magnetic field to grow stronger in that region, not weaker.</p><p>IMO this is no accident DrRocket, it's the place where Priest literally violated the "laws" of physics. </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'>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. </DIV></p><p>Image me saying that about my invisible friend Carl. Just because you can't see Carl and Carl can't do anything doesn't mean he doesn't exist, right? 
I'm afraid that the thing that separates physics from metaphysics is tangible physical evidence. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If monopoles are found to exists, nothing changes. Maxwell's equations will still be Maxwell's equation. </DIV></p><p>No, they would have to be "changed". These equations work fine as they are right now and your computer is proof of that claim. They don't require any change. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The existence of monopoles do NOT violate anything. </DIV></p><p>Of course they do. They violate Gauss's law because Gauss's law treats all magnetic fields as dipoles, not monopoles.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Gauss' Law simply doesn't include them. </DIV></p><p>It expressly forbids them and Gauss's law of magnetism treats all magnetic fields aa dipole fields, with a north and south end. There is no support whatsoever for "monopoles" in Maxwell's equations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If they are found, you add them to the equation and adjust the rest of the equations to maintain their symmetry. </DIV></p><p>Feel free to do that right *after* you provide us with physical evidence that they exist in nature. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Predicting the existence of monopoles does NOT mean maxwell's equations are wrong. </DIV></p><p>Yes it does. It would require us to change some of them in fact.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It would only mean they were not complete.</DIV></p><p>You're splitting hairs tonight too I see. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Our current understanding of the universe, both large and small, will not change.</DIV></p><p>Of course it would. If we knew for a fact that they did exist then MHD theory would have to be rewritten because Maxwell's equations would have to be rewritten. Everything would change, including electrical engineering as we know it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The only theories that require monopoles are GUT theories, AFAIK.</DIV></p><p>Evidently Priest's brand of "magnetic reconnection" theory requires them too. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Whether they exist or not changes nothing. </DIV></p><p>Sure it does Derek. If they did exist I would not be here crying fowl about him using them in Maxwell's equations! I'd be fine with the idea. It changes *everything* we understand about magnetism. Magnetic fields are always treated as a full continuum and as a dipole.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are over analyzing and over emphasizing... again.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. You seemed willing to accept the analogy angle and the fact Priest is not referring to monopole particles. A couple pages later, you are arguing against the monopole particle angle again.</DIV></p><p>You're the one that pointed out that he's used them before and he's definitely using the term in this paper. What am I supposed to do, just *assume* he's not really talking about monopoles even though he used the term explicitly in his paper?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do a google search on "monopolar vortices mhd". </DIV></p><p>Why? He didn't use that term in his paper. That seems to require an *electron* doesn't it? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's pretty clear they are not referring particles. </DIV></p><p>It looks to me like they are refering to electron vortexes caused by the movement of electrons, not "monopoles". I suspect the are all "simulations" too, not something they actually observed in plasma as a result of "monopoles" being present.</p><p>Priest explicitly used the term "monopole". The didn't say "monopolar votices" or anything of the sort. He used a very specific term and in science terms are highly important. </p><p>I do actually hear you about what assumptions he's making and me being careful to accurately characterize his work, but I can't simply *assume* he doesn't really mean what he said. </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'm afraid that the thing that separates physics from metaphysics is tangible physical evidence. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If monopoles are found to exists, nothing changes. Maxwell's equations will still be Maxwell's equation. </DIV></p><p>No, they would have to be "changed". These equations work fine as they are right now and your computer is proof of that claim. They don't require any change. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The existence of monopoles do NOT violate anything. </DIV></p><p>Of course they do. They violate Gauss's law because Gauss's law treats all magnetic fields as dipoles, not monopoles.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Gauss' Law simply doesn't include them. </DIV></p><p>It expressly forbids them and Gauss's law of magnetism treats all magnetic fields aa dipole fields, with a north and south end. There is no support whatsoever for "monopoles" in Maxwell's equations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If they are found, you add them to the equation and adjust the rest of the equations to maintain their symmetry. </DIV></p><p>Feel free to do that right *after* you provide us with physical evidence that they exist in nature. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Predicting the existence of monopoles does NOT mean maxwell's equations are wrong. </DIV></p><p>Yes it does. It would require us to change some of them in fact.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It would only mean they were not complete.</DIV></p><p>You're splitting hairs tonight too I see. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Our current understanding of the universe, both large and small, will not change.</DIV></p><p>Of course it would. If we knew for a fact that they did exist then MHD theory would have to be rewritten because Maxwell's equations would have to be rewritten. Everything would change, including electrical engineering as we know it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The only theories that require monopoles are GUT theories, AFAIK.</DIV></p><p>Evidently Priest's brand of "magnetic reconnection" theory requires them too. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Whether they exist or not changes nothing. </DIV></p><p>Sure it does Derek. If they did exist I would not be here crying fowl about him using them in Maxwell's equations! I'd be fine with the idea. It changes *everything* we understand about magnetism. Magnetic fields are always treated as a full continuum and as a dipole.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are over analyzing and over emphasizing... again.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. You seemed willing to accept the analogy angle and the fact Priest is not referring to monopole particles. A couple pages later, you are arguing against the monopole particle angle again.</DIV></p><p>You're the one that pointed out that he's used them before and he's definitely using the term in this paper. What am I supposed to do, just *assume* he's not really talking about monopoles even though he used the term explicitly in his paper?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do a google search on "monopolar vortices mhd". </DIV></p><p>Why? He didn't use that term in his paper. That seems to require an *electron* doesn't it? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's pretty clear they are not referring particles. </DIV></p><p>It looks to me like they are refering to electron vortexes caused by the movement of electrons, not "monopoles". I suspect the are all "simulations" too, not something they actually observed in plasma as a result of "monopoles" being present.</p><p>Priest explicitly used the term "monopole". The didn't say "monopolar votices" or anything of the sort. He used a very specific term and in science terms are highly important. </p><p>I do actually hear you about what assumptions he's making and me being careful to accurately characterize his work, but I can't simply *assume* he doesn't really mean what he said. </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'>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. Priest is using this theory in his paper. There is only one agreed-upon version of the theory. The math may be difficult to wade through, but that is often the case with hard mathematical proofs. Hesse and Schindler and the companion paper make no mention of magnetic monopoles. I'm not sure why Priest used them, but I'm sure he had a valid reason. 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. 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. 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. If you really want to discredit a theory, you have to attack its base. 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. 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. My point is, you can't discredit the entire theory based on one person's interpretation of it. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I hear you and agree with you on the point you make about me needing to attack it's base if I'm going to make any real headway. That has in fact been my intent as we've gone through these papers over the last few weeks. Maybe it is time that we turn our attention then to Schindler and Hesse because I can't even begin to make heads or tails of why Priest is inserting a monopole idea into any electomagentic theory. I don't think anyone here can adequately explain it either.</p><p>Since Hesse, Schindler and Birn evidently didn't resort to that specific arguement, *and* their work seems to be rooted at the foundation of this theory, it makes more sense to focus on their work. I don't see any logical way to resolve the problem that Priest created by introducing monopoles into the discussion so obviously a fresh start from a slightly different perspective might help. Who knows? It may even shed some light on why Priest chose to insert the term "monopole" into his paper. You'll have to be a bit patient as I wrap up some programming and I earn a living for awhile. </p><p>It is clear to me however that my original intent in critiqing Priests paper is defintely not likely to go as planned because I certainly did not expect him to insert monopoles into his math equations. As long as that isn't done in the other presentation, then maybe I can make some headway. As it stands I like Priest's diagrams and his basic approach till he got to the equation in question, but from my perspective he jumped off the deep end in one fell swoop at that point in his presentation. I can't follow it, and nobody else seems to follow it either. </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>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Image me saying that about my invisible friend Carl. Just because you can't see Carl and Carl can't do anything doesn't mean he doesn't exist, right? Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />My invisible friend is named Harvey. He's very tall! <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>
Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />My invisible friend is named Harvey. He's very tall! <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><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My invisible friend is named Harvey. He's very tall! <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p> <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'>Did Priest insert the term "monopole" into his paper, yes or no? Did I just make it up, or did he actually use that word? Why use that word if you don't believe monopoles exist or should be used in conjuction with Maxwell's equations?...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You are trying to apply your "technique" of attacking words rather than concepts, as you do consistently in this thread, to your attempt to create a publishable paper showing that magnetic reconnection violates established physics. That will not work. I explained that Priest may be using the notion of a monopole as a mathematical device to simplify the solution of Maxwell's equations, in a manner similar to the use of reflection charges in solving electrostatics problems. If you attack his paper on the basis of semantics you won't get through the front door.</p><p>You have two fundamental problems with your approach. 1) You are completely wrong, and the idea of magnetic reconnection does not violate Maxwell's equations. 2) You have no idea what Priest was taling about and you are attacking a straw man of your own creation.</p><p>I know that nothing will convince you of point 1. But if you are going to produce any sort of credible critique of magnetic reconnection in general or of Priest's paper in particular you are going to have to produce a critique of what he author actually said and not what you think he said or wish he said. The fact that the word "monopole" appeared in the paper does not mean that Priest proposed, assumed, conjured, imagined or any other way implied the existence of physical magnetic monopoles. If you attack him for saying something that he did not say you will simply look like a fool.</p><p>But do what you want and submit it to a real journal. The results may enlighten you. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are trying to apply your "technique" of attacking words rather than concepts,</DIV></p><p>Quite the contrary. I specifically identified the "concept" and the "law" that it defied. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>as you do consistently in this thread, to your attempt to create a publishable paper showing that magnetic reconnection violates established physics. </DIV></p><p>I just did that for you DrRocket! Maxwell's equations don't involve "monopoles" that "reconnect", just magnetic dipoles that form a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That will not work. I explained that Priest may be using the notion of a monopole as a mathematical device to simplify the solution of Maxwell's equations,</DIV></p><p>He might as well have used an invisible reflective magic elf dance chorus lineup as a mathematical device to simplify the solution of Maxwell's equations! You can't do that! He can't do that. That's not "physics" anymore, that's "mathematical myth making" using mythical mathematical constructs that do not exist in nature. Like I said, he might as well have used elves in the equation because at least invisible elves don't violate Gauss's law!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>in a manner similar to the use of reflection charges in solving electrostatics problems. </DIV></p><p>That is handled by "charge repulsion". It's got a scientific name already and it has nothing whatsoever to do with "monopoles". I can't convert monopoles to charge attraction/repulsion because none of Maxwell's equations pertain to monopoles or the relationship between monopoles and charges.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you attack his paper on the basis of semantics you won't get through the front door.You have two fundamental problems with your approach. 1) You are completely wrong, and the idea of magnetic reconnection does not violate Maxwell's equations. </DIV></p><p>Monopoles violate Maxwell's equations, specifically Guass's law of magnetism. It's not my fault he chose a poor litererary device and used sloppy scientific terminolog that amounts to "word salad".. It's not my fault he violated the "laws" of physics in that process. I'm simply noting that he did so.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2) You have no idea what Priest was taling about and you are attacking a straw man of your own creation.</DIV></p><p>The term "monopole" has a very precise meaning in physics, if only "theoretical" physics. If he can't use proper scientific terminology, then the editors should never have let it be published in the first place. Why is that term in this paper and how did it pass the peer review process exactly?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know that nothing will convince you of point 1. But if you are going to produce any sort of credible critique of magnetic reconnection in general or of Priest's paper in particular you are going to have to produce a critique of what he author actually said and not what you think he said or wish he said.</DIV></p><p>Um, he said "monopole". You and Derek are the ones suggesting he meant something other than a monopole. I'm taking him at his word, whereas you seem to be making excuses for his improper use of scientific terms.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fact that the word "monopole" appeared in the paper does not mean that Priest proposed, assumed, conjured, imagined or any other way implied the existence of physical magnetic monopoles.</DIV></p><p>The fact he used it in a mathematical equation shows that he did.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you attack him for saying something that he did not say you will simply look like a fool.</DIV></p><p>IMO his use of the term "monopole" in a paper about Maxwell's equations makes him look pretty foolish too. If he wasn't trying to use monopoles in his argument then he had no business sticking that term in his paper. You're just making excuses now for sloppy use of terminology at best case and outright violation of Maxwell's equations at worst case. In neither case should that paper have passed the peer review process as it is written. Any confusion caused by the use of the term "monopole" was a result of his use of that particular term, and the reader should not have been required to "rationalize" what he really meant. It should have been clearly written in the first place.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But do what you want and submit it to a real journal. The results may enlighten you. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>My original intent was to convert Priest's mathematical models from the magnetic field perspective to the electrical field perspective. Any hope I had in doing that went out the window the moment he used the term "monopole" in conjuction with Maxwell's equations. I can't "convert" a monopole to an electrical perspective because it's not a part of Maxwell's equations!</p><p>I think I'll read the Hesse and Shildler paper next and see if it's any better. Assuming that it is better written, I'd rather take a shot at converting their presentation to an electrical perspective and just ignore Priests magic monopole math. I can't convert ficticious math into something meaningful. I can however take the same approach to a better written paper that doesn't evoke monopoles in Maxwell's equations or monopoles in conjuction with 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>
<p>I'd just like to point out that you may have trouble "converting" Hesse's paper into electrical terms, since they start out by using Euler potentials to represent the magnetic field. I believe it was DrRocket who said that electric fields can't be expressed as such. Feel free to try though, but it doesn't sound like something that you can easily, if it is even possible, convert.</p><p> </p><p>edit: also you'll need the companion paper to get the comprehensive picture </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'd just like to point out that you may have trouble "converting" Hesse's paper into electrical terms, since they start out by using Euler potentials to represent the magnetic field. I believe it was DrRocket who said that electric fields can't be expressed as such. Feel free to try though, but it doesn't sound like something that you can easily, if it is even possible, convert. edit: also you'll need the companion paper to get the comprehensive picture <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>You can represent electrostatic fields with a potential (the B field is constant in time), but in this case it is simply a scalar potential the field is the gradient. That is possible for any curl-free vector field. The magnetic field is not curl-free but it has zero divergence. In that case you can represent it as the curl of a vector field (what is called the vector potential in books on electrodynamics) or as the cross product of the gradient of two scalar fields. In this latter representation the two scalar fields are the Euler potentials, and they are highly non-unique. This works in the time-varying case as well since the divergence of the B field is zero whether B is costant in time or not. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can represent electrostatic fields with a potential (the B field is constant in time), but in this case it is simply a scalar potential the field is the gradient. That is possible for any curl-free vector field. The magnetic field is not curl-free but it has zero divergence. In that case you can represent it as the curl of a vector field (what is called the vector potential in books on electrodynamics) or as the cross product of the gradient of two scalar fields. In this latter representation the two scalar fields are the Euler potentials, and they are highly non-unique. This works in the time-varying case as well since the divergence of the B field is zero whether B is costant in time or not. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>This brought me back to my days in my E&M classes. As soon as people start talking about curls and vector fields my eyes kind of glaze over...I'm definitely more of a data-->theory person rather than a pure theorist. Hopefully mozina can understand what you've said though. </p><p> EDIT: That said though, although I don't fully understand all the intricacies of why reconnection can be derived as such, I am presenting it as the foundation because multiple people in the field who can and do understand it(Birn, one of the authors of one of the papers, was one of them and he was one of the ones who pointed me to the paper) have said that these papers are the foundation. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... If he wasn't trying to use monopoles in his argument then he had no business sticking that term in his paper. You're just making excuses now for sloppy use of terminology at best case and outright violation of Maxwell's equations at worst case. In neither case should that paper have passed the peer review process as it is written. Any confusion caused by the use of the term "monopole" was a result of his use of that particular term, and the reader should not have been required to "rationalize" what he really meant. It should have been clearly written in the first place.My original intent was to convert Priest's mathematical models from the magnetic field perspective to the electrical field perspective. Any hope I had in doing that went out the window the moment he used the term "monopole" in conjuction with Maxwell's equations. I can't "convert" a monopole to an electrical perspective because it's not a part of Maxwell's equations!I think I'll read the Hesse and Shildler paper next and see if it's any better. Assuming that it is better written, I'd rather take a shot at converting their presentation to an electrical perspective and just ignore Priests magic monopole math. I can't convert ficticious math into something meaningful. I can however take the same approach to a better written paper that doesn't evoke monopoles in Maxwell's equations or monopoles in conjuction with MHD theory. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I have a prediction:</p><p>You will continue to ignore the content of the papers because you do not have any understanding of the mathematics and physics that are the subject of the paper. You will continue to focus, not on content, but rather on semantics and you will attack individual sentences, but only in this forum You will not produce a quantitative mathematical argument of any kind. You will not produce a paper at all, but will give up because you feel the papers are so wrong that you just don't know where to start in refuting them.</p><p>But in fact if the papers were that far off the mark a critique would be easy. So failing to be able to find fault you will simply declare victory, but in fact leave the battlefield without a fight and in defeat. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have a prediction:You will continue to ignore the content of the papers because you do not have any understanding of the mathematics and physics that are the subject of the paper. </DIV></p><p>If that were so, I wouldn't even have started this process in the first place, nor would I have been able to pick out the specific equations where I find fault. The fact you refuse to acknowledge my points is also quite telling DrRocket.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will continue to focus, not on content, but rather on semantics and you will attack individual sentences, but only in this forum You will not produce a quantitative mathematical argument of any kind. You will not produce a paper at all, but will give up because you feel the papers are so wrong that you just don't know where to start in refuting them.But in fact if the papers were that far off the mark a critique would be easy. So failing to be able to find fault you will simply declare victory, but in fact leave the battlefield without a fight and in defeat. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>IMO it's a terrible pity that you don't simply join me in the math part, in fact it's a pity you just don't do it for yourself since you certainly seem to think you have superior math skills, and even I believe that is likely to be true. You would find that this is simple "circuit reconnection" that involves moving charged particles that can and do "reconnect". There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection" because magnetic fields are dipole fields without beginning and without end, and they can't "disconnect" or reconnect. Only charged particles and circuits can do that. The intriguing part from my perspective is that somewhere deep down inside, you also know that to be true and you have even openly admitted that magnetic fields do not "reconnect". </p><p>There is an irony here. The most skilled mathematician among us is unwilling to look at the mathematical evidence for themselves. It's now supposed to be my personal job to provide you with every shred of mathematical and/or physicsl support to justify the notion that only charged particles and circuits can "reconnect". Essentially you've turned electrical theory (and your own personal statements) upside down and you now expect me to disprove some silly idea about reconnecting magnetic fields when we both agree that magnetic fields never "reconnect" in the first place. This behavior is ironic, silly and just plain sad IMO. You are certainly the best qualified mathametician among us. Why do you not just convert their equations to an electrical perspective and prove to yourself that it's a definition of "circuit reconnection" in final analysis? Are you afraid of what you might find perhaps?</p><p>In the end, I hope you're wrong about your predictions. I hope *YOU* or I find a way to epress Hesse and Schildler's mathematical equations in terms of E and/or j, but you might be right. It could be that their difinition also violates some imporant "laws" of electromagnetic theory. That will not however be my or your fault, but rather the fault of the presentation itself, as was the case with Priest's presentation. I definitely can't convert monopoles into E or j, and nobody else can do so either because monopoles don't exist and you can't do math with mythical items and call it physics.</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'>This brought me back to my days in my E&M classes. As soon as people start talking about curls and vector fields my eyes kind of glaze over...I'm definitely more of a data-->theory person rather than a pure theorist. Hopefully mozina can understand what you've said though. EDIT: That said though, although I don't fully understand all the intricacies of why reconnection can be derived as such, I am presenting it as the foundation because multiple people in the field who can and do understand it(Birn, one of the authors of one of the papers, was one of them and he was one of the ones who pointed me to the paper) have said that these papers are the foundation. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Since you seem to have some personal repore with Dr. Birn, and DrRocket has put some time into this paper and he already seems to have some insights into how we might try to convert it to an electrical oridentation, would you mind asking Dr Birn if DrRockets general approach to simplifying these models to E and j seems logical to him? </p><p>Here is the quote again from DrRocket:</p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can represent electrostatic fields with a potential (the B field is constant in time), but in this case it is simply a scalar potential the field is the gradient. That is possible for any curl-free vector field. The magnetic field is not curl-free but it has zero divergence. In that case you can represent it as the curl of a vector field (what is called the vector potential in books on electrodynamics) or as the cross product of the gradient of two scalar fields. In this latter representation the two scalar fields are the Euler potentials, and they are highly non-unique. This works in the time-varying case as well since the divergence of the B field is zero whether B is costant in time or not. </DIV><br /><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since you seem to have some personal repore with Dr. Birn, and DrRocket has put some time into this paper and he already seems to have some insights into how we might try to convert it to an electrical oridentation, would you mind asking Dr Birn if DrRockets general approach to simplifying these models to E and j seems logical to him? Here is the quote again from DrRocket: <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I offered no such approach. I made a general statement about vector fields and when they can be represented as a gradient of a scalar, a curl of another vector field or the cross product of the gradients of two scalar fields. </p><p>If you think this has something to do with converting B fields to E fields and current densities, then have at it yourself. I think you are one a fool's errand.</p><p>Were I UFmbutler, I would not embarass myself with Birn. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This brought me back to my days in my E&M classes. As soon as people start talking about curls and vector fields my eyes kind of glaze over...I'm definitely more of a data-->theory person rather than a pure theorist. Hopefully mozina can understand what you've said though. ..Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Well somebody did say that hope springs eternal ...</p><p>But he hasn't yet. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I offered no such approach. I made a general statement about vector fields and when they can be represented as a gradient of a scalar, a curl of another vector field or the cross product of the gradients of two scalar fields.</DIV></p><p>And that's exactly the kind of mathematical approach that would be required to translate and simplify for E and/or j.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you think this has something to do with converting B fields to E fields and current densities, then have at it yourself. </DIV></p><p>Didn't I make it clear earlier that I was interested in translating these formulas into E and j? Wasn't that more or less the point of your response to UFmbutler? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think you are one a fool's errand. Were I UFmbutler, I would not embarass myself with Birn. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV> </p><p>I hardly think it would be "embarrassing" to ask a few simple questions of one of the authors of the paper. He'll have to decide what he feels is appropriate of course but it's an innocent enough question and a logical one too.</p><p>The one thing I don't comprehend here DrRocket is that you yourself have agreed that magentic fields don't 'reconnect". They are treated as having no beginning and no ending in electrical theory. They are dipole fields that cannot "reconnect". We all seem to agree on this point. These facts lead us to one inevitable conclusion: Only circuits and particles can "reconnect". That's the only logical way to explain a "reconnection" process in plasma.</p><p>Magnetic reconnection is a misconception from the very start. The plasma particles and circuits are doing the "reconnecting" in line with Maxwell's equations, and inline with MHD theory. No monopole are required to make thie work and the magnetic field perspective is certainly not the only way to look at this reconnection process. </p><p>I haven't been through the other paper yet and probably won't start it this weekend due to some other commitments I have, but sooner or later any sort of translation from one perspective (B) to another (E) is going to show that only circuits and particles "reconnect". Magnetic fields can move around as the particle flow changes directions inside the plasma, and some induction may occur, but the energy is coming from the "circuit" and the plasma particles are "reconnecting". This is what physics, MHD theory and Maxwell's equations insist upon.</p><p>What I really don't grasp here is the fact that you are the one that seems to think that math is all that physics is about, and you have the mathematical skills to prove this to yourself anytime you like, but you won't do it. I don't apply the math that I learned in high school calculus and college calculus and physics in my day job, so it's not like I wouldn't have to work at remembering some important aspects of making these kinds of intricate translations. You on the other hand are far more proficient at the math part and yet you refuse to just find out for youself if I am right or wrong. Why? You know that magnetic fields don't 'reconect", so logically it has to be "circuits" and "particles" that actually "reconnect". There is nothing mysterious here to me other than the fact that you won't lift a finger to find out and you seem to be the one that is most interested in the mathematical aspects of this debate.</p><p>I literally showed you the specific equation where Priest's brand of "magnetic reconnection" broke the laws of physics as I earlier predicted. While it is entirely possible that Hesse and Birn et all, did not make the same mistake, the translation from B to E will certainly show that this is simple "circuit reconnection" with maybe a little induction thrown in for fun. What it' will never show is that magnetic field lines "reconnect". You know that and I know that and everyone here seems to agree on that point. </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'>And that's exactly the kind of mathematical approach that would be required to translate and simplify for E and/or j.Didn't I make it clear earlier that I was interested in translating these formulas into E and j? Wasn't that more or less the point of your response to UFmbutler? I hardly think it would be "embarrassing" to ask a few simple questions of one of the authors of the paper. He'll have to decide what he feels is appropriate of course but it's an innocent enough question and a logical one too.The one thing I don't comprehend here DrRocket is that you yourself have agreed that magentic fields don't 'reconnect". They are treated as having no beginning and no ending in electrical theory. They are dipole fields that cannot "reconnect". We all seem to agree on this point. These facts lead us to one inevitable conclusion: Only circuits and particles can "reconnect". That's the only logical way to explain a "reconnection" process in plasma.Magnetic reconnection is a misconception from the very start. The plasma particles and circuits are doing the "reconnecting" in line with Maxwell's equations, and inline with MHD theory. No monopole are required to make thie work and the magnetic field perspective is certainly not the only way to look at this reconnection process. I haven't been through the other paper yet and probably won't start it this weekend due to some other commitments I have, but sooner or later any sort of translation from one perspective (B) to another (E) is going to show that only circuits and particles "reconnect". Magnetic fields can move around as the particle flow changes directions inside the plasma, and some induction may occur, but the energy is coming from the "circuit" and the plasma particles are "reconnecting". This is what physics, MHD theory and Maxwell's equations insist upon.What I really don't grasp here is the fact that you are the one that seems to think that math is all that physics is about, and you have the mathematical skills to prove this to yourself anytime you like, but you won't do it. I don't apply the math that I learned in high school calculus and college calculus and physics in my day job, so it's not like I wouldn't have to work at remembering some important aspects of making these kinds of intricate translations. You on the other hand are far more proficient at the math part and yet you refuse to just find out for youself if I am right or wrong. Why? You know that magnetic fields don't 'reconect", so logically it has to be "circuits" and "particles" that actually "reconnect". There is nothing mysterious here to me other than the fact that you won't lift a finger to find out and you seem to be the one that is most interested in the mathematical aspects of this debate.I literally showed you the specific equation where Priest's brand of "magnetic reconnection" broke the laws of physics as I earlier predicted. While it is entirely possible that Hesse and Birn et all, did not make the same mistake, the translation from B to E will certainly show that this is simple "circuit reconnection" with maybe a little induction thrown in for fun. What it' will never show is that magnetic field lines "reconnect". You know that and I know that and everyone here seems to agree on that point. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have once again managed to reply to a simple short post with a near-novel of non-sequitars. So, just to be clear:</p><p>1. I have never said that magnetic fields do not reconnect in the sense being used by the mainstream physicists. That sense has nothing whatever to do with your notion (that is your notion and not their notion) of anything resembling "cutting and splicing." You attempts to turn a question of physics into a question of semantics are completely inappropriate.</p><p>2. You made the statement that the physicists concept of magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations. You and you alone made the statement that you could explain reconnection in terms of electrical fields and currents alone. You and you alone made that assertion, and it is your responsibility, and not the responsibility of anyone else, to back up that assertion with real physics. This is your problem.</p><p>4. You said that you were going to prepare a paper for publication in which you (yes you) were going to translate the model Priest or of Schindler, Hesse and Birn into an interpretation based on E fields and current density rather than on magnetic fields. I offered a couple of facts involving vector fields and vector analysis, but that is all that I addressed. I have no idea how you are going to make this interpretation. I don't know of a way to turn electrical fields into magnetic fields, except in some relativistic situations that do not apply to this problem. Frankly, I don't know what you are talking about. I don't think you do either, but you have sole and total responsibility for creating such an interpretation.</p><p>5. You opened your mouth and made these assertions and promises. You seem to be trying to again turn this into a question of semantics. It is not. If you can produce a sound physical argument it will be a major contribution to plasma physics. You will have made a name for yourself in the scientific community. You have only a limited number of options at this point:</p><p>a) You can abandon the effort to produce the paper and be discredited and deemed a fool on the basis of the body of your posts in this thread. That stigma will likely only extend to this forum and a wee bit beyond.</p><p>b) You can produce the promised paper, post a preliminary version in arXiv and submit it to a reputable journal. If it is accepted you will be vindicated. If not you will be discredited throughout the scientific community. I can assure you that if you can do what you promised and do it with a sound physical argument that the paper will be accepted. Rejection will be the result of only one thing --- lack of serious physical content.</p><p>c) You can submit it to a less than esteemed journal (IMO the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science qualifies as less than esteemed). If it is rejected there, you will stand even more completely discredited than in case 2 (if that is possible). If it is accepted then the journal will be open to ridicule from mainstream physicists who would write thier own criticisms of the piece. Since the journal knows that, I think submission to such a journal may not be the safe way to go.</p><p>The monkey is squarely on your back. Your only way out with a positive outcome is to produce a serious paper and have it accepted by a reputable journal. I suggest the Astrophysical Jounal. Good luck.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have once again managed to reply to a simple short post with a near-novel of non-sequitars. So, just to be clear:1. I have never said that magnetic fields do not reconnect in the sense being used by the mainstream physicists. </DIV></p><p>So you agree with Priest that "monopoles" (he did use that term) are involved in the magnetic reconnection process in some way?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That sense has nothing whatever to do with your notion (that is your notion and not their notion) of anything resembling "cutting and splicing." </DIV></p><p>Then what is it exactly, and how is it any different from ordinary kinetic and electrical "reconnections" in plasma?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You attempts to turn a question of physics into a question of semantics are completely inappropriate.</DIV></p><p>Baloney. Monopoles are not a form of "physics". They don't exist. They are completely inappropriate things to be stuffing into Maxwell's equations. That was inappropriate.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2. You made the statement that the physicists concept of magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and I showed you that Priests definition of "magnetic reconnection" does exactly that. It evokes "monopoles" in the reconnection process. That is a clear violation of Gauss's law of magnetism which treats all magnetic fields as a dipole fields.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You and you alone made the statement that you could explain reconnection in terms of electrical fields and currents alone.</DIV></p><p>I can explain *a* reconnection event in terms of electrical fields and currents, yes. Alfven sites many examples of this in his books and papers. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You and you alone made that assertion, and it is your responsibility, and not the responsibility of anyone else, to back up that assertion with real physics. </DIV></p><p>That was my intent until Preist evoked "monopoles" and took us out of the realm of actual "physics" and led us into the realm of "make believe". Which of Maxwell's equations shall we use to convert Priest's monopoles into E or j DrRocket?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is your problem.</DIV></p><p>No, this is not "my problem". I don't even have a "problem" because my "circuit driven" theories about aurora (my original complaint about "magnetic reconnection theory") have already been verified by Birkeland over 100 years ago in empirical tests. Circuits certainly "reconnect" and they generate aurora around spheres in a vacuum. The only "problem" I seem to have is convincing the mainstream that elecricity shouldn't be a forbidden topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>4. You said that you were going to prepare a paper for publication in which you (yes you) were going to translate the model Priest or of Schindler, Hesse and Birn into an interpretation based on E fields and current density rather than on magnetic fields.</DIV></p><p>First of all, I said that I wanted to write a paper on Priest's presentation of Magnetic reconnection and show how it could be equated to "circuit reconnection" from the perspective of electricial engineering. At the time I said that, I certainly didn't expect Priest's most important equations to evoke "monopoles" in them. It sort of blew the whole intent of my paper because I certainly can't convert monopoles into E and/or j. There isn't any math formula in real physics (IOW Maxwell's equations) that allows me to do so.</p><p> I have no idea if I can begin to convert Hesse, Birn and Schindlers work into an electrical viewpoint since I haven't even read their papers yet. I certainly had no intention of trying to do that when I originally talked about writing a paper in relationship to Preist's presentation of magentic reconnection and circuit reconnection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I offered a couple of facts involving vector fields and vector analysis, but that is all that I addressed. </DIV></p><p>They seemed like pretty darn good suggestions and very valid points from what I could tell. Thanks by the way. I'll have to read the paper of course to see how I might apply any of these ideas, but your points seemed quite valid and highly relevant to this topic. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have no idea how you are going to make this interpretation. </DIV></p><p>That makes two of us. I haven't even read the paper(s) in question yet.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know of a way to turn electrical fields into magnetic fields, except in some relativistic situations that do not apply to this problem. </DIV></p><p>We're not talking about turning anything into anything else. All we are talking about is the fact that E and j are also important aspects of plasma physics and Maxwell's equations usually allow us to simplify for either E or B. I was simply intending to simply for E rather than for B. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Frankly, I don't know what you are talking about. I don't think you do either, but you have sole and total responsibility for creating such an interpretation.</DIV></p><p>Um, no. I am only responsible for demonstrating the claims that I make. I am not "responsible" for anything other than that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>5. You opened your mouth and made these assertions and promises. </DIV></p><p>The only promise I made is that I was working on a paper on magnetic reconnection. I have not given up that intent just yet, but my intent at the time and what is possible at this point in time is quite different now that I have found that Priest evoked monopoles in his calculations. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You seem to be trying to again turn this into a question of semantics. It is not.</DIV></p><p>Monopoles are not simply a question of semantics. It's a basic question of physics and the laws that govern them. Monopoles do not physicslly exist any more than my invisible friend Carl. I can't convert them to electrical engineering principles (or Carl either) because monopoles violate those same principles and Maxwell's equations don't describe monopoles or Carl. Its not about "semantics", it's about physics and what is physically real and physically demonstrateable and mathematically quantifiable. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you can produce a sound physical argument it will be a major contribution to plasma physics. You will have made a name for yourself in the scientific community. </DIV></p><p>Big deal. Who remembers minor science players in 100 years? I've already published a number of papers and I've certainly already made a name for myself in the astronomy community. The mainstream doesn't like me very much. Who cares about that? Alfven and Birkeland made the major contributions to EU theory DrRocket. I'm just another guy that history will eventually forget regardless of whether I publish any more papers.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have only a limited number of options at this point:a) You can abandon the effort to produce the paper </DIV></p><p>Well, I'm definitely going to have to change the content of my paper since I can't convert monopoles to E or j. The content of any such paper will necessarily need to be revised from what I originally had in mind. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and be discredited and deemed a fool on the basis of the body of your posts in this thread. </DIV></p><p>Huh? I showed you exactly where Priest's presentation violated the laws of physics. The only "discredited" individusl is the one that used monopoles to try to support "magnetic reconnection" theory. That wasn't my fault and it's not my fault I can't convert monopoles into E or j. Nobody can do that and still refer to it as "physics." </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That stigma will likely only extend to this forum and a wee bit beyond.</DIV></p><p>What? What 'stigma"? The only "stigma" that would come out of my failure to convert Priest's paper to an electrical perspective is found in Preists work when he introduced monopoles into an otherwise interesting discuassion about physics. I've done more than my fair share of finding the "problems" in these paper even though I can't convert monopoles to standard physics. There's no "stigma" in that. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>b) You can produce the promised paper, post a preliminary version in arXiv and submit it to a reputable journal. </DIV></p><p>That's still a valid possibility, but it will certainly have to include somewhat different content than I originally anticipated. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If it is accepted you will be vindicated.</DIV></p><p>Vindicated? Who's going to vindicate Priest's use of monopoles? A published paper is not "vindication"" of anything otherwise my solar theories would already be "vindicated" since they've been published in the Journal of Fusion Energy and a reputable particle physics publication. How does published material somehow make one "vindicated"? Let me guess, these aren't "good" publications?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If not you will be discredited throughout the scientific community. </DIV></p><p>If you mean I'm going to be discredited within some group that believes in things like "big bangs", inflation, dark energy, SUSY related dark matter and monopoles, ask me if I care? What difference would that make to me or to anyone else? It is certainly no skin off my nose, I can assure you of that. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can assure you that if you can do what you promised and do it with a sound physical argument that the paper will be accepted. </DIV></p><p>And if I do go ahead and finish a paper on magnetic reconnection, it will include a "sound" physical arguement, not one based on "monopoles". That's the whole problem I'm having with Preist's paper at this point. I can't build a "sound" physical arguement by rebutting a presentation that evokes monopoles! It's not my fault he simply jumped off the deep and and left physics in the dust. It made it impossible for me to actually build a "strong physical arguement" because his approach was never based on a "strong physical arguement", but rather it was built on quicksand and monopoles. not Maxwell's equations. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Rejection will be the result of only one thing --- lack of serious physical content.</DIV></p><p>So how did Preists monopole equation get published? How do monopoles qualify as "serious physical content"? When was "inflation" "serious physical content"? What you're calling "serious physical content" is simply "mathematical content" that is utterly and completely devoid of emprical "physical" support. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>c) You can submit it to a less than esteemed journal (IMO the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science qualifies as less than esteemed). </DIV></p><p>So you now get to personally decide which publications qualify as valid and "esteemed"? Give me a break.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If it is rejected there, you will stand even more completely discredited than in case 2</DIV></p><p>You spend a lot of time worrying about reputation, don't you? Who cares? Do you really think I care much what the vast majority of astronomers think of me or EU theory in general? FYI, the IEEE has already published papers on this topic. It would not be worthwhile for me to write a paper for the IEEE becuase they are actually a real science publication who has already published material on EU theory and on the specific topic of magnetic reconnection. I'm far more interested in getting the APJ or one Science or one of the mainstream publications to print something critical of "magnetic reconnection" theory. That is the only reason I'd write a paper on this topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(if that is possible). If it is accepted then the journal will be open to ridicule from mainstream physicists who would write thier own criticisms of the piece. </DIV></p><p>Which is exactly why I refuse to try to convert monopoles into E or j. Someone would surely notice that I'm pulling the idea to convert monopoles out of my back pocket, just like Priest did when he evoked them in his equations in the first place. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since the journal knows that, I think submission to such a journal may not be the safe way to go.The monkey is squarely on your back. Your only way out with a positive outcome is to produce a serious paper and have it accepted by a reputable journal. I suggest the Astrophysical Jounal. Good luck. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>There is no "monkey on my back" DrRocket. Any belief you might have regarding that idea is purely your own mental construct. I did in fact start a paper based on Priest's presentation. I got to the line in question and everything I'd done to that point mathematically became useless and moot at that specific equation. I can't "convert" monopoles to E or j because none of Maxwell's equations describe the relationship between E or j and monopoles. What I do now is anyone's guess. I susppose I'll have to read Hesse's presentation to get some idea of what I want to do next. There is no "monkey on my back" however. I already debunked Priest's paper based on his use of ficticious monopoles in his most important 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>
<p>So what papers have you written in refereed scientific journals?</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So what papers have you written in refereed scientific journals? <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>Once again, the problem here is you are arguing something entirely different than the rest of the people in this thread. IF we were asserting that something is LITERALLY reconnecting, as in disconnecting physically and then being spliced back together, then yes, you are right, magnetic fields can't do that. The theory of magnetic reconnection DOES NOT SAY THIS and NEVER DID. You are trying to disprove a theory of reconnection that simply does. not. exist. The reason Priest's paper got accepted is because he backed up his claims. You don't see what gets exchanged between author and referee. I am quite sure that the referee would've at least asked why this introduction of monopoles was necessary, if he didn't already understand it in the first place, and Priest obviously gave a reasonable explanation. Often times people make simplifying assumptions that they know aren't necessarily true because it has no effect on the end result. Hence the name, "simplifying assumption". Magnetic monopoles may or may not exist, we do not know that for certain yet. You say that the existence of monopoles isn't predicted by Maxwell's equations...well, neither was displacement current until it was discovered, following which they modified the equations.</p><p>If I could think of a reasonable way to ask an un-loaded question to Birn about his paper, I would. I can't just ask him to sit down and walk me through the paper because his job is not to teach. And even if he did he wouldn't tell me anything I couldn't learn by reading the paper and its references with a physics textbook for help. If you can't get over the monopole thing, jsut email Priest and ask him why it was necessary. You may find that the answer is already there. </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Once again, the problem here is you are arguing something entirely different than the rest of the people in this thread. IF we were asserting that something is LITERALLY reconnecting, as in disconnecting physically and then being spliced back together, then yes, you are right, magnetic fields can't do that.</DIV></p><p>Then it should be called by it's proper name, "circuit and particle reconnection". We all know that magnetic fields form a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end. They don't "reconnect", "disconnect", get spliced, or do a break dance. There is no form of "magnetic reconnection" occuring in these events. These are simple circuit reconnection events that may involve a bit of induction. That's it. There is nothing unique about "magnetic reconnection" at the level of particle physics and electrical engineering. It's simply a circuit and particle reconnection process. Why call it ""magnetic reconnection" when magnetic fields never "reconnect" and the reconnection process is a "circuit reconnection" process based on Maxwell's equations and the laws that govern these equations?</p><p>That was really the purpose and point of my paper in nutshell. By mislabeling the particle physics process of particle and circuit reconnection, astronomers have essentially created their own unique and highly confusing "lingo" to describe what is simply "circuit reconnection" and/or "inducition" in plasma. By creating their own lingo, they create a skism between MHD theory and electrical engineering at one end, and astronomers at the other end. The term itself, "magnetic reconnection", is highly inconsistent with Maxwell's equations and MHD theory because magnetic fields do not "disconnect" or "reconnect", only particles and circuits can "reconnect".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The theory of magnetic reconnection DOES NOT SAY THIS and NEVER DID. </DIV></p><p>The very term itself *implies magnetic disconnection and magnetic field reconnection* in a highly explicit manner. What's the point of calling it "magnetic reconnection" then in the first place if you arent' trying to confuse the heck out of everyone who's studied electrical engineerining or MHD theory as Alfven desribed it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are trying to disprove a theory of reconnection that simply does. not. exist. </DIV></p><p>Thus far I haven't actually read a mathematical theory of "magnetic reconnection" that is actually based on physics and Maxwell's equations. Thus far all I've seen are presentation that are based on pure math and mythical particles.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The reason Priest's paper got accepted is because he backed up his claims.</DIV></p><p>How exactly did he back of his use of "monopoles" in Maxwell's equations? Didn't Guth solve the "missing monopole" problem with inflation? Now you're telling me that monopoles are everywhere inside of plasma events and everywhere inside of our own solar system? Care to explain how Priest demonstrated monopoles or how he even justifies using that term in association with Maxwell's equations? Don't they violate the laws (as we know them today) of these very same equations, namely Gauss's law of magnetism? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You don't see what gets exchanged between author and referee. I am quite sure that the referee would've at least asked why this introduction of monopoles was necessary, if he didn't already understand it in the first place, and Priest obviously gave a reasonable explanation. </DIV></p><p>So let's hear it? I certainly never saw any sort of explanation in his actual paper.</p><p>Wasn't the point of Priest's paper to demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection" could be explicitly derived from Maxwell's equations? Weren't we trying to explain the mathematical derivation and justification of "magnetic reconnection" theory? Which of Maxwell's equations uses or describes "monopoles"?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Often times people make simplifying assumptions that they know aren't necessarily true because it has no effect on the end result. </DIV></p><p>Um, in this case, this particular equation is where all the "magic" seems to occur in "magnetic reconnection". The one thing that seems to make that magic possible is his use of "monopoles". I'm afraid magic is not phyiscs and monopoles do not exist in nature. That is why the laws of physics treat all magnetic fields as dipole fields and not as monopoles. I therefore can't convert monopoles into EM equations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hence the name, "simplifying assumption". </DIV></p><p>I can't simplify Maxwell's equations with my invisible friend Carl or monopoles. That's not just a "simplifying assumption", it's one that defies the laws of physics as we know them.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetic monopoles may or may not exist, we do not know that for certain yet. </DIV></p><p>We are certain that all interactions with magnetic fields follow a dipole pattern of interaction in every controlled test of electrical theory that has ever been done to this date in history. There's no point in making stuff up and calling it "physics". Monopoles are not "physics", they are *hyothetical* entities that violate all the known laws of physics. If and when that ever changes based on emprical experimentation, *then* you can call it "physics".</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You say that the existence of monopoles isn't predicted by Maxwell's equations...well, neither was displacement current until it was discovered, following which they modified the equations.</DIV></p><p>That's correct. However, Maxwell's changes to Ampere's equations could be demonstrated in a lab under highly controlled conditions and repreated in controlled experiments. When was that ever done for "monopoles"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I could think of a reasonable way to ask an un-loaded question to Birn about his paper, I would. I can't just ask him to sit down and walk me through the paper because his job is not to teach.</DIV></p><p>I'm definitely not asking you (or him) to get that deep into the conversation or the paper. You might just mention to him that someone you know is interested in attempting to convert the equations in his paper to an electrical point of view and this individual was curious if DrRocket's general descriptions of the field relationships made sense to him. It looks to me like DrRocket's description of the relationships between the various fields and vectors accurately describes the important relationships in question. I believe that DrRocket is correctly representing these relationships but I'd like to be sure that the author agrees before I get carried away again. I've been down that road once already this week only to hit a dead end at monopole lane. I don't feel like spinning my wheels again on something that isn't quite right. I do trust DrRocket, and I generally agree with his explanation of the basic relationships, but it would be nice if Birn or Hesse or Schindler agreed before I got too carried away. My vector calculus days were many years ago. While I liked these mathematical challenges way back in college, I'm a bit rusty these days and I will defintely have to really work at this process for some time to get it right. I just want to be sure I'm not barking up the wrong tree from the very start.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And even if he did he wouldn't tell me anything I couldn't learn by reading the paper and its references with a physics textbook for help. If you can't get over the monopole thing, jsut email Priest and ask him why it was necessary. You may find that the answer is already there. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>The "answer" seems to be there in the equations themselves. Priest evoked something that does not exist in nature to attempt to simplify and represent a physical process of nature. That's not physics anymore. There are no monopoles in nature anymore than there are invisble Carls in nature. Emprical science is precise and requires the use of emprical physical items, not mythical particles and invisible friends. I can't convert monopoles or invisible Carl to E or j and still rationalize it as "physics". His "explanation" of his evocation of monopoles would necessarily "taint" my presentation, no matter how I try to rationalize or justify his use of the term "monopole" in his paper. There is no point in worrying about *why* he did this, or why he made this mistake, the fact he did it makes me (by proxy) look silly IMO. I can't convert his monopoles to physics no matter how I try to rationalize it or justify it. Hopelfully Hesse and Birn and crew offer us a better opportunity, albeit a harder one, to show the relationship between "magnetic reconnection' and "circuit reconnection" when looked at from the persective of electrical engineering. </p><p> That's really all I'm really looking for in the final analysis. Any "well" (not stepping outside of physics) written paper on the topic of magnetic reconnection theory that is based on Maxwell's equations (and only Maxwell's equations) should be convertable to E and/or j. That may require math skills far beyond my abilities depending on the presentation in question, but I'm certain that it's doable by someone with enough mathematical skill. </p><p>For my paper to be published in a mainstream publication, itt will and must necessarily show that any agreed upon form of "magnetic reconnection" is simply a mislabeling of "circuit reconnection' and "particle reconnection" and maybe a bit of induction as well. What I was hoping to do is show that mathematical relationship and explain why it's very important that all branches of science stay on the same page as it relates to use of scientific terms. </p><p>From what you and DrRocket have discussed thus far, I'd say that my skill set at math would be pushed to it's absolute limit to convert Birn's mathematical model to an electrical perspective. I'm just trying to make sure it's even a worthwhile endeavor before I think of giving it whirl. I'm not in any great hurry necessarily, and I"m willing to work at it for awhile and pull out some of my old calculus books off the shelf and do some reading too. I just want to be sure that the relationships that DrRocket describes make sense to at least one of the authors of the paper before I get too carried away. I also want to read the paper quite thuroughly before I begin my mathematical conversion to make sure their paper doesn't evoke something that I can't convert. *If* I can start with set of Maxwell based equations that describe "magnetic reconnection" and show how they represent what is ultimately a "circuit reconnection" process, *then* the rest of the arguments in my paper about the need to keep all branches of science on the same page is justified and there is at least a slim hope of it being published.. If I can't do that, then I'll have to rethink this whole strategy a bit. </p><p> My original "beef" was the Themis paper that attempted to support "magnetic reconnection" based on two failed models of "magnetic reconnection". From that point the conversation this discussion has "evolved" into a general discrorse on what magnetic reconnection might really be since we all seem to agree that magnetic lines don't "disconnect" or "reconnect". I'm certain that any Maxwellian presentation of "magnetic reconnection" can be shown to be nothing more than "circuit reconnection' and/or "particle reconnection" and/or "induction". These would be better "scientific terms" for this circuit reconnection process since that is what is ultimately "reconnecting", not the magnetic fields. If I can show this mathamatically, then a paper is justified. If I can't do that, then I doubt it would have a prayer's chance in hell of being published. I obviously can't convert Priest's monopoles to something else in Maxwell's equations because there is no conversion process between E, B, or j and monopoles that is described in Maxwell's equations. If Hesse and Birn and Schindler stuck to real physics, at least there is some hope of showing this mathematical relationship. That's ultimately what I'm looking for. You might mention to him that I am actually interested in finding a well written paper on this topic and that I'm more interested in showing the connection between "circuit reconnection" and "magnetic reconnection" than I am interested in debunking any more papers on this topic. I really would like to find a paper that clearly and susinctly describes magnetic reconnection in terms of Maxwell's equations. Whether I have the math skills to convert it is another question entirely, but without a "good" explanation of "magnetic reconnection", there's simply no hope that I can show the mathematical connection between circuit reconnection and magnetic reconnection. It's just as important to me as it is to them that their math is "right". I'll I'm trying to pick on is a specific use of terms that would apply to all papers on the topic of "magnetic reconnection". I need a well written mathematical presentation of magnetic reconnection as much as they do. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
I don't feel like spinning my wheels again on something that isn't quite right. I do trust DrRocket, and I generally agree with his explanation of the basic relationships, but it would be nice if Birn or Hesse or Schindler agreed before I got too carried away. My vector calculus days were many years ago. While I liked these mathematical challenges way back in college, I'm a bit rusty these days and I will defintely have to really work at this process for some time to get it right. I just want to be sure I'm not barking up the wrong tree from the very start.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And even if he did he wouldn't tell me anything I couldn't learn by reading the paper and its references with a physics textbook for help. If you can't get over the monopole thing, jsut email Priest and ask him why it was necessary. You may find that the answer is already there. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>The "answer" seems to be there in the equations themselves. Priest evoked something that does not exist in nature to attempt to simplify and represent a physical process of nature. That's not physics anymore. There are no monopoles in nature anymore than there are invisble Carls in nature. Emprical science is precise and requires the use of emprical physical items, not mythical particles and invisible friends. I can't convert monopoles or invisible Carl to E or j and still rationalize it as "physics". His "explanation" of his evocation of monopoles would necessarily "taint" my presentation, no matter how I try to rationalize or justify his use of the term "monopole" in his paper. There is no point in worrying about *why* he did this, or why he made this mistake, the fact he did it makes me (by proxy) look silly IMO. I can't convert his monopoles to physics no matter how I try to rationalize it or justify it. Hopelfully Hesse and Birn and crew offer us a better opportunity, albeit a harder one, to show the relationship between "magnetic reconnection' and "circuit reconnection" when looked at from the persective of electrical engineering. </p><p> That's really all I'm really looking for in the final analysis. Any "well" (not stepping outside of physics) written paper on the topic of magnetic reconnection theory that is based on Maxwell's equations (and only Maxwell's equations) should be convertable to E and/or j. That may require math skills far beyond my abilities depending on the presentation in question, but I'm certain that it's doable by someone with enough mathematical skill. </p><p>For my paper to be published in a mainstream publication, itt will and must necessarily show that any agreed upon form of "magnetic reconnection" is simply a mislabeling of "circuit reconnection' and "particle reconnection" and maybe a bit of induction as well. What I was hoping to do is show that mathematical relationship and explain why it's very important that all branches of science stay on the same page as it relates to use of scientific terms. </p><p>From what you and DrRocket have discussed thus far, I'd say that my skill set at math would be pushed to it's absolute limit to convert Birn's mathematical model to an electrical perspective. I'm just trying to make sure it's even a worthwhile endeavor before I think of giving it whirl. I'm not in any great hurry necessarily, and I"m willing to work at it for awhile and pull out some of my old calculus books off the shelf and do some reading too. I just want to be sure that the relationships that DrRocket describes make sense to at least one of the authors of the paper before I get too carried away. I also want to read the paper quite thuroughly before I begin my mathematical conversion to make sure their paper doesn't evoke something that I can't convert. *If* I can start with set of Maxwell based equations that describe "magnetic reconnection" and show how they represent what is ultimately a "circuit reconnection" process, *then* the rest of the arguments in my paper about the need to keep all branches of science on the same page is justified and there is at least a slim hope of it being published.. If I can't do that, then I'll have to rethink this whole strategy a bit. </p><p> My original "beef" was the Themis paper that attempted to support "magnetic reconnection" based on two failed models of "magnetic reconnection". From that point the conversation this discussion has "evolved" into a general discrorse on what magnetic reconnection might really be since we all seem to agree that magnetic lines don't "disconnect" or "reconnect". I'm certain that any Maxwellian presentation of "magnetic reconnection" can be shown to be nothing more than "circuit reconnection' and/or "particle reconnection" and/or "induction". These would be better "scientific terms" for this circuit reconnection process since that is what is ultimately "reconnecting", not the magnetic fields. If I can show this mathamatically, then a paper is justified. If I can't do that, then I doubt it would have a prayer's chance in hell of being published. I obviously can't convert Priest's monopoles to something else in Maxwell's equations because there is no conversion process between E, B, or j and monopoles that is described in Maxwell's equations. If Hesse and Birn and Schindler stuck to real physics, at least there is some hope of showing this mathematical relationship. That's ultimately what I'm looking for. You might mention to him that I am actually interested in finding a well written paper on this topic and that I'm more interested in showing the connection between "circuit reconnection" and "magnetic reconnection" than I am interested in debunking any more papers on this topic. I really would like to find a paper that clearly and susinctly describes magnetic reconnection in terms of Maxwell's equations. Whether I have the math skills to convert it is another question entirely, but without a "good" explanation of "magnetic reconnection", there's simply no hope that I can show the mathematical connection between circuit reconnection and magnetic reconnection. It's just as important to me as it is to them that their math is "right". I'll I'm trying to pick on is a specific use of terms that would apply to all papers on the topic of "magnetic reconnection". I need a well written mathematical presentation of magnetic reconnection as much as they do. </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>I assure you Hesse/Schindler and Hesse/Schindler/Birn do not mention monopoles. The only thing they expressed some doubt about is how their math works in toroidal magnetic field configurations, but they offer an argument on that at the end. At this point I'd like to point out that Birn and Priest(haven't seen any mention of monopoles yet) collaborated on a book dealing with this topic, which seems to be a compilation of the research we've been referring to with an easy(easier) to follow explanation. Unfortunately I'm in Florida for the time being, so I can't get a copy from him but I may purchase one...on this link though you can browse through most of the book using http://books.google.com/books?id=-OMoI6BV46kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=birn+and+priest</p><p>I am not really telling you to read it since it is really just a compilation and more similar things to what we've been discussing, but it might be enlightening, and I will be reading through it over the next couple days/weeks. </p><p>I do suggest glancing through it, as some of the figures are rather enlightening. They also discuss Petschek analysis to some extent. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Michael... I think you should reread this pdf (song.pdf I sent a few pages ago). On pages 5 and 6 beginning with <em>Dirac Monopole and Charge Quantization</em>, he explains in such a fashion that even I could understand it. </p><p>I just spent a little time researching and revisited the above pdf and have come to the conclusion that what they are recognizing is the charged particles are acting in manner as<strong><em> if</em></strong> they were in the presence of a monopole. Obviously they are not declaring a <strong><em>real</em></strong> monopole, but the conditions are such that the equations are valid to describe the particles trajectory.</p><p>My conclusion could be wrong, but one thing I think is as clear as day is that Priest and Forbes are not describing monopoles in the same manner you seem to be interpreting it.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>P.S. Monopoles don't "violate" Maxwell's equations. If anything, they would add a symmetry to the equations. Symmetry seems to work in all sorts of various sciences and mathematics. </p><p>P.P.S. Don't get me started on the THEMIS paper again <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />. Those models you seem to focus on are not predictions in the manner you wish them to be. </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>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram