<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>I think that's a valid reason, perhaps the only reason, for Priest mentioning monopoles. He is not saying that magnetic monopoles must exist because the particles follow these trajectories, just that if monopoles existed, this is the sort of thing they'd do. I think though that even if mozina accepts this explanation, he'll hone in on some other minutiae from this paper or hop back to his PPPL argument. I personally find it ironic that the person who has accused me multiple times of playing "whackamole" seems to be doing just what he accused me of. First his objection was essentially semantics and how Alfven said such events couldn't occur in current sheets, then he didn't like that line in the PPPL paper, then he didn't like an equation in the magnetic island paper, then it was back to Alfven, and now here we are on this monopole thing. I think this has been adequately explained at this point, so I will curiously await to see what other problem he comes up with to skirt the issue. </p><p>If you(mozina) can't explain Priest's paper using circuit reconnection, now that we have established that it is likely he is using derek's explanation as justification for "invoking" monopoles(invoking is in quotes because it appears he wasn't really invoking them, merely using them as a sort of analogy to describe the behavior...we don't know if they do exist but we do know how physics would work IF they did), then perhaps that is because it won't work. At what point will you give up and accept that perhaps the process they describe is not what you want it to be? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael... I think you should reread this pdf (song.pdf I sent a few pages ago). On pages 5 and 6 beginning with Dirac Monopole and Charge Quantization, he explains in such a fashion that even I could understand it. 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 if they were in the presence of a monopole. Obviously they are not declaring a real monopole, but the conditions are such that the equations are valid to describe the particles trajectory.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.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.S. Don't get me started on the THEMIS paper again . Those models you seem to focus on are not predictions in the manner you wish them to be. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p> </p><p>That is what I have been trying to get Michael to understand for several pages now. You can use an idea like a monopole to impose a hypothetical set of boundary conditions that are physical in a manner in which the resulting is easier to solve than it would be in a more straightforward presentation. Thatis done in electrostatics. A simple case is to find that field that results from a single point charge and a an equipotential plane, taken to have zero field. You can either try to solve the problem in that way or you can introduce an hypothetical reflection charge, equal to your given charge and on the other side of the equipotential plane (a reflection of the original charge). Then the plane is automatically at zero potential and you can forget about it and solve the problem with the two point charges, looking only at the solution on one side of the plane. The reflection charge does not exist, but it makes solving the partial differendtial equation with imposed boundary conditions very easy. The same thing works for heat transfer.</p><p>Now an amusing story. In that paper that you linked there is the following quote:</p><p><font face="Arial" size="1"><font face="Arial" size="1">Scientists tend to overcompress, to make their arguments difficult to follow by leaving out too many steps. They do this because they have a hard time writing and they would like to get it over with as soon as possible.... Six weeks of work are subsumed into the word “obviously.”—Sidney Coleman</font></font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="1"><font face="Arial" size="1">There is a related joke about a mathematics professor. The professor is giving a lecture and has made an assertion as part of his presentation. A student, not understanding the basis for the assertion asks why it is true. The professor responds that "It is obvious." Then the professor steps back, stares at the board and ponders for several minutes. Then he turns and walks out of the lecture hall. He is absent for a fairly long time and finally one of the students goes to look for him. He sees the professor in his office working on the blackboard which he has covered with mathematics. The student returns and reports to the class. Finally, just before the class is scheduled to end the professor reappears, and announces "Yes, it is obvious." (You're supposed to laugh here, since this is usually the end of the joke.)</font></font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="1">But it gets better. I once told this joke to a man I know who was at one time the head of the Aeronatucial Engineering Department at MIT. His response was, "That is not a joke. The professor was Norbert Weiner. I was in the class."</font><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That is what I have been trying to get Michael to understand for several pages now. You can use an idea like a monopole to impose a hypothetical set of boundary conditions that are physical in a manner in which the resulting is easier to solve than it would be in a more straightforward presentation. Thatis done in electrostatics. A simple case is to find that field that results from a single point charge and a an equipotential plane, taken to have zero field. You can either try to solve the problem in that way or you can introduce an hypothetical reflection charge, equal to your given charge and on the other side of the equipotential plane (a reflection of the original charge). Then the plane is automatically at zero potential and you can forget about it and solve the problem with the two point charges, looking only at the solution on one side of the plane. The reflection charge does not exist, but it makes solving the partial differendtial equation with imposed boundary conditions very easy. The same thing works for heat transfer.</DIV></p><p>But I "physics for dummies"fied it so I could understand it. Maybe it will help.</p><p> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now an amusing story. In that paper that you linked there is the following quote:Scientists tend to overcompress, to make their arguments difficult to follow by leaving out too many steps. They do this because they have a hard time writing and they would like to get it over with as soon as possible.... Six weeks of work are subsumed into the word “obviously.”—Sidney ColemanThere is a related joke about a mathematics professor. The professor is giving a lecture and has made an assertion as part of his presentation. A student, not understanding the basis for the assertion asks why it is true. The professor responds that "It is obvious." Then the professor steps back, stares at the board and ponders for several minutes. Then he turns and walks out of the lecture hall. He is absent for a fairly long time and finally one of the students goes to look for him. He sees the professor in his office working on the blackboard which he has covered with mathematics. The student returns and reports to the class. Finally, just before the class is scheduled to end the professor reappears, and announces "Yes, it is obvious." (You're supposed to laugh here, since this is usually the end of the joke.)But it gets better. I once told this joke to a man I know who was at one time the head of the Aeronatucial Engineering Department at MIT. His response was, "That is not a joke. The professor was Norbert Weiner. I was in the class." <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /></p><p>That is just classic. The joke, by itself, was funny. </p><p>To know that it is not a joke is priceless. Thanks for sharing that. Definitely put a smile on face imagining both scenarios. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael... I think you should reread this pdf (song.pdf I sent a few pages ago). On pages 5 and 6 beginning with Dirac Monopole and Charge Quantization, he explains in such a fashion that even I could understand it.</DIV></p><p>Well, you'll need to be a bit patient with me this week. I have a lot of programming projects to wrap up this week and the start of the school year is historically our busiest time of the year in terms of support and phone calls. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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 if they were in the presence of a monopole. Obviously they are not declaring a real monopole, but the conditions are such that the equations are valid to describe the particles trajectory.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.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.S. Don't get me started on the THEMIS paper again . Those models you seem to focus on are not predictions in the manner you wish them to be. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I do in fact hear what you and DrRocket are trying to convey here, but Priest's paper was supposed to be an example of how 'magnetic reconnection" could be derived from Maxwell's equations. Monopoles don't exist in Maxwell's equations. While it might be useful to "think" in terms of monopoles to make some mathematical point, you can't make the point that "magnetic reconnection" can be derived exclusively from Maxwell's equations and then introduce monopoles to make that happen. That isn't logical. </p><p>This particular formula in Priest's paper seem to be where all the "magic" is happening in "magnetic reconnection". To evoke monopoles at this point in the process is to circumvent the known laws of physics. You can't do that and claim to have mathematically supported the idea from the laws of physics. He literally "cheated" by circumventing the known laws of magnetism. </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'>Well, you'll need to be a bit patient with me this week. I have a lot of programming projects to wrap up this week and the start of the school year is historically our busiest time of the year in terms of support and phone calls. I do in fact hear what you and DrRocket are trying to convey here, but Priest's paper was supposed to be an example of how 'magnetic reconnection" could be derived from Maxwell's equations. Monopoles don't exist in Maxwell's equations. While it might be useful to "think" in terms of monopoles to make some mathematical point, you can't make the point that "magnetic reconnection" can be derived exclusively from Maxwell's equations and then introduce monopoles to make that happen. That isn't logical. This particular formula in Priest's paper seem to be where all the "magic" is happening in "magnetic reconnection". To evoke monopoles at this point in the process is to circumvent the known laws of physics. You can't do that and claim to have mathematically supported the idea from the laws of physics. He literally "cheated" by circumventing the known laws of magnetism. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Priest is using Maxwell's equations. I suggest doing a little research on magnetic vector potential, guage invariance, Dirac strings and Aharonov-Bohm effect. I doubt I could elaboorate on them in my own words, but I think it would be fair to say that he is not circumventing or cheating by applying these to the equations. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, you'll need to be a bit patient with me this week. I have a lot of programming projects to wrap up this week and the start of the school year is historically our busiest time of the year in terms of support and phone calls. I do in fact hear what you and DrRocket are trying to convey here, but Priest's paper was supposed to be an example of how 'magnetic reconnection" could be derived from Maxwell's equations. Monopoles don't exist in Maxwell's equations. While it might be useful to "think" in terms of monopoles to make some mathematical point, you can't make the point that "magnetic reconnection" can be derived exclusively from Maxwell's equations and then introduce monopoles to make that happen. That isn't logical. This particular formula in Priest's paper seem to be where all the "magic" is happening in "magnetic reconnection". To evoke monopoles at this point in the process is to circumvent the known laws of physics. You can't do that and claim to have mathematically supported the idea from the laws of physics. He literally "cheated" by circumventing the known laws of magnetism. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You are missing the point. He didn't evoke/invoke them. As I said, people know how things would work IF monopoles existed, and Priest observed that the physics in reconnection acts the way it would IF monopoles were present. He isn't arguing that they do exist. He could have easily gone through the physics that is going on, but it was much easier and shorter to say that it behaved as it would in the presence of monopoles, which is known theoretically. If you can't explain these physics that act like they would IF monopoles existed with circuit reconnection, it's probably because the process is not plain old circuit reconnection. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Priest is using Maxwell's equations. I suggest doing a little research on magnetic vector potential, guage invariance, Dirac strings and Aharonov-Bohm effect. I doubt I could elaboorate on them in my own words, but I think it would be fair to say that he is not circumventing or cheating by applying these to the equations. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>You shouldn't have to elaborate on anything in your words. Priest's presentation should not have included the term monopole. You shouldn't have to make any excuses for his use of that term, nor should you have to explain what he "meant" by using that term in a mathematical expression. It should have been clearly explained by Priest in the first place without the use of the term monopole.</p><p>Here is the problem with trying to convert his math. I can't convert that equation to real "physics" and actually/honestly claim that my explanation is based on real "physics" because the first time I mention a monopole, and try to convert it to anything else, I step outside the realm of physics. Monopoles don't exist in nature. I therefore can't "convert" them to anything else. Were I to actually base any mathematical presentation of my idea on his equations, I would forever be having to justify that specific conversion and I would never be able to call it "physics". That is because Priest's use of that term took us out of the realm of physics as we know it. A theoretical particle is not something I can work with. It's not physics anymore. </p><p>There's also an enigma he's created here by evoking that concept and using it to explain how an increase in particle velocity is going to create a weakening of the magnetic field. Normally it wouldn't work that way. An increase in the velocity of the current flow should result in a strengthening of the magnetic field in the same circuit. There isn't much I can logically do with his monopoles since he is evidently using them to "explain" some phenomenon that is otherwise impossible. </p><p>The key reconnection process is supposedly taking place in this equation, and it doesn't follow standard electrical theory. The fact that a monopole defies the laws of physics means that it might be able to do things that cannot otherwise happen in plasma. In plasma, an increase in charged particle velocity will result in an increase in the magnetic field. In "make believe plasma physics", you might be able to achieve almost anything with enough imagination and enough particles that violate the laws of physics. I can't bridge the gap between his magic math and real physics because in the lab, plasma simply doesn't behave that way because there are no monopoles in laboratory plasma. Only in the realm of "imagination" could that ever happen. </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'>You are missing the point. He didn't evoke/invoke them. As I said, people know how things would work IF monopoles existed, and Priest observed that the physics in reconnection acts the way it would IF monopoles were present. He isn't arguing that they do exist. He could have easily gone through the physics that is going on, but it was much easier and shorter to say that it behaved as it would in the presence of monopoles, which is known theoretically. If you can't explain these physics that act like they would IF monopoles existed with circuit reconnection, it's probably because the process is not plain old circuit reconnection. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>You have that entirely backwards. I can't explain something based on *standard physics as we know it* if and when someone's presentation evokes *non standard physics* to accomplish it's "magic". In other words the reason I can't convert this to an electrical perspective is because in the real world, monopoles do not exist, and therefore plasma doesn't behave as Priest claimed. It is because Priest stepped outside of physics that I can't convert his ideas to real plasma physics. Preist's claims have nothing to do with how plasma actually behavies in a lab. In the lab, monopoles do not exist. In the lab, an increase in the velocity of flowing particles results in an increase in the magnetic field that surrounds the current flow. Only in make-believe physics will you get plasma to do such things. In the real world, it just doesn't work that way.</p><p>The problem here is that Priest is *heavily* relying upon this non standard particle to do things that can otherwise never happen in real life. I can't convert his idea because it never works that way in the lab since monopoles don't exist and all magnetic fields are dipole fields that do not "reconnect". If we allow for people to sipmly insert monopoles into the equations in an ad-hoc manner, then we're venturing outside the laws of physics and stepping inside the world of make believe. I can't convert "make believe" to physics. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Priest is using Maxwell's equations.</DIV></p><p>FYI, that's simply not true. None of Maxwell's equations use "monopoles", describe monopoles or rely upon them in any way. Priest is not using Maxwell's equations in the equation in question. He's clearly stepping way outside of Maxwell's equations and the laws that govern them. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That is what I have been trying to get Michael to understand for several pages now. You can use an idea like a monopole to impose a hypothetical set of boundary conditions that are physical in a manner in which the resulting is easier to solve than it would be in a more straightforward presentation.</DIV></p><p>Suppose I tried to use a chorus line of invisible elves to describe the boundary condition behaviors of plasma? That's fine by you? We can call that "electrostatics"?</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You shouldn't have to elaborate on anything in your words. Priest's presentation should not have included the term monopole. You shouldn't have to make any excuses for his use of that term, nor should you have to explain what he "meant" by using that term in a mathematical expression. It should have been clearly explained by Priest in the first place without the use of the term monopole.Here is the problem with trying to convert his math. I can't convert that equation to real "physics" and actually/honestly claim that my explanation is based on real "physics" because the first time I mention a monopole, and try to convert it to anything else, I step outside the realm of physics. Monopoles don't exist in nature. I therefore can't "convert" them to anything else. Were I to actually base any mathematical presentation of my idea on his equations, I would forever be having to justify that specific conversion and I would never be able to call it "physics". That is because Priest's use of that term took us out of the realm of physics as we know it. A theoretical particle is not something I can work with. It's not physics anymore. There's also an enigma he's created here by evoking that concept and using it to explain how an increase in particle velocity is going to create a weakening of the magnetic field. Normally it wouldn't work that way. An increase in the velocity of the current flow should result in a strengthening of the magnetic field in the same circuit. There isn't much I can logically do with his monopoles since he is evidently using them to "explain" some phenomenon that is otherwise impossible. The key reconnection process is supposedly taking place in this equation, and it doesn't follow standard electrical theory. The fact that a monopole defies the laws of physics means that it might be able to do things that cannot otherwise happen in plasma. In plasma, an increase in charged particle velocity will result in an increase in the magnetic field. In "make believe plasma physics", you might be able to achieve almost anything with enough imagination and enough particles that violate the laws of physics. I can't bridge the gap between his magic math and real physics because in the lab, plasma simply doesn't behave that way because there are no monopoles in laboratory plasma. Only in the realm of "imagination" could that ever happen. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Try doing a bit of research. It might help you let go of this irrational and illogical argument that you are holding on to and repeating ad infinitum.</p><p>Priest and Holmes did not write the paper or the book for you. They wrote it for folks that understand this stuff intimately. There's no reason they should write an entire chapter explaining something the layman might not understand. It's not for layman. When you first brought up the monopole issue, my first intuition was he was not referring to a particle. That was just a logical, common sense notion. I didn't understand it at first nor did I have a solution for you. It was actually a good inquiry on your part. However, after only an hour or so of doing some very basic research, I get it. This is research that you should be capable of doing on your own.</p><p>I'm pretty sure I'm probably the least qualified of the 4 of us discussing MHD and magnetic reconnection and yet it is you that doesn't seem to understand it. This truly confuses me. </p><p>Might it be that you have a foundational bias that you can let go?</p><p>I find it ironic that folks with alternative theories that tend to go against mainstream are the most closed minded while claiming to be open minded and free thinkers. </p><p>The solution is pretty simple, Michael. I know you are capable of understanding it... you just need to remove the blinders you have on. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>FYI, that's simply not true. None of Maxwell's equations use "monopoles", describe monopoles or rely upon them in any way. Priest is not using Maxwell's equations in the equation in question. He's clearly stepping way outside of Maxwell's equations and the laws that govern them. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>If physicists were not allowed to modify equations, science would be stagnant. The modification is done through the vector potential which is entirely consistent and a valid approach. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Suppose I tried to use a chorus line of invisible elves to describe the boundary condition behaviors of plasma? That's fine by you? We can call that "electrostatics"? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>What observable phenomena do invisible elves describe? What mathematical rigor can I apply to invisible elves?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What observable phenomena do invisible elves describe? What mathematical rigor can I apply to invisible elves? <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Everything that ie equated with "monopoles" in Priests presentation, including the elves magic abilites to simulaneously increase the particle flow speed while dcreasing the magnetic field in the same region. </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'>Try doing a bit of research. </DIV></p><p>Err, I thought that was the whole point of going through all these papers over the last few weeks? You folks offered me what you suggested was a derivation of "magnetic reconnection" that was based on Maxwell's equations. None of those equations says a peep about "monopoles" or invisible elves.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It might help you let go of this irrational and illogical argument that you are holding on to and repeating ad infinitum.</DIV></p><p>Actually, I didn't even realize that Priest evoked monopoles in his equations until I went through it more thuroughly and realized there was no rational way for me to proceed based on his use of monopoles. I can't just "fudge" here if I'm going to use and stick to Maxwell's equations to make my point. I can't just "fake" the fact that he evoked a particle that blatenly and brazenly goes against the "laws"" of electrical theory, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism that treats all magnetic fields as "dipoles", not "monopoles". Gauss's law expressly forbids monopoles in favor of dipoles. It has to be one or the other and the dipoles are the "law".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Priest and Holmes did not write the paper or the book for you. </DIV></p><p>No, they clearly wrote it for astronomers from the perspective of astronomy. I can't even imagine an electrical engineering publications ever publishing something that evoked monopoles in the equations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They wrote it for folks that understand this stuff intimately.</DIV></p><p>You seem to be assuming that astronomers are "special" in their understanding of the properties of a mythical particle that Guth claimed didn't exist because of his theory of inflation. I got to tell you Derek, your attitude here seems well, "disturbing". Normally you're quite the rational guy, but on this monopole issue you're whistling dixie and we both know it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's no reason they should write an entire chapter explaining something the layman might not understand.</DIV></p><p>If you intend to evoke something that doesn't exist in nature, you need to explain why you did so, just as I would have to explain why I evoked "invisible elves" in any mathematical presentation on Maxwell's equations that evoked them. It's not logical to evoke monopoles in relationship to Maxwell's equations since they are expressly forbidden in the laws of electromagnetism and also in MHD theory by proxy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not for layman.</DIV></p><p>It's not for "real" Derek. Monopoles are not real. Leyman or not, there is no emprical evidence that they exist in nature! In fact, all magnetic fields are treated as a full and complete dipole field, without beginning and without end. They can't be broken up in to little monopoles. At most you might be able to break them down into little dipoles, but not monopoles because that violates our whole understanding of magnetic fields.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When you first brought up the monopole issue, my first intuition was he was not referring to a particle. That was just a logical, common sense notion. </DIV></p><p>It wasn't "common sense" to even use that term in relationship to Maxwell's equations. There is nothing "common sensical" about it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I didn't understand it at first nor did I have a solution for you. It was actually a good inquiry on your part. However, after only an hour or so of doing some very basic research, I get it. </DIV></p><p>No you don't. You *think* you have some rationalization for why Priest used a term that defies the laws of physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is research that you should be capable of doing on your own.I'm pretty sure I'm probably the least qualified of the 4 of us discussing MHD and magnetic reconnection and yet it is you that doesn't seem to understand it. This truly confuses me. Might it be that you have a foundational bias that you can let go?</DIV></p><p>Um, ya, I can't let go of the "laws" of physics, otherwise we aren't describing "physics" anymore. There is a foundational issue here that cannot be "let go". Either magnetic fields are dipole fields that could only be logically referred to a dipole fields, or monopoles exists and any type of energy exchange is possible. Both of these options cannot be true. They are mutually exclusive concepts.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I find it ironic that folks with alternative theories that tend to go against mainstream are the most closed minded while claiming to be open minded and free thinkers. The solution is pretty simple, Michael. I know you are capable of understanding it... you just need to remove the blinders you have on. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>It's not that I would never be able to "understand it". It's that I would forever have to "explain" it to everyone who ever read the paper, and I would forever be stuck like you, trying to rationalize a very poor choice of terms on his part, or a complete violation of the laws of physics at worst case. I won't inherit Preist's sins. It would undermine the whole reason for me even making this effort in the first place. If I am to show that "magnetic reconnection" is actually "circuit reconnection" with a little "induction" thrown in for fun, then it *must* be based *strickly* on Maxwell's equations, and not upon particles and concepts that violate the tenets of electrical theory. Heese and Birn might provide that possibility, but Preist's paper forever makes that impossible due to it's evokation of monopoles in the equations.</p><p>IMO you're playing both sides of the street. On one hand you were arguing that we couldn't disprove the existence of monopoles. On the other hand you're also suggesting that Priest didn't really mean to use the term monopole or claim that monopoles exist. That seems self conflicted from my perspective. Either he evoked them (which he did) or he didn't and one of your arguments would not be necessary. Either you should agree with me that monopoles do not exist and would violate the laws of physics as we understand them, or you should stop trying to suggest they might exist. If we're going to stick with real "physics", we must assume that all magnetic fields are dipole fields, without beginning and without end, and that no monopoles may be used in any of Maxwell's equations. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If physicists were not allowed to modify equations, science would be stagnant. </DIV></p><p>I don't mind you "modifying" the equations with real physics and real physical objects and forces of nature. If however you "modify" them by breaking the laws of physics, I'm going to cry foul. You can't just "modify" yourself right out of "reality" and into "fantasy".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The modification is done through the vector potential which is entirely consistent and a valid approach. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>A vector potential is not a "monopole". Why is the term "monopole" being used? </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'> That is what I have been trying to get Michael to understand for several pages now. You can use an idea like a monopole to impose a hypothetical set of boundary conditions that are physical in a manner in which the resulting is easier to solve than it would be in a more straightforward presentation. </DIV></p><p>The only "boundary condition" that is possible is a "dipole" field, not a monopole field. The whole field is treated as dipole field, without beginning and without end. If you want to chop up the field in little pieces, you would still have to consdider it to be a series of *dipole* fields, not a series of *monopole* fields. The only logical boundary condition would still expressly forbid us to treat it as "monopoles". </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'> You seem to be assuming that astronomers are "special" in their understanding </DIV></p><p><font size="3"><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana">And that Michael is the whole problem. These people are not required to study electrical engineering (EE) and have little ability to imagine how or why the rest of us become </span></span><span class="mceitemhiddenspellword1"><span style="font-family:Verdana">nauseated</span></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"> when they speak of magnetism as if it can somehow be divorced from an electrical environment or currents. </span></span></font><font size="3"><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana">Send them all back to school (home school will do) demand they add plasma physics and </span></span><span class="mceitemhiddenspellword1"><span style="font-family:Verdana">EE</span></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"> to their educations and then let's all talk. Until then you can't be </span></span><span class="mceitemhiddenspellword1"><span style="font-family:Verdana">seriously</span></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"> annoyed or surprised that they won't let those of you who do understand astronomy, cosmology and/or astrophysics </span></span><span class="mceitemhiddenspellword1"><span style="font-family:Verdana">within</span></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"> the </span></span><span class="mceitemhiddenspellword1"><span style="font-family:Verdana">ELECTRO-magnetic</span></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"> paradigm </span></span><span class="mceitemhiddenspellword1"><span style="font-family:Verdana">equal</span></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"> time in their </span></span><span class="mceitemhiddenspellword1"><span style="font-family:Verdana">publications</span></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"> and/or classrooms, can you?</span></span></font><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"> </font></span></span></p><p><span class="mceitemhidden"></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3">“Thinking themselves wise they become fools” a wise man once wrote. There is nothing wrong here other than normal human pride, we all have it and suffer its consequences. These folks worked hard and some achieved success even though they evoke metaphysics (and hubris) to cover up their ignorance and inability to describe how a galaxy can spin as fast at its arms as it does at its center or how particles can accelerate faster and faster as they leave the vicinity of the sun or how the sun’s corona can be hotter than the so called furnace that generates the heat in the first place and other such facts of nature easily and handily explained and DEMONSTRATED by plasma physicists and EEs. </font></span></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"> </font></span></span> </p><p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3">Since they (in astronomy, etc. . .) all want to get somewhere they give each other a pass on publishing nonsense. No more is there any accountability to keep any of them dealing within what is real and natural much less reproducible in a lab. It is sickening and maddening, yes. But thank you Michael for holding your nose and continuing to plug away at this mess these last few years since I left. </font></span></span></p><p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><span class="mceitemhidden"></span></p><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3">In time those in these fields of study will all claim they knew space was full of electromagnetism all along and of course there is a super-fluidic, electromagnetic imparting aether that imparts charge/spin (left, right, negative, positive, strong, weak, etc. . .) to angular momentum as it emerges from its ground state from some sub-quantum super-force-filled realm (Aether Physics Model, ala David Thomson and Jim Bourassa </font><font size="3">http://www.16pi2.com</font><font size="3">).</font></span></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"> </font></span></span> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3">Until the time of academic freedom and intellectual honesty comes to earth forums such as this is the proper battleground. One day sanity will win out and we’ll all laugh at what was allowed to pass as science since the olden days of Newton. I see smatterings of minds opening here already thanks to you Michael and those of your ilk on the net. I once fought hard here as well but lost heart (and took a real job). </font></span></span></p><p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><span class="mceitemhidden"></span></p><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3">Good luck oh boy, good luck! You are making history as you ruffle the feathers of these narrow minded birds who just don’t want to get it, preferring rather to accuse you of failing to make a point as they (like origin) insist dark anything deserves our attention AND tax dollars, pity.</font></span></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"> </font></span></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3">Origin, is it really that hard to go and do what Michael suggested? Your laziness is beyond the pail! The work has already been done, why should Michael reproduce all that body of work here just for little oh you? Go and read the literature and substitute the terms as he stated. You won’t do it because you don’t understand what the benefit would be. Why? Because you don’t have a deep understanding of EE or plasma physics, right? What are your credentials that you can challenge such a man (have you not looked at Michael’s credentials?). </font></span></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"> </font></span></span> <p><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Verdana">So go Origin, start hitting the books that demystify electromagnetism and then come back to these matters. Maybe, just maybe you will attain clarity all on your own without sucking at Michael’s teats as if he owes you the milk of understanding. Do the work for yourself and stop trying to make a good and intelligent man seem foolish (which trust me fellow, is backfiring miserably for you and boring many of the rest of us). </span></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>
It's certainly good to know that someone appreciates me. Glad to meet you. 
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And that Michael is the whole problem. These people are not required to study electrical engineering (EE) and have little ability to imagine how or why the rest of us become nauseated when they speak of magnetism as if it can somehow be divorced from an electrical environment or currents. Send them all back to school (home school will do) demand they add plasma physics and EE to their educations and then let's all talk. Until then you can't be seriously annoyed or surprised that they won't let those of you who do understand astronomy, cosmology and/or astrophysics within the ELECTRO-magnetic paradigm equal time in their publications and/or classrooms, can you? “Thinking themselves wise they become fools” a wise man once wrote. There is nothing wrong here other than normal human pride, we all have it and suffer its consequences. These folks worked hard and some achieved success even though they evoke metaphysics (and hubris) to cover up their ignorance and inability to describe how a galaxy can spin as fast at its arms as it does at its center or how particles can accelerate faster and faster as they leave the vicinity of the sun or how the sun’s corona can be hotter than the so called furnace that generates the heat in the first place and other such facts of nature easily and handily explained and DEMONSTRATED by plasma physicists and EEs. Since they (in astronomy, etc. . .) all want to get somewhere they give each other a pass on publishing nonsense. No more is there any accountability to keep any of them dealing within what is real and natural much less reproducible in a lab. It is sickening and maddening, yes. But thank you Michael for holding your nose and continuing to plug away at this mess these last few years since I left. In time those in these fields of study will all claim they knew space was full of electromagnetism all along and of course there is a super-fluidic, electromagnetic imparting aether that imparts charge/spin (left, right, negative, positive, strong, weak, etc. . .) to angular momentum as it emerges from its ground state from some sub-quantum super-force-filled realm (Aether Physics Model, ala David Thomson and Jim Bourassa http://www.16pi2.com). Until the time of academic freedom and intellectual honesty comes to earth forums such as this is the proper battleground. One day sanity will win out and we’ll all laugh at what was allowed to pass as science since the olden days of Newton. I see smatterings of minds opening here already thanks to you Michael and those of your ilk on the net. I once fought hard here as well but lost heart (and took a real job). Good luck oh boy, good luck! You are making history as you ruffle the feathers of these narrow minded birds who just don’t want to get it, preferring rather to accuse you of failing to make a point as they (like origin) insist dark anything deserves our attention AND tax dollars, pity. Origin, is it really that hard to go and do what Michael suggested? Your laziness is beyond the pail! The work has already been done, why should Michael reproduce all that body of work here just for little oh you? Go and read the literature and substitute the terms as he stated. You won’t do it because you don’t understand what the benefit would be. Why? Because you don’t have a deep understanding of EE or plasma physics, right? What are your credentials that you can challenge such a man (have you not looked at Michael’s credentials?). So go Origin, start hitting the books that demystify electromagnetism and then come back to these matters. Maybe, just maybe you will attain clarity all on your own without sucking at Michael’s teats as if he owes you the milk of understanding. Do the work for yourself and stop trying to make a good and intelligent man seem foolish (which trust me fellow, is backfiring miserably for you and boring many of the rest of us). <br />Posted by colesakick</DIV></p><p> </p><p>You don't know what you are talking about. Astrophysicists are at least as well educated in electrodynamics as are electrical engineers, and generally better educated in plasma physics. And I have 2 degrees in electrical engineering.</p><p>I will be most happy to debate electromagnetic theory with you. If you have read the thread at all you will note that we have consistently tried to frame the debate in terms of Maxwell's equations, to little avail.</p><p>So if you would care to enter the debate and discuss things in terms of Maxwell's equations, bring it on.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Oh god, now there's two of them?</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3">What are your credentials that you can challenge such a man (have you not looked at Michael’s credentials?). </font></span></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"></DIV></font></span></span></p><p> </p><p>New guy, you bring up Michael's credentials...OK, he published a few papers. It is more than I have done(though, in my defense I am at a much earlier stage in my career and my work has been used for many successful proposals already before it has been published), but in the scope of things, it isn't that much and it certainly doesn't mean we should assume he is correct at face value without needing justification. Maybe if Alfven was on these boards saying all this, then you'd have a point. I have worked over the past couple years with the biggest names in magnetic reconnection, the ones who wrote the book(literally) on the subject. They are paid large sums of money by the government to perform top-caliber science. Credentials aren't even important...real, hard science is important. If all I cared about was credentials, this is where I'd ask...and what are you? Some disgruntled EE with a bachelors degree and somehow thinks they are smarter than people in their own field AND in other fields of physics? Why should I listen to you?(This is directed at new guy, not Michael) </p><p> People with FAR greater credentials than ANY of us on this board disagree with Michael's ideas...the difference between them and him is they back up their assertions with rigorous math and physics. You keep saying that plasma physicists can "demonstrate" all these things, such as the corona being as hot as it is, in the lab...if that were the case, unless all plasma physicists and electrical engineers are blind, deaf, and mute, the mainstream would know about it. There are countless examples of astrophysics borrowing from plasma physics...so why would they ignore this particular aspect? It is NOT hubris. What we(the mainstream) do is say "we know you're wrong, and here's why" whereas you people say "we think you're wrong, because we're right". Astronomers LIKE to have their theories challenged/proven wrong. Of course they'll question it, sometimes angrily at first, but IF(this is the part we're all waiting for) the challenger can provide SOLID evidence backing up their claim, they'll be glad because that means science has advanced.</p><p>I think you need to stop brown-nosing Michael and go read the book on Magnetic Reconnection. You will find out that the mainstream is NOT talking about Michael's warped definition of it that involves cutting and splicing. You will also find that they mention electric fields throughout the thing. So capitalizing ELECTRO indignantly is pointless. If you actually read the literature, you would know your precious electrons are not being ignored. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3">Since they (in astronomy, etc. . .) all want to get somewhere they give each other a pass on publishing nonsense. No more is there any accountability to keep any of them dealing within what is real and natural much less reproducible in a lab. It is sickening and maddening, yes. But thank you Michael for holding your nose and continuing to plug away at this mess these last few years since I left.</DIV></font></span></span></p><p>If I rolled my eyes any harder they'd fall out. There is accountability, and it's called refereed journals...you know, the things pseudoscience like this can't make it into. It seems nonsense to you because you refuse to even try to understand it. It makes me wonder where your professors went wrong...have you never heard of the scientific method? You say reconnection can be described with circuit reconnection...ok, that's your hypothesis, and wheres the rest...? It isn't there. You won't even try because you can't get over semantics AGAIN. Priest did NOT INVOKE MONOPOLES. He said IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE the physics behaves as IF monopoles existed. Reread that sentence and make sure you notice the big honkin' IF. It has no bearing whatsoever on the paper as a whole. Like I said, he easily could have walked you through the physics that he was describing with such an analogy, but that would be an utter waste of time and space, because as derek said, this is written for experts in the field. </p><p>Perhaps you guys are the ones who need to hit the books. First, I'd recommend some introductory graduate texts on stellar structure. Then on stellar atmospheres. Then on Galactic Dynamics. Then finally when you're done with basic astrophysics, move on to a more specific text like Priest/Birn's text on magnetic reconnection. </p><p>Every single thing new guy said can be turned and said about the proponents of EU. You guys think you have all the answers, yet when you are asked for them you talk around the issue or show us pseudoscience. Just because the surface of the sun may "look" solid in some images is ENTIRELY irrelevant if you can't back it up with a spectrum or some other rigorous proof that says the sun has a solid surface. Much the same way people proved that the gas giants aside from Jupiter possessed a solid core. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3">In time those in these fields of study will all claim they knew space was full of electromagnetism all along and of course there is a super-fluidic, electromagnetic imparting aether that imparts charge/spin (left, right, negative, positive, strong, weak, etc. . .) to angular momentum as it emerges from its ground state from some sub-quantum super-force-filled realm (Aether Physics Model, ala David Thomson and Jim Bourassa </font><font size="3">http://www.16pi2.com</font><font size="3">).</font></span></span><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3"> </font></span></span> </p><p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><span class="mceitemhidden"><span style="font-family:Verdana"><font size="3">Until the time of academic freedom and intellectual honesty comes to earth forums such as this is the proper battleground. One day sanity will win out and we’ll all laugh at what was allowed to pass as science since the olden days of Newton. I see smatterings of minds opening here already thanks to you Michael and those of your ilk on the net. I once fought hard here as well but lost heart (and took a real job).</DIV></font></span></span></p><p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal">I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with this jumble of words...I hope you are not trying to say that the concept of Aether, which has long since been disproven, is actually true. Otherwise you will have confirmed beyond all doubt that you are a fool with no grasp on basic physics. The day sanity wins out is the day of the death of EU theory. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... What are your credentials that you can challenge such a man (have you not looked at Michael’s credentials?). So go Origin, start hitting the books that demystify electromagnetism and then come back to these matters. Maybe, just maybe you will attain clarity all on your own without sucking at Michael’s teats as if he owes you the milk of understanding. Do the work for yourself and stop trying to make a good and intelligent man seem foolish (which trust me fellow, is backfiring miserably for you and boring many of the rest of us). <br />Posted by colesakick</DIV></p><p>Arguments over credentials are simply ridiculous. The debate is over science, not credentials. And Michael's credentials do not impress me in the least in any case.</p><p>The very fact that you bring this up disqualifies you as a pertinent debater. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Everything that ie equated with "monopoles" in Priests presentation, including the elves magic abilites to simulaneously increase the particle flow speed while dcreasing the magnetic field in the same region. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Odd. I've never seen magical elves mentioned in any scientific papers that I have ever read. Could you explain why you constantly refer to them.</p><p>Of course, this is a rhetorical question. It's really a silly analogy that has no bearing on the topic at hand. I think it really shows a weakness in your argument every time you use it. It seems like everytime you don't understand something that doesn't fall within your vision of what physics are, you fall back on this argument.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Err, I thought that was the whole point of going through all these papers over the last few weeks? You folks offered me what you suggested was a derivation of "magnetic reconnection" that was based on Maxwell's equations. None of those equations says a peep about "monopoles" or invisible elves.</DIV></p><p>I'll assume that by equating monopoles to invisible elves, you are still stuck on the particle aspect of monopoles. Obviously, you haven't done any quality research. If your intention is to write a paper for publication, it would behoove you to do your own research to try to understand the meaning behind his use of the "term" (not particle) monopole. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually, I didn't even realize that Priest evoked monopoles in his equations until I went through it more thuroughly and realized there was no rational way for me to proceed based on his use of monopoles. I can't just "fudge" here if I'm going to use and stick to Maxwell's equations to make my point. I can't just "fake" the fact that he evoked a particle that blatenly and brazenly goes against the "laws"" of electrical theory, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism that treats all magnetic fields as "dipoles", not "monopoles". Gauss's law expressly forbids monopoles in favor of dipoles. It has to be one or the other and the dipoles are the "law".</DIV></p><p>You are not going to make any progress until you get rid of this notion that Priest "<strong><em>in</em></strong>voked" the need for a monopole particle. </p><p>Don't you think you are being a bit hypocritical concerning Gauss' law for magnetism? Throughout this entire thread you argue against math being a description of reality in certain (if not many) cases. However, when the tables are turned on you, you are insistent that the math is "law" and can not be touched.</p><p>If monopoles are ever found to be a reality, the formula simply gets adjusted and will be just as valid in describing the reality that we exist in as it ever did. </p><p>But, alas... the only one talking about magnetic monopole 'particles' is you. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, they clearly wrote it for astronomers from the perspective of astronomy. I can't even imagine an electrical engineering publications ever publishing something that evoked monopoles in the equations.</DIV></p><p>I can't imagine electrical engineers using monopoles either. Why would they? Monopoles (as in particles) are generally found being described in quantum physics and astrophysics. I do think electrical engineers deal with point charges in the electrical field which is analogous to magnetic monopoles. It's really just a description of quantized charges. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You seem to be assuming that astronomers are "special" in their understanding of the properties of a mythical particle that Guth claimed didn't exist because of his theory of inflation.</DIV></p><p>Considering Priest is not referring to the same thing you are, this whole argument is a non-sequitur. However, I'll address it anyway. I don't believe Guth made such a claim. I believe inflation allows for magnetic monopoles to have been create prior to inflation. After inflation, though, the density of magnetic monopoles are at such a level that they may be undetectable. Statistically speaking, they exist under inflation, but Guth is essentially saying good luck finding them. I could be wrong, but that how I interpret and understand it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I got to tell you Derek, your attitude here seems well, "disturbing". Normally you're quite the rational guy, but on this monopole issue you're whistling dixie and we both know it.</DIV> </p><p>Huh? My attitude is disturbing? Not sure how you figure that. I've heard the term "whistling dixie" but I don't really know what it means. I don't know what you are talking about here. I'm just offering my interpretation of what Priest is referring to. I'm extremely confident that he is not talking about particles. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you intend to evoke something that doesn't exist in nature, you need to explain why you did so, just as I would have to explain why I evoked "invisible elves" in any mathematical presentation on Maxwell's equations that evoked them. It's not logical to evoke monopoles in relationship to Maxwell's equations since they are expressly forbidden in the laws of electromagnetism and also in MHD theory by proxy.</DIV></p><p>Priest didn't rely on something that doesn't exist in nature. This is you misinterpreting what he is referring to. You are (unintentionally?) setting up a strawman argument in doing this.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not for "real" Derek. Monopoles are not real. Leyman or not, there is no emprical evidence that they exist in nature! In fact, all magnetic fields are treated as a full and complete dipole field, without beginning and without end. They can't be broken up in to little monopoles. At most you might be able to break them down into little dipoles, but not monopoles because that violates our whole understanding of magnetic fields.</DIV> </p><p>Strawman... we're not talking about particles. Only you are. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It wasn't "common sense" to even use that term in relationship to Maxwell's equations. There is nothing "common sensical" about it.</DIV></p><p>Non-Sequitur. I was referring to <em><strong>my</strong></em> common sense... not Priest's. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No you don't. You *think* you have some rationalization for why Priest used a term that defies the laws of physics.</DIV></p><p>Yes I do. The only laws he is defying are <em><strong>your</strong></em> laws. Fortunately for the rest of the world, they don't rely on <strong><em>your</em></strong> laws. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Um, ya, I can't let go of the "laws" of physics, otherwise we aren't describing "physics" anymore. There is a foundational issue here that cannot be "let go". Either magnetic fields are dipole fields that could only be logically referred to a dipole fields, or monopoles exists and any type of energy exchange is possible. Both of these options cannot be true. They are mutually exclusive concepts.It's not that I would never be able to "understand it". It's that I would forever have to "explain" it to everyone who ever read the paper, and I would forever be stuck like you, trying to rationalize a very poor choice of terms on his part, or a complete violation of the laws of physics at worst case. I won't inherit Preist's sins. It would undermine the whole reason for me even making this effort in the first place. If I am to show that "magnetic reconnection" is actually "circuit reconnection" with a little "induction" thrown in for fun, then it *must* be based *strickly* on Maxwell's equations, and not upon particles and concepts that violate the tenets of electrical theory. Heese and Birn might provide that possibility, but Preist's paper forever makes that impossible due to it's evokation of monopoles in the equations.IMO you're playing both sides of the street. On one hand you were arguing that we couldn't disprove the existence of monopoles. On the other hand you're also suggesting that Priest didn't really mean to use the term monopole or claim that monopoles exist. That seems self conflicted from my perspective. Either he evoked them (which he did) or he didn't and one of your arguments would not be necessary. Either you should agree with me that monopoles do not exist and would violate the laws of physics as we understand them, or you should stop trying to suggest they might exist. If we're going to stick with real "physics", we must assume that all magnetic fields are dipole fields, without beginning and without end, and that no monopoles may be used in any of Maxwell's equations. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Ad nauseum. Once again, I suggest rereading what exactly Priest said and research why it is valid. Setting up a strawman that he is referring to real, physical monopole particles is just ridiculous. Your entire argument is based on a false premise. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You don't know what you are talking about. Astrophysicists are at least as well educated in electrodynamics as are electrical engineers, and generally better educated in plasma physics. And I have 2 degrees in electrical engineering.I will be most happy to debate electromagnetic theory with you. </DIV></p><p>And yet when we started this conversation you had not read a single one of Alfven's books. Even to this day you still haven't read his later book on plasma cosmology theory. What kind of education is that consider the universe is mostly made of plasma and Alfven literally wrote the book on MHD theory and plasma cosmology theory? When the cirruculum skips the work of the Nobel Prize winning scientists, I start to wonder.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you have read the thread at all you will note that we have consistently tried to frame the debate in terms of Maxwell's equations, to little avail.</DIV></p><p>Er, except when I point out where Preist invokes monopoles in his equations you give him a great be free pass and start rationalizing his use of monopoles in his presentation. You seem to simply *ignore* the parts that you don't like. I literally showed you that I was right and that at least one definition of "magnetic reconnection" violates Maxwell's equations, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism that treats all magnetic fields as *DIPOLE* fields. Even when I demonstrate my points in the equations themselves, you simply ignore them entirely.</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>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
SpaceX's big year: The new records and feats Elon Musk's space company achieved in 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram