<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Suppose for just a second that I go to all the trouble to demonsrate that the agreed upon brand of "magnetic reconnection" can be equated directly back to "circuit reconnection"? Wouldn't you agree that "circuit reconnection" would make more sense and be more in alignment with other branches of science, including MHD theory and electrical engineering?</DIV></p><p>In this fantasy world, I don't really agree that it would make more sense. It may be more in alignment with your version of MHD and EE, but that begs the question...should it be? I'm not so sure. It certainly shouldn't follow ideal MHD since we are clearly dealing with complex environments where deviations from ideality should be expected. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In this fantasy world, I don't really agree that it would make more sense.</DIV></p><p>There's no "fantasy" involved here. There is a one to one correlation between what's happening in these models and ordinary circuit reconnection processes in plasma. The difference here between the mainstream approach and Alfven's approach to describing these current flow events is that Alfven expclicity used E and j to model these sorts of current sheet transactions and he only tried to simplify for B when no currents were present. The mainstream on the other hand is attempting to rewrite history and rewrite MHD theory using terms that don't fit the facts. We all know that magnetic fields form a full dipole field, without beginning and without end. Even still you seem to prefer a description that by definition is miseleading. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It may be more in alignment with your version of MHD and EE, but that begs the question...should it be? </DIV></p><p>FYI, it's not more in alignment with *my* version of anything. I didn't write electrical theory or MHD theory. It's more in alignment with standard electrical engineering principles and it would be more in alignment with how Alfven taught MHD theory. It's entirely impersonal and unrelated to me. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not so sure. It certainly shouldn't follow ideal MHD since we are clearly dealing with complex environments where deviations from ideality should be expected. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>That's quite interesting from a psychological perspective. It's interesting how the human ego needs to somehow be right even when there every reason to simply switch opinions and switch sides. If I understand you, even if you *KNEW* without a doubt that circuit reconnection and magnetic reconnection are one in the same based on the same math formulas, you would seem to still prefer to use a term that is logically and factually incorrect. Magnetic fields don't disconnect and therefore they can't reconnect to anything. Only circuits and particles have the ability to "reconnect" according to the laws of physics as we understand it. I'm simply amazed at the resistence to change in this industry, even were I to go to all the trouble of making my case from the perspective of math. That is truely fascinating.</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'>In this fantasy world, I don't really agree that it would make more sense. It may be more in alignment with your version of MHD and EE, but that begs the question...should it be? I'm not so sure. It certainly shouldn't follow ideal MHD since we are clearly dealing with complex environments where deviations from ideality should be expected. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880_1987013880.pdf</p><p>FYI, the presentation by Alfven on this topic from this PDF file pretty much sums up his views toward all the magnetic reconnection theories he'd read to that date in time. He begins his dialog on frozen in fields on page 17 and then gets into magnetic reconnection theory. He then goes on to explain how these issues are actually handled in MHD theory. I can't stress strongly enough that Alfven rejected these early definitions of "magnetic reconnection" as vehemently as I do. In fact he was rather blunt, refering to the whole concept of magnetic reconnection as "psuedoscience.". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p> III. DOUBLE LAYERS AND FROZEN-IN MAGNETIC FIELD LINES<br />A. Frozen-In Field Lines B A Pseudo-Pedagogical Concept<br />In Cosmical Electrodynamics, I tried to give a survey of a field in which I had been active for about two<br />decades. In one of the chapters, I treated magnetohydrodynamic waves. I pointed out that in an infinitely conductive<br />magnetized fluid the magnetic field lines could be considered as "frozen" into the medium -- under certain conditions<br />-- and this concept made it possible to treat the waves as oscillations of the frozen-in medium.<br />The "frozen-in" picture of magnetic field lines differs from Maxwell's views. He defined a magnetic field<br />line as a line which everywhere is parallel to the magnetic field. If the current system which produced the field<br />changes, the magnetic field changes and field lines can merge or reconnect. However, if the current system is<br />constant the magnetic field is also constant. To speak of magnetic field lines moving perpendicular to the field<br />makes no sense. They are not material.<br />In a detailed analysis of the motion of magnetic lines of force, Newcomb (1958) has demonstrated that "it is<br />permissible to ascribe a velocity v to the hne of force if and only if Vx(E x v x H) vanishes identically."<br />I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became<br />very popular. In reality, however, it was not a good pedagogical concept but a dangerous "pseudo-pedagogical<br />concept." By pseudo-pedagogical I mean a concept which makes you believe that you understand a phenomenon<br />whereas in reality you have drastically misunderstood it.<br />I never totally believed in it myself. This is evident from the chapter on "Magnetic Storms and Aurora" in the<br />same monograph. I followed the Birkeland-St6rmer general approach; but, in order to make that applicable to the<br />motion of low-energy particles in what is now called the magnetosphere, it was necessary to introduce an approximate<br />treatment (the "guiding-center" method) of the motion of charged particles. (As I have pointed out in CP, III. 1,<br />I still believe that this is a very good method for obtaining an approximate survey of many situations and that it is a<br />pity that it is not more generally used.) The conductivity of a plasma in the magnetosphere was not relevant.<br />Some years later criticism by Cowling made me realize that there was a serious difficulty here. According to<br />Spitzer's formula for conductivity, the conductivity in the magnetosphere was very high. Hence the frozen-in concept<br />should be applicable and the magnetic field lines connecting the auroral zone with the equatorial zone should be<br />frozen-in. At that time (-- 1950) we already knew enough to understand that a frozen-in treatment of the magnetosphere<br />was absurd, but I did not understand why the frozen-in concept was not applicable. It gave me a headache for<br />some years.<br />In 1963 Carl-Gunne F_ilthammar and I published the second edition of Cosmical Electrodynamics (Alfv6n<br />and F_ilthammar, 1963). He gave a much higher standard to the book and new results were introduced. One of them<br />was that a non-isotropic plasma in a magnetic mirror field could produce a parallel electric field Ell. We analyzed the<br />consequences of this in some detail and demonstrated with a number of examples that in the presence of an Ell, the<br />frozen-in model broke down. On page 191 we wrote:<br />"In low density plasmas the concept of frozen-in lines of force is questionable. The concept of<br />frozen-in lines of force may be useful in solar physics where we have to do with high- and<br />medium-density plasma, but may be grossly misleading if applied to the magnetosphere of the<br />earth. To plasma in interstellar space it should be applied with some care."</p><p> B. Magnetic Merging -- A Pseudo-Science<br />Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example,<br />in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfv6n, 1975), I made a table showing the<br />difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozenin<br />magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of<br />energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of<br />all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously<br />erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large<br />parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in I. 3, II. 3,<br />and I1.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers<br />exist.<br />A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985).<br />They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid<br />dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there<br />can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.<br />I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and<br />I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging"<br />pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no<br />doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience,<br />perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.<br />In those parts of solar physics which do not deal with the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric<br />region (fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid), the state is even worse. It is difficult to find theoretical<br />papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost<br />completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made<br />necessary (see Section VIII).<br />I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers -- which is fatal to this pseudoscience<br />-- will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other Ell _ 0) we hammer a nail into<br />the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.</DIV></p><p>It seems that the coffin won't stay nailed shut, and this concept just wont die, no matter who criticizes it and no matter how many observational "tests" it fails. 
</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>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973Ap%26SS..23..261H</p><p>I assume the paper above is the one that Alfven is referring to. Keikkilia also has some more recent papers out, presumably on this same topic.</p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-basic_connect?qsearch=W.+J.+Heikkila&version=1 <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's quite interesting from a psychological perspective. It's interesting how the human ego needs to somehow be right even when there every reason to simply switch opinions and switch sides. If I understand you, even if you *KNEW* without a doubt that circuit reconnection and magnetic reconnection are one in the same based on the same math formulas, you would seem to still prefer to use a term that is logically and factually incorrect. Magnetic fields don't disconnect and therefore they can't reconnect to anything. Only circuits and particles have the ability to "reconnect" according to the laws of physics as we understand it. I'm simply amazed at the resistence to change in this industry, even were I to go to all the trouble of making my case from the perspective of math. That is truely fascinating.</DIV></p><p>How the hell did you get all that out of what I said? ALL I said was that in these regions, ideal MHD should not be expected to apply. You'll find that's exactly what I said if you reread what you quoted. Again you bring up your uninformed, WRONG, UNSUPPORTED definition of reconnection, the one NOONE in this thread or in the literature believes. You can't start arguing about what we may or may not do if you went to all the "trouble", because you tried and came up short once, and there's no reason to believe you'll have any more luck with the more rigorous papers. You claimed you were moving on to the Hesse/Schindler paper but all I've seen you do is go to other papers that are questionable in that they don't address directly the foundation of the general theory as we know it today. If you can't understand a theory, you have no right to criticize it. I don't understand string theory, and I personally think it sounds a bit out there, but you don't see me criticizing it in the threads around here because my arguments would have no substance. That is essentially what you're doing here. You do not understand reconnection, you think Alfven was arguing about reconnection as we know it today because he used similar words, so you just keep repeating that ad nauseum for over 1000 posts now. </p><p>You will find that, in science, there will always be a group of scientists(often very old) who call the mainstream science pseudoscience because it contradicts what they've said. You keep speaking of ego and resistance to change, but of course the glorious god-like Alfven is beyond question and could never succumb to such things. </p><p>If you've done the research(I even posted the paper at some point IIRC), you will see that Alfven's objections are addressed. Birn has a paper dealing precisely with the role of the parallel electric field during reconnection. There is the paper I quoted probably 40 pages ago that directly addresses Alfven's objections to frozen-in conditions. You are living in the past and ignoring modern research. </p><p>If your claims are not fantasy, then "put up or shut up". And here is one of your smiley faces that drive me crazy to end this post </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How the hell did you get all that out of what I said? ALL I said was that in these regions, ideal MHD should not be expected to apply.</DIV></p><p>What does the concept of "ideal MHD" have to do with my question or my point? Why wouldn't we expect the same processes we observe in the lab to apply to all plasmas in interplanetary space? Why would these regions somehow be "special"? Why wouldn't they interact in the same way as the light plasmas in Birkeland's experiments from 100 years ago?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You'll find that's exactly what I said if you reread what you quoted. Again you bring up your uninformed, WRONG, UNSUPPORTED definition of reconnection, the one NOONE in this thread or in the literature believes.</DIV></p><p>That is irrelevant IMO. What I asked you was *IF* I showed you the mathematical corellation between what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" and what Alfven called "circuit reconnection", would you be willing to admit that "circuit reconnection" would be a better definition of this "reconnection" process? </p><p>Any confusion that anyone might have with the term "magnetic reconnection" is completely and utterly the fault of astronomers that use that term. No self respecting electrical engineer would call it that. Alfven never called it that. He called the whole concept of magnetic reconnection "pseudoscience". If there is one to one correlation between "circuit reconnection" and "magnetic reconnection" and magnetic fields don't disconnect or reconnect, then why in the world would you defend the use of the term "magnetic reconnection", or continue to wish to use that term yourself under any plasma condition, ideal or less than ideal?</p><p>As I understand it, it's not like you personally have written 20 papers on this topic. You don't seem to have any vested financial interest in one term or the other, and no real publishing interest in callling it "magnetic reconnection". I would think you'd be happy to call it "circuit reconnection" if I can demonstrate that these equations can be converted and shown to be simple circuit reconnection events.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You can't start arguing about what we may or may not do if you went to all the "trouble", because you tried and came up short once,</DIV></p><p>I came up "short" only because Preist invoked a sceintifcially imprecise term "monopoles" that evidently do magic tricks in plasma. After further study of Petschecks theory, Priest obviously didn't explain that theory worth a darn. He used improper and imprecise terminology and a totally inappropriate "analogy" (evidently) to convey a proces that is defintely not a "monopole" source. I still see no valid reason for him to use that term.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and there's no reason to believe you'll have any more luck with the more rigorous papers. </DIV></p><p>You're sort of missing the point here. Even if I personally fail to convert them, it doesn't mean *nobody* can do it. Your position would not be vindicated by my failure to convert some particular presenation of "magneitc reconnection" to circuit reconnection. </p><p>Keep in mind that I handed you a hypothetical scenario that *assumed* it had already been done. It doesn't matter what is "likely" at this point, I simply asked you a hypothetical scenario that assumed that magnetic reconnection could be shown to be directly related to circuit reconnection. The question *assumed* they were the same.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>]You claimed you were moving on to the Hesse/Schindler paper but all I've seen you do is go to other papers that are questionable in that they don't address directly the foundation of the general theory as we know it today. </DIV></p><p>I'm trying to start with the basics and to understand what is different between the Sweet-Parker models and Petschek models and what errors were found and recognized in these basic models. From there I might be able to understand what new wrinkles may have emerged since the 60's. All these presenentations seem to rely on one or the other or both forms of "reconnection". Priest's "explanation" of these models was not even close to what is actually described by these models. I need to understand the "roots" of this theory and then I can move on to various presentations and flavors. I certainly can't rely upon Priest to do Petschek's theories any justice. His analogy was absolutely pitiful IMO.</p><p>Some mathematical presentations are easier to follow and easier to convert than others. Why would you have any problem with me choosing a slightly different presentation of this theory that is more straight forward as far as the conversion goes? So long as I cover both the Sweet and Parker versions and Petscheck "fast" reconnection models, what difference does it make which mathematical presentation I use? Is there some special process that is defined by Birn et all, that is somehow "unique"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you can't understand a theory, you have no right to criticize it.</DIV></p><p>That's sort of the point of me spending the time familiarizing myself with the Sweet-Parker and other brands of reconnection before I start on Hesse's paper. What Priest calls a "monopole source" is nothing of the sort and involves no monopoles! His math equation is still doing "tricks" however that make no sense just as his use of monopoles made no logical sense. The only way for me to get a handle on this theory is to study it's past and then go from there.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't understand string theory, and I personally think it sounds a bit out there, but you don't see me criticizing it in the threads around here because my arguments would have no substance. </DIV></p><p>You mean besides the fact we don't have any evidence of additional dimensions of space and time? Some problems are not "mathematical" in nature, but rather stem from the fact that the idea lacks emprical support. FYI string theory is essentially a failed particle physics model that is now enjoying new life in BB theory to somehow "explain" inflation by adding extra dimensions to spacetime. It didn't work in particle physics and it doesn't work in BB theory either. It's another of those "leaps of faith" you either take or you don't. If you're a skeptic lke me, you will notice that there is no emprical support for that theory either. Understanding the math won't resolve the basic problem of a lack of emprical support in controlled experimentation. Like I said, not all "problems" with theories are mathematical in nature. I'm sure the math works out great, I just doubt that there are extra dimensions just like I doubt that inflation exists or ever existed. If you can't get past the lack of emprical support, the math is utlimately irrelevant to the primary problem with the theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is essentially what you're doing here. You do not understand reconnection, you think Alfven was arguing about reconnection as we know it today because he used similar words, so you just keep repeating that ad nauseum for over 1000 posts now. </DIV></p><p>I'm noting that the models that Priest rely upon were written before Alfven wrote Cosmic Plasma, and they were written before the quotes from Alfven that I posted earlier. He certainly had time to evaluate these core models and he was obviously not impressed with them. I'm sure the math has evolved a bit since the 60's, but the basic ideas stem from these core models. If the core of the model is flawed (or resolves to "circuit reconnection") the rest of the theory follows suit. That is unless of course you are suggesting that Birn is adding some new process that is unique to his own theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will find that, in science, there will always be a group of scientists(often very old) who call the mainstream science pseudoscience because it contradicts what they've said. </DIV></p><p>Actually Alfven seemed to cop to the fact that a lot of the confusion started with him and his early (flawed) understanding of MHD theory. Over time he began to realize some of his mistakes and he incorporated those changes in his later work. The mainstream however continued to make the same mistakes over and over again. They also componded these problems exponentioally by trying to apply them to *all* plasma interactions, including current carrying plasma, rather than the very limited interactions where Alfven relied upon "frozen-in" lines. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You keep speaking of ego and resistance to change, but of course the glorious god-like Alfven is beyond question and could never succumb to such things. </DIV></p><p>The quote I posted makes it clear that Alfven was more than willing to admit his early mistakes. Nobody claims he's "god like", just that he conceptually *understood* plasma physics and he learned important lessons as he studied the subject over the years and developed the theory over the years. It's not like anyone handed me a Nobel Prize in MHD theory. If I want to understand the theory, it only makes sense to start with the author of the theory to understand how they worked with their theory In current carrying plasma, Alven explicitly uses terms that are consistent with electrical theory and he is extremely careful to consider the influences of E and j on the processes inside the plasma. He distinguishes between the "wave" side of MHD theory (magnetic field side) and the "particle" side (electrical/particle physics) side of MHD theory. </p><p>From what I've read thus far, it's very clear that the mainstream is only using what Alfven calls the "wave" viewpoint of every single plasma interaction, including *current carrying plasmas* and light thin plasma. That's completely backwards from how Alfven himself worked with light, current carrying plasma. He looked at, and "explained" these types of events from the "particle" (electrical) perspective of MHD theory, whereas these magnetic reconnection presentations are entirely based on what Aflven would call a "wave" approach to MHD theory. They are doing this even while current flow is present something that Alfven never did. He described the boundary conditions where each of these "methods" apply and according to his explanation, their wave presentation is way outside of these boundaries. </p><p>The mainstream are not "gods" either. They put on their pants one leg at a time like everyone else, and they make mistakes too, even big mistakes and repetative mistakes. The difference seems to be that Alfven was willing to admit to his early mistakes and to learn from them, whereas the mainstream seems to be making the same mistake over and over again since the 60's.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you've done the research(I even posted the paper at some point IIRC), you will see that Alfven's objections are addressed. Birn has a paper dealing precisely with the role of the parallel electric field during reconnection. There is the paper I quoted probably 40 pages ago that directly addresses Alfven's objections to frozen-in conditions. You are living in the past and ignoring modern research. If your claims are not fantasy, then "put up or shut up". And here is one of your smiley faces that drive me crazy to end this post <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Your models are based on the same basic models and principles that were available for scrutiny during Alfven's tenure. I'm sure that he saw the Sweet and Parker model as well as the Petscheck "fast" variation model as well. The fact that Birn comments on Alfen's objections does not mean that Birn is correct. I'll have to read his comments for myself before I comment on them. Unless Birn is introducing some entirely new brand of magnetic reconnection, they are still relying upon the same basic models that Alfven rejected. You're dead wrong if you think you can now ignore the roots of these theories and the validity of the roots of these theories only because some time has passed and some new math has been added. The only thing that Alven didn't have access to was the last 13 years worth of papers on this topic. What exactly is Birn adding or changing in his brand of magnetic reconnection theory that makes it so different in nature? What's different about it?</p><p>The bottom line here is that only circuits and particles can "reconnect". Magnetic fields have no beginning and no ending. They don't "disconnect", "reconnect" or do anything of the sort. Circuits reconnect. Priests paper certainly described two interacting circuits. It's only when we got to the magic math where particle flow speed increased while the magnetic field decreased that I couldn't simply "convert" his "monopole" statements to E or j. It turns out that this seem to be more of a shock wave/interference processes of some kind as best as I can tell. Even still, plasma does not behave in the lab as Priest describes in his paper. In the real world, an increase in the flow of charged particles will necessarily cause the magnetic field in increase as well. I'll have to figure out what Petsheck *really* said and then I'll ready to tackle Birn's paper. I refuse however to have someone like Priest throw monopole sources into the discussion where clearly nothing of the sort is happening in the plasma. </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>
Some problems are not "mathematical" in nature, but rather stem from the fact that the idea lacks emprical support. FYI string theory is essentially a failed particle physics model that is now enjoying new life in BB theory to somehow "explain" inflation by adding extra dimensions to spacetime. It didn't work in particle physics and it doesn't work in BB theory either. It's another of those "leaps of faith" you either take or you don't. If you're a skeptic lke me, you will notice that there is no emprical support for that theory either. Understanding the math won't resolve the basic problem of a lack of emprical support in controlled experimentation. Like I said, not all "problems" with theories are mathematical in nature. I'm sure the math works out great, I just doubt that there are extra dimensions just like I doubt that inflation exists or ever existed. If you can't get past the lack of emprical support, the math is utlimately irrelevant to the primary problem with the theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is essentially what you're doing here. You do not understand reconnection, you think Alfven was arguing about reconnection as we know it today because he used similar words, so you just keep repeating that ad nauseum for over 1000 posts now. </DIV></p><p>I'm noting that the models that Priest rely upon were written before Alfven wrote Cosmic Plasma, and they were written before the quotes from Alfven that I posted earlier. He certainly had time to evaluate these core models and he was obviously not impressed with them. I'm sure the math has evolved a bit since the 60's, but the basic ideas stem from these core models. If the core of the model is flawed (or resolves to "circuit reconnection") the rest of the theory follows suit. That is unless of course you are suggesting that Birn is adding some new process that is unique to his own theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You will find that, in science, there will always be a group of scientists(often very old) who call the mainstream science pseudoscience because it contradicts what they've said. </DIV></p><p>Actually Alfven seemed to cop to the fact that a lot of the confusion started with him and his early (flawed) understanding of MHD theory. Over time he began to realize some of his mistakes and he incorporated those changes in his later work. The mainstream however continued to make the same mistakes over and over again. They also componded these problems exponentioally by trying to apply them to *all* plasma interactions, including current carrying plasma, rather than the very limited interactions where Alfven relied upon "frozen-in" lines. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You keep speaking of ego and resistance to change, but of course the glorious god-like Alfven is beyond question and could never succumb to such things. </DIV></p><p>The quote I posted makes it clear that Alfven was more than willing to admit his early mistakes. Nobody claims he's "god like", just that he conceptually *understood* plasma physics and he learned important lessons as he studied the subject over the years and developed the theory over the years. It's not like anyone handed me a Nobel Prize in MHD theory. If I want to understand the theory, it only makes sense to start with the author of the theory to understand how they worked with their theory In current carrying plasma, Alven explicitly uses terms that are consistent with electrical theory and he is extremely careful to consider the influences of E and j on the processes inside the plasma. He distinguishes between the "wave" side of MHD theory (magnetic field side) and the "particle" side (electrical/particle physics) side of MHD theory. </p><p>From what I've read thus far, it's very clear that the mainstream is only using what Alfven calls the "wave" viewpoint of every single plasma interaction, including *current carrying plasmas* and light thin plasma. That's completely backwards from how Alfven himself worked with light, current carrying plasma. He looked at, and "explained" these types of events from the "particle" (electrical) perspective of MHD theory, whereas these magnetic reconnection presentations are entirely based on what Aflven would call a "wave" approach to MHD theory. They are doing this even while current flow is present something that Alfven never did. He described the boundary conditions where each of these "methods" apply and according to his explanation, their wave presentation is way outside of these boundaries. </p><p>The mainstream are not "gods" either. They put on their pants one leg at a time like everyone else, and they make mistakes too, even big mistakes and repetative mistakes. The difference seems to be that Alfven was willing to admit to his early mistakes and to learn from them, whereas the mainstream seems to be making the same mistake over and over again since the 60's.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you've done the research(I even posted the paper at some point IIRC), you will see that Alfven's objections are addressed. Birn has a paper dealing precisely with the role of the parallel electric field during reconnection. There is the paper I quoted probably 40 pages ago that directly addresses Alfven's objections to frozen-in conditions. You are living in the past and ignoring modern research. If your claims are not fantasy, then "put up or shut up". And here is one of your smiley faces that drive me crazy to end this post <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Your models are based on the same basic models and principles that were available for scrutiny during Alfven's tenure. I'm sure that he saw the Sweet and Parker model as well as the Petscheck "fast" variation model as well. The fact that Birn comments on Alfen's objections does not mean that Birn is correct. I'll have to read his comments for myself before I comment on them. Unless Birn is introducing some entirely new brand of magnetic reconnection, they are still relying upon the same basic models that Alfven rejected. You're dead wrong if you think you can now ignore the roots of these theories and the validity of the roots of these theories only because some time has passed and some new math has been added. The only thing that Alven didn't have access to was the last 13 years worth of papers on this topic. What exactly is Birn adding or changing in his brand of magnetic reconnection theory that makes it so different in nature? What's different about it?</p><p>The bottom line here is that only circuits and particles can "reconnect". Magnetic fields have no beginning and no ending. They don't "disconnect", "reconnect" or do anything of the sort. Circuits reconnect. Priests paper certainly described two interacting circuits. It's only when we got to the magic math where particle flow speed increased while the magnetic field decreased that I couldn't simply "convert" his "monopole" statements to E or j. It turns out that this seem to be more of a shock wave/interference processes of some kind as best as I can tell. Even still, plasma does not behave in the lab as Priest describes in his paper. In the real world, an increase in the flow of charged particles will necessarily cause the magnetic field in increase as well. I'll have to figure out what Petsheck *really* said and then I'll ready to tackle Birn's paper. I refuse however to have someone like Priest throw monopole sources into the discussion where clearly nothing of the sort is happening in the plasma. </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>FYI UFmbutler, I appreciate your candor about your reservations of simply adopting the term "circuit reconnection" even given the mathematical demonstration I'm attempting. Your reservations reveal the difficulties of trying to convince the mainstream to adopt a "lingo" that is consistent with other branches of science. I'm not condemning you for your opinions, I just find them fascinating and rather enlightening as well. It shows that this is a very tough process. Even with mathematical models, there is no certainty that anyone will either publish the paper or change their views in any way. I suspected that was the case, although astronomers do seem to be more swayed by mathematical arguements rather than logical ones. It does however show that even a mathematical proof of concept will not necessarily get the mainstream to change anytime soon.</p><p>Since you really haven't had time to start pubishing yet, you seem like an ideal "test case" IMO. There seem to be no special circumstances that would prevent you from changing your views other than simply being an "insider" who works with astronmers on a daily basis. Even that kind of peer pressure, or perhaps simply "peer respect" seems to have a significant influence on your beliefs and your willingness to change those beliefs. That is actually very interesting to me and I really do appreciate the fact that you would still have reservations, even if handed a mathematical proof of concept. </p><p>I guess it was much easier for me to "see the light" as it relates to EU theory and EU concepts because I'm an "outsider" without many personal relationships other astronomers. I had not ever tried to publish anything prior to my conversion so I had not "baggage" to prevent me from adopting EU theory. It's very interesting for me to see how others react in various scenarios, and obviously there is a whole psychological set of conditions that seem to affect one's willingess to embrace change.</p><p>Again I'm grateful for you candor, and I'm not trying to condemn you in any way. I was curious how you would respond because you seem to be sort of a ideal test case from my point of view. I can't say it was the answer I was "hoping for", but it was the answer I expected. </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'>What does the concept of "ideal MHD" have to do with my question or my point? Why wouldn't we expect the same processes we observe in the lab to apply to all plasmas in interplanetary space? Why would these regions somehow be "special"? Why wouldn't they interact in the same way as the light plasmas in Birkeland's experiments from 100 years ago?</DIV></p><p>Oh I don't know, maybe it has to do with your question because you speak of your version of circuit reconnection "falling more in line" with MHD theory. It may be reasonable to expect, in some instances, for space plasma to behave like lab plasma, but in extreme conditions(a single current source shot at a metal sphere in a vacuum is certainly idealized), deviations from expectations are expected and are observed.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>You're sort of missing the point here. Even if I personally fail to convert them, it doesn't mean *nobody* can do it. Your position would not be vindicated by my failure to convert some particular presenation of "magneitc reconnection" to circuit reconnection. </p><p>Keep in mind that I handed you a hypothetical scenario that *assumed* it had already been done. It doesn't matter what is "likely" at this point, I simply asked you a hypothetical scenario that assumed that magnetic reconnection could be shown to be directly related to circuit reconnection. The question *assumed* they were the same.</DIV></p><p>Alright, let's assume that they are the same. If a mathematical proof existed then it could be tested. People would then put this into simulations. Then, if the simulations could explain what is observed, a reworking of the definition would be necessary. This is the same process magnetic reconnection had to go through. However, IF they were shown to be the same, it would be pointless to abandon all the work already done on reconnection. For if they are the same thing, then, according to you, the work would be correct. The events they see as magnetic reconnection events, you'd just call circuit reconnection and everything would be the same. However, the so-called(by you) predictions made by the THEMIS team would've still "failed". Calling magnetic reconnection circuit reconnection would not make us suddenly able to predict auroral substorms. </p><p>You seem to be arguing two different things. You bash the hell out of the idea of magnetic reconnection, but base the foundation of your argument on the idea that the idea of magnetic reconnection is the same thing as circuit reconnection. </p><p>Birn didn't make up a new form of reconnection, but he and his colleagues did refine the theory and looked at all the different "flavors" from the 60s and decided upon a general definition that is both unique to these old theories and based on them at the same time. I'm not sure how Alfven backed up his claim of disagreeing with the Petschek theory(surely he must have, otherwise he would not have the reputation he has today), but do you really think an objection like this would just be swept under the rug? People have been discussing Alfven's reconnection objections for years, they are not being ignored. You have complained before about so many astronomers having never read Cosmic Plasma...but that is hardly a valid criticism to make. People do not need to read Bohr's original work to understand his model of the atom. People don't need to read Copernicus's original work to understand the solar system(though if they did they'd find he had a lot of things pretty backwards and wrong). </p><p>You say the answers lie in Cosmic Plasma, I say they lie in the literature and Birn & Priest's book. Neither of us has read the other. In my case it is not self-imposed ignornace, it is mostly due to me not wanting to shell out the money, and more importantly the time, to read over a book that isn't even related to my main field of study. And I'm sure you feel the same way about Birn's book. So let's leave the books out of it and deal with the journal literature. </p><p>Magnetic field lines have no beginning or ending(much like your insistence to include this line in every post you make), yes. Nobody is saying someone is going through with magnetic scissors, snipping lines and then sewing them back together. There is "clearly nothing of the sort having in plasma" regarding your comment on monopoles. Priest didn't say there was. It was not a mistake. It was an analogy that surely made people have to take a second look but as derek showed, with a little research you can find out what he truly meant. </p><p>The mainstream will adopt a new lingo if and only if the new lingo is a more accurate description of the event/thing in question. A mathematical proof would definitely help sway them, but you'd have to further back it up with more research. If history has taught us anything it is not to jump to conclusions. Even if your proof did work hypothetically, it is possible that it may not work when you extend it to simulations. Or perhaps it predicts signatures we do not observe. We won't know until you produce such a proof. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880_1987013880.pdfFYI, the presentation by Alfven on this topic from this PDF file pretty much sums up his views toward all the magnetic reconnection theories he'd read to that date in time. He begins his dialog on frozen in fields on page 17 and then gets into magnetic reconnection theory. He then goes on to explain how these issues are actually handled in MHD theory. I can't stress strongly enough that Alfven rejected these early definitions of "magnetic reconnection" as vehemently as I do. In fact he was rather blunt, refering to the whole concept of magnetic reconnection as "psuedoscience.". It seems that the coffin won't stay nailed shut, and this concept just wont die, no matter who criticizes it and no matter how many observational "tests" it fails. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>My prediction as to what Michael would do is not becoming true. Recall the prediction:</p><p><strong>"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.</strong></p><p><strong>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."</strong></p><p>We have now reached the stage at which Michael has demonstrated that he has no idea what Priest is talking about, has focused on the semantics of the word "monopole" and has completely misunderstood the use of the concept in Priest's paper, which is NOT the assertion of the existence of physical monopoles. Unable to produce a counter-argument to Priest's paper, and apparently unable to read the undergratuate paper supplied by derekmcd, he is backing away from the attempt and reverting to simple and over-general quotes of Alflven. No sirect logical argument is forthcoming and no paper will ever be produced. Michael has produced no mathematics whatever, anywhere, anytime to support his views -- because he cannot. His claims to have identified mathematical errors are incorrect, and he has studiously avoided questions related to those claims. </p><p>This is absurd. If Priest had been so naive as to have actually based his model on the need for participation in the reconnection process by physical magnetic monopoles, then any thrid-grader could discredit his approach. But Michael has thrown up his hands and said that Priest is so wrong that he cannot be refuted -- the most absurd possible position. The plain truth of the matter is that Mozina's position is so indefensible that he leaves the battleground of physics and reverts to type -- attacking semantics and producing over-general quotes from Alfven. We have now passed to the declaration of victory without a fight and in a defeat that is recognized by everyone except Michael.</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>My prediction as to what Michael would do is not becoming true. Recall the prediction:</p><p><strong>"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.</strong></p><p><strong>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."</strong></p><p>We have now reached the stage at which Michael has demonstrated that he has no idea what Priest is talking about, has focused on the semantics of the word "monopole" and has completely misunderstood the use of the concept in Priest's paper, which is NOT the assertion of the existence of physical monopoles. Unable to produce a counter-argument to Priest's paper, and apparently unable to read the undergratuate paper supplied by derekmcd, he is backing away from the attempt and reverting to simple and over-general quotes of Alflven. No sirect logical argument is forthcoming and no paper will ever be produced. Michael has produced no mathematics whatever, anywhere, anytime to support his views -- because he cannot. His claims to have identified mathematical errors are incorrect, and he has studiously avoided questions related to those claims. </p><p>This is absurd. If Priest had been so naive as to have actually based his model on the need for participation in the reconnection process by physical magnetic monopoles, then any thrid-grader could discredit his approach. But Michael has thrown up his hands and said that Priest is so wrong that he cannot be refuted -- the most absurd possible position. The plain truth of the matter is that Mozina's position is so indefensible that he leaves the battleground of physics and reverts to type -- attacking semantics and producing over-general quotes from Alfven. We have now passed to the declaration of victory without a fight and in a defeat that is recognized by everyone except Michael.</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I came up "short" only because Preist invoked a sceintifcially imprecise term "monopoles" that evidently do magic tricks in plasma.</DIV></p><p>You came up short because you don't have a clue what Priest is saying. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>After further study of Petschecks theory, Priest obviously didn't explain that theory worth a darn.</DIV></p><p>How could you possibly make such an assessment of Priest's work when you have no clue what he is saying? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He used improper and imprecise terminology and a totally inappropriate "analogy" (evidently) to convey a proces that is defintely not a "monopole" source.</DIV></p><p>Your improper and imprecise interpretation of what Priest is saying is totally inappropriate. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I still see no valid reason for him to use that term.</DIV></p><p>How could you possibly see it as valid when you have no clue what he is saying? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I certainly can't rely upon Priest to do Petschek's theories any justice.</DIV></p><p>Of course not. You have no clue what he is saying. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>His analogy was absolutely pitiful IMO.</DIV></p><p>Considering you don't have a clue what he is saying, you are not qualified (opinion or not) to make such a statement. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What Priest calls a "monopole source" is nothing of the sort and involves no monopoles!</DIV></p><p>If you had a clue what he was saying, you might understand. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>His math equation is still doing "tricks" however that make no sense just as his use of monopoles made no logical sense.</DIV></p><p>His math makes no sense because you don't have a clue what he is saying. </p><p> </p><p>Sorry to be so harsh, but your treatment of Priest's work in an attempt deminish the quality is just ludicrous. Priest is recognized among his peers as a leading authority on the subject. He's has probably produced more peer reviewed publications in leading journals than any other person. His work has probably been cited by other peer reviewed publications than any other author on the subject. I think it is safe to say he has a clue what he is saying. I think it is safe to say that others studying work that cite his work have a clue what he is saying. I think it is safe to say that you don't.</p><p>Priest's publications: </p><p>http://www.solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~eric/publications.html</p><p> </p><p>I'm not using an appeal to authority to claim he is right. Just simply showing that your assertions concerning his work are completely misguided. Mainly, because you don't have a clue what he is saying.</p><p>You admitted you weren't even familiar with the difference between the Sweet/Parker model and the Petschek model. You claimed you need to understand the "roots" of magnetic reconnection. How on god's green earth can you critique Priest's work when you don't even understand the basics of magnetic reconnection?</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'>Oh I don't know, maybe it has to do with your question because you speak of your version of circuit reconnection "falling more in line" with MHD theory. </DIV></p><p>The term "circuit reconnection" is in fact the way Alfven described these events in current carrying plasma, and it is consistent with electrical engineering principles because Alfven himself was an electrical engineer. This has nothing to do with me personally.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It may be reasonable to expect, in some instances, for space plasma to behave like lab plasma,</DIV></p><p>Um, unless you can give me good reasons to think otherwise, I would behave expect space plasma to behave like lab plasma in every scenario we can replicate in the lab. We can generate *billion* degree temps in plasma in lab (well Los Alamos can anyway). We can create pretty extreme conditions in plasma here on Earth thanks to electricity. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but in extreme conditions(a single current source shot at a metal sphere in a vacuum is certainly idealized), </DIV></p><p>Actually Birkeland went to great lengths to do true experimentation with his theories, including changing the surface "roughness" of the sphere, changing the polarity of the surface of the sphere, changing the magentic field inside the sphere. He used every logical control mechanism and variable he could think of, and could incorporate into his experiments, given the technology of his day. He left nothing to chance, it was not simply one experiment we're talking about here. The conditions were only somewhat "idealized" compared to the actual conditions in space. The were in fact a pretty good simulations of the process that drive aurora and coronal loops and planetary ring action. He showed the physical link between "current flow" and "circuit reconnection" and aurora in real life emprical experiments all by himself. When was even that much that done with "magnetic reconnection"? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>deviations from expectations are expected and are observed.</DIV></p><p>What deviation has actually been "observed" rather than "alledged" which Alfven or Peratt did not account for based on scaling factors?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alright, let's assume that they are the same.</DIV></p><p>Then in all likelihood, Birkeland's experiments were a clear proof of concept of "circuit/magnetic reconnection". There is no real justification however for calling it "magnetic reconnection" in that case because Birkeland turned off his aurora by breaking an electrical circuit, not a magnetic field.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If a mathematical proof existed then it could be tested.</DIV></p><p>Wouldn't Birkeland's experiments validate this "reconnection" proceess in that case?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>People would then put this into simulations. </DIV></p><p>Simulations, smimulations. I'm a programmer by trade. You can make a computer do anything and you can create simulations to break every law of nature if you're clever. Computers create virtual worlds all the time. How do we know a virtual simulation jives with real life? Birkeland showed us how that should work and the right way to go about it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then, if the simulations could explain what is observed, a reworking of the definition would be necessary.</DIV></p><p>IMO if you can't demonstrate your point in a lab, math or no math, you have no business building mathematical models about it. In other words Birkeland didn't start by looking at the aurora and suggesting 'magnetic reconnection did it". He took a known force of nature and he build real experiments using the forces of nature. Now if you can build a magnetic reconnection machine that does away with his electrical circuit, great. If not, I'm going to remain skeptical. I already know that circuit reconnection can affect the flow of paricles in an aurora around a sphere. Occum's razor insists I don't need any exotic new form of "reconnection' to explain these auroral events. Simple circuit reconnection will do the trick and Birkeland demonstrated that fact over 100 years ago. Why reinvent the wheel if we don't need to?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is the same process magnetic reconnection had to go through.</DIV></p><p>What it's never gone through is what Birkeland went through. It was never "put to the test" in a physical experiment. Preist basically claimed that "magnetic reconnection" did everything that Birkeland was able to do with "circuit reconnection". When did he "emprically test" that idea? When did he simulate coronal loops with "magnetic reconnection" around a sphere in a vacuum like Birkeland did in his experiments? When did he turn on and off auroras around spheres in a vacuum like Birkeland did with circuit reconnection? Circuit reconnection has been lab tested. Magnetic reconnection seems to be a mathematical model of "circuit reconnection" with a strange name.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, IF they were shown to be the same, it would be pointless to abandon all the work already done on reconnection.</DIV></p><p>I'm not suggesting we do that. I'm suggesting we call it "circuit reconnection" since that is what Birkeland turned on and off in his experiments, and that is how Alfven descibed these events in MHD theory. I don't care to throw anything away other than a confusing and misleading label.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For if they are the same thing, then, according to you, the work would be correct.</DIV></p><p>It would actually be more correct to say that I accept that it *could be* correct and I don't really have a problem with the physics (other than Priest's us of "monopole sources") or the math, just the label. Even Priest's problem seems to be related to a poor choice of labels. The work may indeed be correct but the label is utterly and completely wrong. The whole point of my paper was to demonstrate that the math and physics are fine, the label is simply wrong. That's why I was so bumbed with Priest introduced monopole sources. I was hoping to have no beef with the math or the physics, just the label I still hope to demonstrate this point mathematically, using some other presentation of this idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The events they see as magnetic reconnection events, you'd just call circuit reconnection and everything would be the same. </DIV></p><p>I can live with that. Using the term "magnetic reconnection" however to describe what is ultimately circuit reconnection is not something I can live with because it's unncessarily misleading. Even you would have to agree with me if we discover they are the same thing because you seem to believe right now that there is some difference between them. The terms we use should not start arguments between various branches of science. If we all agree that magnetic fields don't disconnect, reconnect, splice to other lines, etc, then there is no logical or rational reason to use the term "magnetic reconnection" to describe this plasma reconnection process. The plasma moves and flows and creates "circuits" which can "reconnect", but magnetic fields never reconnect to any other fields.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, the so-called(by you) predictions made by the THEMIS team would've still "failed". </DIV></p><p>That may be due to a number of factors, including the fact that they "assume" the energy comes from the sun, the fact they don't really acknowledge the various "circuits" that Alfven described, or any other number of factors. They may still be correct about some aspects of this reconnection process, but they are wrong about the idea that the sun is the sole energy source of this reconnection process. The sun is electrically and kinetically interacting with the heliosphere and the Earth is simply in the line of fire. Birkeland's model used an external energy source as the source of electrons.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Calling magnetic reconnection circuit reconnection would not make us suddenly able to predict auroral substorms.</DIV></p><p>No, but acknowledging the electrical aspect of CME's and million degree coronal loops would help us to better predict aroral activity. As long as the mainstream ignores the cause of the solar wind acceleration (charge attracting between the heliosphere and photosphere), all of these events will mystify the mainstream.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You seem to be arguing two different things. You bash the hell out of the idea of magnetic reconnection, but base the foundation of your argument on the idea that the idea of magnetic reconnection is the same thing as circuit reconnection.</DIV></p><p>Actually, I'm bashing the hell out of using the term "magnetic reconnection" to describe simple circuit reconnection that maybe involves some induction. It's the label I've been harping on and the fact you think that magnetic reconnection is somehow different from "circuit reconnection" as a result of the use of the label "magnetic reconnection". They can't be different. All of Maxwell's equations will simplify to B or E, the wave or particle aspect of MHD theory. EM fields are a "set". You don't get magnetism without current flow. They are an inseparable pair. Even if the math is right, the name is messed up. Magnetic fields do not "reconnect". Only particle and circuits reconnect. You should reasonably already agree with me , but that confusing label has you believing that "magnetic reconnection" is somehow different from circuit reconnection. You shouldn't feel that way IMO but you do feel that way because you've been mislead by a bad label. The math was never the problem. You can almost be certain the math of any astronomy paper is correct or *THAT* would not have passed peer review. You can almost always *assume* that there is basic conceptual problem behind any particular error in a published paper. Math is almost never a problem. It's always the "idea" that's the problem. In this case the "problem" is beleiving that "magnetic reconnection" is anything other than simple circuit reconnection with maybe a little induction between the two circuits.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birn didn't make up a new form of reconnection, but he and his colleagues did refine the theory and looked at all the different "flavors" from the 60s and decided upon a general definition that is both unique to these old theories and based on them at the same time.</DIV></p><p>Then I'm likely to go "back to basics" here and look at Sweet and Parker's orignal models and work from there. There may be some nuances in the math that Sweet and Parker missed, but the core issue here should be resolveable from the original idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I'm not sure how Alfven backed up his claim of disagreeing with the Petschek theory(surely he must have, otherwise he would not have the reputation he has today),</DIV></p><p>I'm going to have to research that point at bit. In Cosmic plasma he simply explains why he disagees with the concept in more general terms and doesn't seem to get into the nitty gritty of any single theory. He may have been more specific in some of the papers I have not yet read.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but do you really think an objection like this would just be swept under the rug? </DIV></p><p>Alfven seemed to personally have a lot of trouble killing the idea once it got started. He seemed to be blown away at the momentum behind the idea even though he criticized it. It's not simply a matter of "sweeping it under the rug" however since the public gernally has no idea what Alfven thought of the idea and anyone proposing the idea is unlikely to note that point in their paper, along with his arguements against the idea. I look at it more from a standpoint of honest disagreement. IMO Birns is not necessarily wrong about the energy transfer process, he's just wrong about it being an "magnetic reconnection" process. It's an electrically driven "circuit reconnection' process and he too is confused by his own use of terms. I don't think anyone here is unintelligent or wrong in the their mathematical explanation, just "confused" due to a poor choice of terms to describe this "reconnection" process.</p><p>IMO the reason the THEMIS team failed to accurately predict the path of the current is because they don't understand whole circuit and it's rather complicated. I think they expected the electrons to simply flow the direction they exited in, whereas in the lab they would end up flowing into any already preexisting "circuits" in the plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>People have been discussing Alfven's reconnection objections for years, they are not being ignored. </DIV></p><p>They may not be being ignored so much as being misunderstood. Alfven explicity used E and j to describe events in ordinary current sheet transfers. It's a "better" way to look at these interactions because it acknolwedges the important role of the current flow in these reconnection events. It acknowledges that a "circuit" is reconnecting, and that is all that is reconnecting in any plasma interaction in current carrying plasma. I don't think the mainstream is simply ignoring him, I don't think they adequately understand his arguments or his approach to MHD theory in current carrying plasma. He never tried to simplify for B in current carrying plasma and there was a reason he did not try to oversimplify the process. The current flow creates threads and circuits in the plasma and z-pinch filaments will form. All these are electricallly driven events and the magnetic field is simply along for the ride. The mainstream seems to believe that magnetic fields can "store energy" that is somehow different from "current flow" inside the plasma. That's not the case. The kinetic energy in the particle flow releases fast moving particles at the point of reconnection, but it's not 'magnetic reconnection", just "circuit reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have complained before about so many astronomers having never read Cosmic Plasma...but that is hardly a valid criticism to make. </DIV></p><p>No, it is a highly valid critism. CP was written after Alfven had been working in MHD theory for some time. By then he'd already learned from some of his early mistakes and he'd already seen the fallout from his use of the term "frozen-in" in relationship to moving plasma particles. The damage was done and he addressed these issues in CP. The fact it's not required reading in astronomy simply blows my mind since all these plasma physics oriented theories rely upon his work and he used MHD theory to decribe events in space as he understood them to work. If you want to understand how MHD theory should be applied to space plasma, Cosmic Plasma should be a must read book. He's the source of MHD and the first one to use it in relationship to space plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>People do not need to read Bohr's original work to understand his model of the atom.</DIV></p><p>No, but it help to understand how Bohr's model worked so you can see how it's been changed over time. </p><p>I'm getting behind now at work so I'll stop here. Suffice to say that I'm hoping to find at least one paper that is "right" mathematically and physicall (invokes no monopoles) to show that these same equations can be solved for E and j rather than for B. I'm certain that Alfven or Peratt could do this even if I can't. There are only 4 basic equations and they describe the mathematical relationship between E and B and show that they are inseparably linked. Anything that can be simplified for B can also be simplifed for E, even it's beyond my mathematical skill set. That's a given based on Maxwell's equations. At worst case these reconnection events might include induction between the two circuits, but these are flowing "circuits" of charged particles that are "reconnecting". </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>
We can create pretty extreme conditions in plasma here on Earth thanks to electricity. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but in extreme conditions(a single current source shot at a metal sphere in a vacuum is certainly idealized), </DIV></p><p>Actually Birkeland went to great lengths to do true experimentation with his theories, including changing the surface "roughness" of the sphere, changing the polarity of the surface of the sphere, changing the magentic field inside the sphere. He used every logical control mechanism and variable he could think of, and could incorporate into his experiments, given the technology of his day. He left nothing to chance, it was not simply one experiment we're talking about here. The conditions were only somewhat "idealized" compared to the actual conditions in space. The were in fact a pretty good simulations of the process that drive aurora and coronal loops and planetary ring action. He showed the physical link between "current flow" and "circuit reconnection" and aurora in real life emprical experiments all by himself. When was even that much that done with "magnetic reconnection"? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>deviations from expectations are expected and are observed.</DIV></p><p>What deviation has actually been "observed" rather than "alledged" which Alfven or Peratt did not account for based on scaling factors?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alright, let's assume that they are the same.</DIV></p><p>Then in all likelihood, Birkeland's experiments were a clear proof of concept of "circuit/magnetic reconnection". There is no real justification however for calling it "magnetic reconnection" in that case because Birkeland turned off his aurora by breaking an electrical circuit, not a magnetic field.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If a mathematical proof existed then it could be tested.</DIV></p><p>Wouldn't Birkeland's experiments validate this "reconnection" proceess in that case?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>People would then put this into simulations. </DIV></p><p>Simulations, smimulations. I'm a programmer by trade. You can make a computer do anything and you can create simulations to break every law of nature if you're clever. Computers create virtual worlds all the time. How do we know a virtual simulation jives with real life? Birkeland showed us how that should work and the right way to go about it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then, if the simulations could explain what is observed, a reworking of the definition would be necessary.</DIV></p><p>IMO if you can't demonstrate your point in a lab, math or no math, you have no business building mathematical models about it. In other words Birkeland didn't start by looking at the aurora and suggesting 'magnetic reconnection did it". He took a known force of nature and he build real experiments using the forces of nature. Now if you can build a magnetic reconnection machine that does away with his electrical circuit, great. If not, I'm going to remain skeptical. I already know that circuit reconnection can affect the flow of paricles in an aurora around a sphere. Occum's razor insists I don't need any exotic new form of "reconnection' to explain these auroral events. Simple circuit reconnection will do the trick and Birkeland demonstrated that fact over 100 years ago. Why reinvent the wheel if we don't need to?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is the same process magnetic reconnection had to go through.</DIV></p><p>What it's never gone through is what Birkeland went through. It was never "put to the test" in a physical experiment. Preist basically claimed that "magnetic reconnection" did everything that Birkeland was able to do with "circuit reconnection". When did he "emprically test" that idea? When did he simulate coronal loops with "magnetic reconnection" around a sphere in a vacuum like Birkeland did in his experiments? When did he turn on and off auroras around spheres in a vacuum like Birkeland did with circuit reconnection? Circuit reconnection has been lab tested. Magnetic reconnection seems to be a mathematical model of "circuit reconnection" with a strange name.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, IF they were shown to be the same, it would be pointless to abandon all the work already done on reconnection.</DIV></p><p>I'm not suggesting we do that. I'm suggesting we call it "circuit reconnection" since that is what Birkeland turned on and off in his experiments, and that is how Alfven descibed these events in MHD theory. I don't care to throw anything away other than a confusing and misleading label.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For if they are the same thing, then, according to you, the work would be correct.</DIV></p><p>It would actually be more correct to say that I accept that it *could be* correct and I don't really have a problem with the physics (other than Priest's us of "monopole sources") or the math, just the label. Even Priest's problem seems to be related to a poor choice of labels. The work may indeed be correct but the label is utterly and completely wrong. The whole point of my paper was to demonstrate that the math and physics are fine, the label is simply wrong. That's why I was so bumbed with Priest introduced monopole sources. I was hoping to have no beef with the math or the physics, just the label I still hope to demonstrate this point mathematically, using some other presentation of this idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The events they see as magnetic reconnection events, you'd just call circuit reconnection and everything would be the same. </DIV></p><p>I can live with that. Using the term "magnetic reconnection" however to describe what is ultimately circuit reconnection is not something I can live with because it's unncessarily misleading. Even you would have to agree with me if we discover they are the same thing because you seem to believe right now that there is some difference between them. The terms we use should not start arguments between various branches of science. If we all agree that magnetic fields don't disconnect, reconnect, splice to other lines, etc, then there is no logical or rational reason to use the term "magnetic reconnection" to describe this plasma reconnection process. The plasma moves and flows and creates "circuits" which can "reconnect", but magnetic fields never reconnect to any other fields.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, the so-called(by you) predictions made by the THEMIS team would've still "failed". </DIV></p><p>That may be due to a number of factors, including the fact that they "assume" the energy comes from the sun, the fact they don't really acknowledge the various "circuits" that Alfven described, or any other number of factors. They may still be correct about some aspects of this reconnection process, but they are wrong about the idea that the sun is the sole energy source of this reconnection process. The sun is electrically and kinetically interacting with the heliosphere and the Earth is simply in the line of fire. Birkeland's model used an external energy source as the source of electrons.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Calling magnetic reconnection circuit reconnection would not make us suddenly able to predict auroral substorms.</DIV></p><p>No, but acknowledging the electrical aspect of CME's and million degree coronal loops would help us to better predict aroral activity. As long as the mainstream ignores the cause of the solar wind acceleration (charge attracting between the heliosphere and photosphere), all of these events will mystify the mainstream.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You seem to be arguing two different things. You bash the hell out of the idea of magnetic reconnection, but base the foundation of your argument on the idea that the idea of magnetic reconnection is the same thing as circuit reconnection.</DIV></p><p>Actually, I'm bashing the hell out of using the term "magnetic reconnection" to describe simple circuit reconnection that maybe involves some induction. It's the label I've been harping on and the fact you think that magnetic reconnection is somehow different from "circuit reconnection" as a result of the use of the label "magnetic reconnection". They can't be different. All of Maxwell's equations will simplify to B or E, the wave or particle aspect of MHD theory. EM fields are a "set". You don't get magnetism without current flow. They are an inseparable pair. Even if the math is right, the name is messed up. Magnetic fields do not "reconnect". Only particle and circuits reconnect. You should reasonably already agree with me , but that confusing label has you believing that "magnetic reconnection" is somehow different from circuit reconnection. You shouldn't feel that way IMO but you do feel that way because you've been mislead by a bad label. The math was never the problem. You can almost be certain the math of any astronomy paper is correct or *THAT* would not have passed peer review. You can almost always *assume* that there is basic conceptual problem behind any particular error in a published paper. Math is almost never a problem. It's always the "idea" that's the problem. In this case the "problem" is beleiving that "magnetic reconnection" is anything other than simple circuit reconnection with maybe a little induction between the two circuits.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birn didn't make up a new form of reconnection, but he and his colleagues did refine the theory and looked at all the different "flavors" from the 60s and decided upon a general definition that is both unique to these old theories and based on them at the same time.</DIV></p><p>Then I'm likely to go "back to basics" here and look at Sweet and Parker's orignal models and work from there. There may be some nuances in the math that Sweet and Parker missed, but the core issue here should be resolveable from the original idea. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I'm not sure how Alfven backed up his claim of disagreeing with the Petschek theory(surely he must have, otherwise he would not have the reputation he has today),</DIV></p><p>I'm going to have to research that point at bit. In Cosmic plasma he simply explains why he disagees with the concept in more general terms and doesn't seem to get into the nitty gritty of any single theory. He may have been more specific in some of the papers I have not yet read.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but do you really think an objection like this would just be swept under the rug? </DIV></p><p>Alfven seemed to personally have a lot of trouble killing the idea once it got started. He seemed to be blown away at the momentum behind the idea even though he criticized it. It's not simply a matter of "sweeping it under the rug" however since the public gernally has no idea what Alfven thought of the idea and anyone proposing the idea is unlikely to note that point in their paper, along with his arguements against the idea. I look at it more from a standpoint of honest disagreement. IMO Birns is not necessarily wrong about the energy transfer process, he's just wrong about it being an "magnetic reconnection" process. It's an electrically driven "circuit reconnection' process and he too is confused by his own use of terms. I don't think anyone here is unintelligent or wrong in the their mathematical explanation, just "confused" due to a poor choice of terms to describe this "reconnection" process.</p><p>IMO the reason the THEMIS team failed to accurately predict the path of the current is because they don't understand whole circuit and it's rather complicated. I think they expected the electrons to simply flow the direction they exited in, whereas in the lab they would end up flowing into any already preexisting "circuits" in the plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>People have been discussing Alfven's reconnection objections for years, they are not being ignored. </DIV></p><p>They may not be being ignored so much as being misunderstood. Alfven explicity used E and j to describe events in ordinary current sheet transfers. It's a "better" way to look at these interactions because it acknolwedges the important role of the current flow in these reconnection events. It acknowledges that a "circuit" is reconnecting, and that is all that is reconnecting in any plasma interaction in current carrying plasma. I don't think the mainstream is simply ignoring him, I don't think they adequately understand his arguments or his approach to MHD theory in current carrying plasma. He never tried to simplify for B in current carrying plasma and there was a reason he did not try to oversimplify the process. The current flow creates threads and circuits in the plasma and z-pinch filaments will form. All these are electricallly driven events and the magnetic field is simply along for the ride. The mainstream seems to believe that magnetic fields can "store energy" that is somehow different from "current flow" inside the plasma. That's not the case. The kinetic energy in the particle flow releases fast moving particles at the point of reconnection, but it's not 'magnetic reconnection", just "circuit reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have complained before about so many astronomers having never read Cosmic Plasma...but that is hardly a valid criticism to make. </DIV></p><p>No, it is a highly valid critism. CP was written after Alfven had been working in MHD theory for some time. By then he'd already learned from some of his early mistakes and he'd already seen the fallout from his use of the term "frozen-in" in relationship to moving plasma particles. The damage was done and he addressed these issues in CP. The fact it's not required reading in astronomy simply blows my mind since all these plasma physics oriented theories rely upon his work and he used MHD theory to decribe events in space as he understood them to work. If you want to understand how MHD theory should be applied to space plasma, Cosmic Plasma should be a must read book. He's the source of MHD and the first one to use it in relationship to space plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>People do not need to read Bohr's original work to understand his model of the atom.</DIV></p><p>No, but it help to understand how Bohr's model worked so you can see how it's been changed over time. </p><p>I'm getting behind now at work so I'll stop here. Suffice to say that I'm hoping to find at least one paper that is "right" mathematically and physicall (invokes no monopoles) to show that these same equations can be solved for E and j rather than for B. I'm certain that Alfven or Peratt could do this even if I can't. There are only 4 basic equations and they describe the mathematical relationship between E and B and show that they are inseparably linked. Anything that can be simplified for B can also be simplifed for E, even it's beyond my mathematical skill set. That's a given based on Maxwell's equations. At worst case these reconnection events might include induction between the two circuits, but these are flowing "circuits" of charged particles that are "reconnecting". </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 came up short because you don't have a clue what Priest is saying.</DIV></p><p>Um, that is his fault, not mine. He shouldn't be talking about monopoles sources in plasma. I'm looking to see if you ever answer my question about how he increaed the particle flow and decreased the magnetic field in the process.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How could you possibly make such an assessment of Priest's work when you have no clue what he is saying? </DIV></p><p>Because he had no business "saying" MONOPOLE SOURCE. Who wouldn't be confused? I think even Petschek would be confused at his choice of labels!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your improper and imprecise interpretation of what Priest is saying is totally inappropriate.</DIV></p><p>His choice of terms was *utterly and completely* inappropriate. It has nothing to do with me. Any reader who understands anything about particle physics, MHD theory or elecritical theory who is trying to understand magnetic reconnection theory from his paper would immediately be confused by him using thet term! Get real.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How could you possibly see it as valid when you have no clue what he is saying?</DIV></p><p>How could I possibly have a clue what hes' saying when he's speaking word salad? Who would not be confused? What monopole source?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Of course not. You have no clue what he is saying. </DIV></p><p>Frankly, that's entirely his fault. Nobody has a clue what he's saying in that line and you can't explain it either smarty pants, so get off your high horse.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Considering you don't have a clue what he is saying, you are not qualified (opinion or not) to make such a statement.</DIV></p><p>Baloney. I'm qualified to pick out an obvious and glaring error when he used the term "monopole" in relationship to "dipole" magnetic fields. You don't have to an "Expert" to know when someone has badly misused a word or concept in their paper. I know monopole don't exist, so I know his explaination amounts to word salad.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you had a clue what he was saying, you might understand.</DIV></p><p>I've asked you personally now three times to explain it to me and each time you've ignored my request? Why? Because you can't explain it or justify it either!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>His math makes no sense because you don't have a clue what he is saying. </DIV></p><p>His math makes no sense because plasma doesn't behave as he describe it. There are two paradoxes here not one. I could see that I could substitute "electrons" for his monopoles, but I can't make electrons do magic tricks.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry to be so harsh, but your treatment of Priest's work in an attempt deminish the quality is just ludicrous.</DIV></p><p>His invocation of monopoles in his equations was ludcicrous Derek. I think even Petsheck would be mortified by that move.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Priest is recognized among his peers as a leading authority on the subject.</DIV></p><p>Well, he didn't make any points with me with that paper. He wasted my time bacause I could never convert his "monopole sources" to anything in physics and not have to justify his irrational use of that term in conjuction with dipole magnetic fields. Experts aren't always right, and in this particular instance it just wasn't right to stuff monopoles with magic properties into otherwise good equations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He's has probably produced more peer reviewed publications in leading journals than any other person. His work has probably been cited by other peer reviewed publications than any other author on the subject. </DIV></p><p>You'd think he'd a have a better paper then on this subject that didn't invoke monopoles. Care to present it?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think it is safe to say he has a clue what he is saying. </DIV></p><p>That might be true, but his lingo is certain to make every electrical engineer scratch their head and say "WHAT?" You'd think he would just stick to terms that were logical given the context. It's not logical to refer to magnetic fields as monopole sources. They might be considered dipole sources, but you can't change the laws of physics and misuse scientific terms. Monopoles violate the laws of physics, specifically Guauss' law of magnetism.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think it is safe to say that others studying work that cite his work have a clue what he is saying. </DIV></p><p>I suppose that that is because they have already asked him these same questions. I wonder if any of his peers mentioned that monopoles are a bad thing to stuff into Maxwell's equations?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think it is safe to say that you don't.Priest's publications: http://www.solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~eric/publications.htmlI'm not using an appeal to authority to claim he is right. </DIV></p><p>Yes you are. You're also using his "creditials" to rationalize away an extremely sloppy and confusing presentation based on his introduction of mythical monopole sources. The funny thing is, he may in fact be right as far as the math is concerned, and I was assuming that he was right when I started this process. The fact he blew the presentation out of the water by introducing monopoles was not my fault. That was his poor judgement. Even intelligent experts have momentary lapses in judement. At best case this is certainly an example of that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just simply showing that your assertions concerning his work are completely misguided. </DIV></p><p>No, my criticisms are valid. He had no business stuffing monopoles into this discussion. Period. End of discussion. Don't blame me for the confusion. He started it by using the term "monopole sources". Anyone with an electrical engineering backround would immedately be utterly confused by that statement. He use of that term was "misguided", not my criticism of him using that term.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Mainly, because you don't have a clue what he is saying.</DIV></p><p>That's his fault. He didn't clearly explain it. IN fact he misrepresented it in a way that I think even Petschek might balk at. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You admitted you weren't even familiar with the difference between the Sweet/Parker model and the Petschek model. You claimed you need to understand the "roots" of magnetic reconnection. How on god's green earth can you critique Priest's work when you don't even understand the basics of magnetic reconnection? <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I've been through a lot of these magnetic reconnection equation sets now Derek. Remember that PPPL paper? They all are based on Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations don't include monopoles! Nobody can convert monopole sources into physics based on Maxwell's equations. That was a really bad and unfortunately use of terms on his part. </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>How did Priest get plasma to do magic tricks? How did he get the magnetic field to decrease in strength, and simulateously get it to accelerate plasma in that equation?</p><p>You're avoiding this question like the plague. You can't answer it, because it *NEVER* works that way in the lab. The only way you're going to get the magnetic field strength to decrease is by decreasing the flow of the particles inside the plasma. The moment he claimed that he decreased the magnetic field and increased the flow, he stepped outside of the realm of physics. The monopole comments just confused the issue ever further. </p><p>When are you going to explain his claim for us? You keep insisting it's right, but it violates the laws of physics *and* the experiments with plasma that have been done in a lab. Since when can you increase the current flow and decrease the magnetic field? </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>
FYI Derek, your attitude stinks IMO. I freely and openly admitted from the start that I had no clue at all what he was trying to convey in that equation. I pointed out there there were two different paradoxes that made no sense to me. I made no attempt to hide the fact I couldn't make heads of tails of that equation and I asked you folks for help. What do you expect me to do, read Priest's mind? The only thing I can do now is go back to Petscheks first formulas and try to make sense of what seems to be impossible. Even though I can accept that Priest may have been refering to something other than "monopole sources", I still can't make plasma do magic tricks. I can't change the fundamental relationship betwwen "current flow" and "magnetism". If you increase the current flow, you increase the magnetic field. That's how it works in all experiments in a lab. He's got physics standing on it's head by claiming that the field strength decreased while the current flow increased. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How did Priest get plasma to do magic tricks? How did he get the magnetic field to decrease in strength, and simulateously get it to accelerate plasma in that equation?You're avoiding this question like the plague. You can't answer it, because it *NEVER* works that way in the lab. The only way you're going to get the magnetic field strength to decrease is by decreasing the flow of the particles inside the plasma. The moment he claimed that he decreased the magnetic field and increased the flow, he stepped outside of the realm of physics. The monopole comments just confused the issue ever further. When are you going to explain his claim for us? You keep insisting it's right, but it violates the laws of physics *and* the experiments with plasma that have been done in a lab. Since when can you increase the current flow and decrease the magnetic field? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Stop and think for a minute. Could it possibly be that perhaps you don't understand why he would say such a thing and jump to the conclusion that is wrong? He didn't say "it might be this way", he said "this is how it is". Meaning he had a reason to say that. Meaning there is research backing up the claim. He said it was a result of Petschek analysis, so, stop commenting on this until you finish "studying" Petschek analysis. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Simulations, smimulations. I'm a programmer by trade. You can make a computer do anything and you can create simulations to break every law of nature if you're clever. Computers create virtual worlds all the time. How do we know a virtual simulation jives with real life? Birkeland showed us how that should work and the right way to go about it.</DIV></p><p>This is not only insulting to me personally but shows you are extremely unfamiliar with simulations. I work with a complex 3D HD(soon to be MHD) simulation code here at Florida, and believe me, we are not just creating "virtual worlds" with magical unicorns and leprechauns. We know they "jive" with real life because you can't just run a simulation and then be done with it, you have to compare it to observational work. For example, most of my work involves the precursors to star cluster formation, infrared dark clouds. We created column density maps of the clouds and compared the probability distributions we found to ones generated by simulations under a variety of different magnetic field and turbulence conditions. We used this information to learn a great deal about these regions, namely whether they were being shocked, whether protostellar outflow was influencing the clouds in any way, and so on. It certainly did "jive" with both observation and what theory would predict. Simulations aren't akin to video games. There is a great deal of research that goes into setting the boundary conditions and writing the governing code. As it stands now the code has 100,000 lines of physics...valid physics. When people publish these results, they provide their governing equations, and if they were entirely "virtual" fantasy equations, it wouldn't get published. </p><p>My point is, if you don't like simulations, you will certainly not like the way astrophysics research is going in the near future. With the advent of computers like Roadrunner at LANL, scientists can simulate real physics to unprecedented resolution and accuracy. Of course, you need both sides for science to function. Without observers, theorists would not know how to set the boundary conditions. Laboratory work is also needed for many fields of physics. Essentially you are saying two of the main branches of science, observing and theory, are garbage and we should only study what can be produced in the lab. We can't build a star in a lab. We can't form a neutron star in the lab. We certainly can't build a galaxy. When you encounter a situation that can't be reproduced physically, you HAVE to rely on the other two branches to fill in the information gap. Otherwise you will find science will grind to a screeching halt pretty fast. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My prediction as to what Michael would do is not becoming true. Recall the 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>And I predict you will never understand plasma cosmology theory because you won't bother to study it. At least I'm trying to understand "magnetic reconnection" theory, self conflicted name and all. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We have now reached the stage at which Michael has demonstrated that he has no idea what Priest is talking about,</DIV></p><p>Er, I admitted that point rather bluntly about 3 pages ago. So? Care to enlighten us? At least I'm continuing to educate myself instead of just ignoring his errors and pretending he didn't make any errors by introducing monopole sources in his arguement. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>has focused on the semantics of the word "monopole" and has completely misunderstood the use of the concept in Priest's paper, which is NOT the assertion of the existence of physical monopoles. </DIV></p><p>Then he had no business every using the term in the first place. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unable to produce a counter-argument to Priest's paper, and apparently unable to read the undergratuate paper supplied by derekmcd, he is backing away from the attempt and reverting to simple and over-general quotes of Alflven.</DIV></p><p>Er, no. I'm unable to proceed on Priests paper because he has plasma doing magic tricks (not becuase of monopoles). I'm hoping to find a better written paper to work with, that's all.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> No sirect logical argument is forthcoming</DIV></p><p>What?!?!? Logically all magnetic fields *must* be treated as *dipole* fields. You can't stuff monopoles into Maxwell's equations. Period. It s a violation of Guass's law of magnitism. No amount of denial on your part is going to change that fact.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and no paper will ever be produced. </DIV></p><p>That's not a given. I'm just looking for better written material and keeping my day job.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael has produced no mathematics whatever, anywhere, anytime to support his views -- because he cannot. </DIV></p><p>Baloney. I showed you the exact equations where Priest violated the laws of physics as we know them. The math didn't support his claim.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>His claims to have identified mathematical errors are incorrect,</DIV></p><p>FYI, I never claimed to have found mathematical "erors", just conceptual "assumptions" they couldn't justify in the case of PPPL paper and in the case of Priest, I simply have no clue where he got his formula for magic plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and he has studiously avoided questions related to those claims.</DIV></p><p>Which questions?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is absurd. If Priest had been so naive as to have actually based his model on the need for participation in the reconnection process by physical magnetic monopoles, then any thrid-grader could discredit his approach. </DIV></p><p>I don't know many third graders that know anything about elecrtical engineering or monopoles. You must live in on a different planet.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But Michael has thrown up his hands and said that Priest is so wrong that he cannot be refuted -- the most absurd possible position. </DIV></p><p>No, what I said was I can't convert monopoles to E or j because Maxwell's equations don't say a word about monopoles and plasma doesn't do magic tricks like Priest claimed. I can't convert fantasy to physics. I haven't tossed in the towel, but I'm not going to waste my time on magic monopole trasnlations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The plain truth of the matter is that Mozina's position is so indefensible that he leaves the battleground of physics and reverts to type -- attacking semantics and producing over-general quotes from Alfven. We have now passed to the declaration of victory without a fight and in a defeat that is recognized by everyone except Michael. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>More baloney. The is no "physics" behind "monopole sources". There is no "physics" that allows us to increase the current flow and decrease the magnetic field. These are "make believe". I can't convert fantasy to physics, and neither can you.</p><p>I predict that you will *NEVER* read Cosmic Plasma because you have no desire to educate yourself. I predict you will never explain how Priest did his magic and made plasma move faster and decrease the magnetic field in the process. I predict you will never acknowledge that Priest violated the Gauss's law of magnetism by invoking (in an ad hoc manner no less) "monopole sources" in plasma. I predict you will never lift a finger to ever find out if I am right or wrong scientifically because you don't even care if I'm right. </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'>Stop and think for a minute. Could it possibly be that perhaps you don't understand why he would say such a thing and jump to the conclusion that is wrong?</DIV></p><p>It's not only a possibility I don't understand what he meant, it's a certainty. I specifically pointed out that he introduced two different paradoxes that I could not justify or explain. There is however a serious problem with introducing monopoles into a discussion about magnetic fields that are always treated as dipoles. There's no logical reason for him to use this particular analogy, regardless of what he "meant to say". The fact he used monopoles in conjuction with Maxwell's equations is not logical and it's confusing and scientifcally wrong. There are no "monopole sources" in plasma, just charged particles and dipoles fields. That's a problem irrespective of whether or not I understand what he *REALLY* meant. He never should have done that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> He didn't say "it might be this way", he said "this is how it is". Meaning he had a reason to say that. Meaning there is research backing up the claim. </DIV></p><p>No research backs up the claim that there are monopoles sources in plasma. I don't know of any research that justfies his claim that the magnetic field decreased while the plasma flow increased but that is separate (and important) issue. The monopole introduction was a mistake no matter what.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He said it was a result of Petschek analysis, so, stop commenting on this until you finish "studying" Petschek analysis.</DIV> </p><p>Can you point me to any paper written by Petscheck that introduced monopole sources?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is not only insulting to me personally but shows you are extremely unfamiliar with simulations. </DIV></p><p>Simulations and emprical science are different animals. I'm interested in emprical science. I can follow simulations to a point, but that doesn't mean that a simulation jives with reality. You might *simulate* a scenario where the magnetic field decreases while the plasma flow increases, but can you *demonstrate it in a lab*? Some math equations can defy the laws of physics.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I work with a complex 3D HD(soon to be MHD) simulation code here at Florida, and believe me, we are not just creating "virtual worlds" with magical unicorns and leprechauns. We know they "jive" with real life because you can't just run a simulation and then be done with it, you have to compare it to observational work. For example, most of my work involves the precursors to star cluster formation, infrared dark clouds. We created column density maps of the clouds and compared the probability distributions we found to ones generated by simulations under a variety of different magnetic field and turbulence conditions. We used this information to learn a great deal about these regions, namely whether they were being shocked, whether protostellar outflow was influencing the clouds in any way, and so on. It certainly did "jive" with both observation and what theory would predict. Simulations aren't akin to video games. There is a great deal of research that goes into setting the boundary conditions and writing the governing code.</DIV></p><p>But one of those "boundary conditions" that Alfven talked about was current carrying plasma. In that instance he didn't try to simplify for B, just E and j. When the boundary conditions are simply ignored then it's easy to introduce problems in the simulation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> As it stands now the code has 100,000 lines of physics...valid physics. When people publish these results, they provide their governing equations, and if they were entirely "virtual" fantasy equations, it wouldn't get published. My point is, if you don't like simulations, you will certainly not like the way astrophysics research is going in the near future. With the advent of computers like Roadrunner at LANL, scientists can simulate real physics to unprecedented resolution and accuracy. Of course, you need both sides for science to function. Without observers, theorists would not know how to set the boundary conditions. Laboratory work is also needed for many fields of physics. Essentially you are saying two of the main branches of science, observing and theory, are garbage and we should only study what can be produced in the lab. We can't build a star in a lab. We can't form a neutron star in the lab. We certainly can't build a galaxy. When you encounter a situation that can't be reproduced physically, you HAVE to rely on the other two branches to fill in the information gap. Otherwise you will find science will grind to a screeching halt pretty fast. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>The problem here is that I write code for a living so I know how these software simulation work. The key phrase here is "garbage in, garbage out". The fact that astronomers want to attempt to *oversimplify* everyting to B only to justify the use of the term "magnetic reconnection" is not logical. There's no reason to ignore the current flow aspets of this process or to not acknowledge the fact that any current flow transaction in plasma is an example "circuit reconnection" or perhaps "induction". Magnetic lines don't reconnect in real life, although you might be able to "simulate" that process in a computer simulation. There has to be an emprical test to verify these simulations. Birkeland did a lot of math but he did not rely *exclusively* on math alone. Simulations require verification in a lab. If this reconnection process is viable, it should be something that can be emprically demonstrated in controlled experimention using spheres in a vacuum, just like Birkeland did with "circuit reconnection". The fact that this part was never done is not my fault. If it hasn't been done yet then I have to ask myself: Why? I mean Birkeland was able to demonstrate his point by himself using technology from 100 years ago. What's the mainstream's collective problem showing that magnetic reconnection is able to create auroras around spheres in a vacuum?</p><p>If you're going to claim that all the things that Birkeland created in his lab with "circuit reconnection" and "current flow" can be reproduced by "magnetic reconnection" and "current flow", you need to demonstrate it emprically, not just simulate it on a computer. I can write a program to determine the number of elves that will fit on the head of an ordinary pin, and I might be able to even simulate it graphically on a computer somehow. That doesn't mean that elves exist in nature, or that they are the size that I claim them to be, or that they can fit on a pin. A computer does what you tell it to do. Real life does what it wants. </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'>The problem here is that I write code for a living so I know how these software simulation work. The key phrase here is "garbage in, garbage out".</DIV></p><p>So do I...so does almost any professional astronomer. And I've done enough programming in my so far short career to know that yes, you will get garbage out, if you put garbage in. Elves are garbage. So what you get out will be garbage if you put them in a simulation. If you put valid physics into a code, you will get something real out. Something testable. In simulations, the computer often does not do what you tell it to do. ALL you do in a simulation is plug in initial conditions and let it run. You are clearly not familiar with scientific computational methods at all. If you change the initial conditions even a tiny bit you will get something radically different. That is why they use observations to constrain these conditions. This is the closest to empirical science you can get when it comes to astrophysics. We can't go to the other galaxies and scoop up some of the disk and analyze it in a lab. We have to rely on indirect methods. To completely ignore that approach is to acknowledge that you don't desire to be a scientist. </p><p>The monopole crap is getting ridiculous. If you read the quote I was referring to when you quoted me, you would know I was not talking about Petschek as his work relates to monopoles. I was clearly referring to your objection about the "magic" plasma with the whole increasing flow with decreasing B business. </p><p>For the last time, Priest did not introduce monopoles. Get it through your head. </p><p>I'll say that again, Priest did not introduce monopoles. He did not say they exist. He was not saying they are real. </p><p>To save us some time and posts: </p><p>michaelmozina: Then why did he mention them?</p><p>answer: Because it is a useful analogy to describe the physics going on. That's all. That's it. It is a situation that can be described mathematically and he was simply referring to this model. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So do I...so does almost any professional astronomer. And I've done enough programming in my so far short career to know that yes, you will get garbage out, if you put garbage in. Elves are garbage. So what you get out will be garbage if you put them in a simulation. </DIV></p><p>Likewise if you put in code to create reconnecting magnetic fields into a software program I'm sure that you could simulate "magnetic reconnection" just fine. In the real world however magnetic fields are without beginning, without end, and without reconnection capabilities. In the real world only circuits and particles reconnect. It all depends on what you tell the computer to do. It will definitely let us simulate anything we want, real or unreal.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you put valid physics into a code, you will get something real out. Something testable.</DIV></p><p>Yes, I agree. Even still, it's possible to put perfectly good physics code into a software program and call the whole program by the wrong name.. We could put in code that relates to "circuit reconnection" and then mislabel it "magnetic reconnection" at the end too. We could still end up with garbage for a name to describe the correct physical process. I'm sure these simulations work as described. I'm also quite sure they don't describe "magnetic reconnection" other than the fact that's what they decided to call the whole software simulation program. It's like creating an object in computer code called "Invisible elves" and giving it useful physical methods that relate to real physical things. The object name however will forever be misleading compared to the real physiical methods and processes that it actually describes. IMO they seem to be taking perfectly good equations, creating a whole "softwware program" that may work as advertized, but giving it a horrble name that doesn't accurately describe what's physically happening in the plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In simulations, the computer often does not do what you tell it to do.</DIV></p><p>If you wrote the code properly it will do exactly that it's supposed to do. It may produce results you didn't anticipate but computers always do exactly what you tell it to do and what they programmed to do. If the software doesn't function as expected, it's called a "bug". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> ALL you do in a simulation is plug in initial conditions and let it run. You are clearly not familiar with scientific computational methods at all. If you change the initial conditions even a tiny bit you will get something radically different. </DIV></p><p>Sure, but the computer will do what it's told told to do even if we didn't properly anticipate the outcome, and even if it has nothing to do with what actually occurs in nature. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is why they use observations to constrain these conditions. This is the closest to empirical science you can get when it comes to astrophysics.</DIV></p><p>No, it's not. Birkeland's work with terellas in a vacuum is what real emprical science is all about. It's not based on fallible "garbage in, garbage out" code instructions and math. it's based on what is observed in nature based on controlled experimentation with nature. A computer simulation will never touch that kind of emprical testing in terms of it's value to emprical science. A computer cannot replace emprical testing in controlled emprical experiments. You can simulate inflation all you like but you'll never demontrate in a controlled emprical test that inflation actually exists or ever existed in nature. My might create code to"simulate" it, but you'll never get it to do anything in a real world test.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> We can't go to the other galaxies and scoop up some of the disk and analyze it in a lab. </DIV></p><p>We can however venture into and cruise around our solar system and verify or falsify many of Birkeland's core beliefs.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We have to rely on indirect methods. </DIV></p><p>Not always. If "magnetic reconnection" is happening in plasma in space, it should also occur here on Earth. If it exists here on earth, then it should be able to be used to duplicate Birkeland's "circuit reconnection" experiments. Birkeland all by himself was able to do what the whole collective group mainstream astronomers have been unable to do for over 60 years, namely demonstate the validity of their "reconnection" theory in real world experiments. Is that merely a coincidence, or is that no coincidence at all? Code lines from a software program won't tell me why they can't duplicate his work with "magnetic reconnection" as the power source in real emprical tests. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To completely ignore that approach is to acknowledge that you don't desire to be a scientist.</DIV></p><p>As a programmer by trade I know for a fact that software simulation is not a valid "experiment". It does not have any real control mechanisms that can be really tested in the real world. Software engineering isn't a valid substitute for empirical tests. I know this for a fact based on my background in software engineering. A computer can generate garbage as easily as generate meaningful results that appear to match observed phenomenon that have nothing to do with the phemenon in question. Computers and mathematical modeling by themselves have their place in science, but they are not a valid substitute for real emrpical tests. To deny this is to deny the role of emrpical science altogether. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The monopole crap is getting ridiculous. </DIV></p><p>It's not relevant from what I can tell. It seems that Preist is ultimately describing shock waves and moving particles that have nothing whatsoever to do with monopoles. I don't even know why he used that term in that paper. I assume that was simply a very poor choice of words on his part and a lapse on his part that he doesn't seem to repeat in any other papers that I've glanced through. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, but the confusion of my part was a direct result of his poor choice of words in that particular paragraph. We're all human and I'm not a mind reader. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you read the quote I was referring to when you quoted me, you would know I was not talking about Petschek as his work relates to monopoles. I was clearly referring to your objection about the "magic" plasma with the whole increasing flow with decreasing B business. For the last time, Priest did not introduce monopoles. Get it through your head. I'll say that again, Priest did not introduce monopoles. He did not say they exist. He was not saying they are real. To save us some time and posts: michaelmozina: Then why did he mention them?answer: Because it is a useful analogy to describe the physics going on. That's all. That's it. It is a situation that can be described mathematically and he was simply referring to this model. </p><p>Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Useful to whom? It certainly was not useful to anyone trying to understand the meaning of his statements and his use of these mathematical equations. He'd have been better off saying what he meant to say.</p><p>In Priest's defense, he has evidently written at least two "better" papers that I've glanced through today in terms of explaining this process. I didn't see him making these same verbage errors in either of the other two presentations I've glanced through so I can only assume that this was simply a momentary lapse of judgement on his part in this single paragraph in one single paper. It's not a "deal buster" however as it relates to making my case mathematically (even using some other paper from Priest), it's just a "deal buster"as it relates to this one particular paper. It's not like I'm giving up on my original intent, or that I'm trying to claim victory in any way. I just can't ignore what Priest said in that paragraph. I can't help but be offended by this analogy since monopoles do not exist in plasma and there are no monopole sources known to exist in nature. It's no biggie in the overall scheme of things, but it's certainly a problem if you're just trying to convert a series of simple equations to E and j where possible and someone throws in an idea that doesn't fit. You'd have the same reaction if the tables were turned.</p><p>Keep in mind that nobody among us is ultimately trying to claim that the math related to magnetic reconnection is without merit. All I'm suggesting is that what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" is simply "circuit reconnection" with a very bad name. It's a bad name because it doesn't fit with Maxwell's equations anymore than monopoles belong with Maxwell's equations. Only particles and circuits reconnect, magnetic dipole fields do not. </p><p>It's after 5:00 here now so I'll have some time to do some reading on this topic. My intent at this point it to start with Sweet and Parker and work my way forward. </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>
It may produce results you didn't anticipate but computers always do exactly what you tell it to do and what they programmed to do. If the software doesn't function as expected, it's called a "bug". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> ALL you do in a simulation is plug in initial conditions and let it run. You are clearly not familiar with scientific computational methods at all. If you change the initial conditions even a tiny bit you will get something radically different. </DIV></p><p>Sure, but the computer will do what it's told told to do even if we didn't properly anticipate the outcome, and even if it has nothing to do with what actually occurs in nature. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is why they use observations to constrain these conditions. This is the closest to empirical science you can get when it comes to astrophysics.</DIV></p><p>No, it's not. Birkeland's work with terellas in a vacuum is what real emprical science is all about. It's not based on fallible "garbage in, garbage out" code instructions and math. it's based on what is observed in nature based on controlled experimentation with nature. A computer simulation will never touch that kind of emprical testing in terms of it's value to emprical science. A computer cannot replace emprical testing in controlled emprical experiments. You can simulate inflation all you like but you'll never demontrate in a controlled emprical test that inflation actually exists or ever existed in nature. My might create code to"simulate" it, but you'll never get it to do anything in a real world test.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> We can't go to the other galaxies and scoop up some of the disk and analyze it in a lab. </DIV></p><p>We can however venture into and cruise around our solar system and verify or falsify many of Birkeland's core beliefs.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We have to rely on indirect methods. </DIV></p><p>Not always. If "magnetic reconnection" is happening in plasma in space, it should also occur here on Earth. If it exists here on earth, then it should be able to be used to duplicate Birkeland's "circuit reconnection" experiments. Birkeland all by himself was able to do what the whole collective group mainstream astronomers have been unable to do for over 60 years, namely demonstate the validity of their "reconnection" theory in real world experiments. Is that merely a coincidence, or is that no coincidence at all? Code lines from a software program won't tell me why they can't duplicate his work with "magnetic reconnection" as the power source in real emprical tests. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To completely ignore that approach is to acknowledge that you don't desire to be a scientist.</DIV></p><p>As a programmer by trade I know for a fact that software simulation is not a valid "experiment". It does not have any real control mechanisms that can be really tested in the real world. Software engineering isn't a valid substitute for empirical tests. I know this for a fact based on my background in software engineering. A computer can generate garbage as easily as generate meaningful results that appear to match observed phenomenon that have nothing to do with the phemenon in question. Computers and mathematical modeling by themselves have their place in science, but they are not a valid substitute for real emrpical tests. To deny this is to deny the role of emrpical science altogether. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The monopole crap is getting ridiculous. </DIV></p><p>It's not relevant from what I can tell. It seems that Preist is ultimately describing shock waves and moving particles that have nothing whatsoever to do with monopoles. I don't even know why he used that term in that paper. I assume that was simply a very poor choice of words on his part and a lapse on his part that he doesn't seem to repeat in any other papers that I've glanced through. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here, but the confusion of my part was a direct result of his poor choice of words in that particular paragraph. We're all human and I'm not a mind reader. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you read the quote I was referring to when you quoted me, you would know I was not talking about Petschek as his work relates to monopoles. I was clearly referring to your objection about the "magic" plasma with the whole increasing flow with decreasing B business. For the last time, Priest did not introduce monopoles. Get it through your head. I'll say that again, Priest did not introduce monopoles. He did not say they exist. He was not saying they are real. To save us some time and posts: michaelmozina: Then why did he mention them?answer: Because it is a useful analogy to describe the physics going on. That's all. That's it. It is a situation that can be described mathematically and he was simply referring to this model. </p><p>Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Useful to whom? It certainly was not useful to anyone trying to understand the meaning of his statements and his use of these mathematical equations. He'd have been better off saying what he meant to say.</p><p>In Priest's defense, he has evidently written at least two "better" papers that I've glanced through today in terms of explaining this process. I didn't see him making these same verbage errors in either of the other two presentations I've glanced through so I can only assume that this was simply a momentary lapse of judgement on his part in this single paragraph in one single paper. It's not a "deal buster" however as it relates to making my case mathematically (even using some other paper from Priest), it's just a "deal buster"as it relates to this one particular paper. It's not like I'm giving up on my original intent, or that I'm trying to claim victory in any way. I just can't ignore what Priest said in that paragraph. I can't help but be offended by this analogy since monopoles do not exist in plasma and there are no monopole sources known to exist in nature. It's no biggie in the overall scheme of things, but it's certainly a problem if you're just trying to convert a series of simple equations to E and j where possible and someone throws in an idea that doesn't fit. You'd have the same reaction if the tables were turned.</p><p>Keep in mind that nobody among us is ultimately trying to claim that the math related to magnetic reconnection is without merit. All I'm suggesting is that what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" is simply "circuit reconnection" with a very bad name. It's a bad name because it doesn't fit with Maxwell's equations anymore than monopoles belong with Maxwell's equations. Only particles and circuits reconnect, magnetic dipole fields do not. </p><p>It's after 5:00 here now so I'll have some time to do some reading on this topic. My intent at this point it to start with Sweet and Parker and work my way forward. </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>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964psf..conf..425P</p><p>Does anyone have a link to the original paper by Petschek? </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'>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964psf..conf..425PDoes anyone have a link to the original paper by Petschek? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Can you give me another of your published papers to read?</p><p>I've done a quick read through on the first one you provided. Give me more </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> <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'>A computer simulation will never touch that kind of emprical testing in terms of it's value to emprical science. A computer cannot replace emprical testing in controlled emprical experiments.</DIV></p><p>I like how you completely ignored the part where I said you need all three facets of science working together...Empirical science has its place and is ultimately the best form of science, and nobody questions Birkeland's experiments as they stand. What we do question is their relevance to reconnection. </p><p>We are now at a point where you acknowledge your argument is purely an issue with the name. To me, this doesn't matter. They could call it Grand Fish Unification Theory Version 3.0.2.1.0.3.4 for all I care. All I care about is the underlying physics. The only people who will be mislead by the term are complete laymen to the field. In general, the field of people who actually care about magnetic reconnection is tiny. Anyone who wants to know about reconnection either already knows the correct general idea or would quickly find out after reading even one paper. I really do not see why the term is such a big deal. The term planetary nebula mislead me at first, but after studying them for a few minutes I realized they had nothing to do with planets. The mainstream "resists" changes like this because it confuses more people than it would if they kept it the same. Textbooks would have to be revised, all authors would simultaneously need to adopt the new terminology, and you'd have a confused scientific community rather than a confused public.(Or in the case of Pluto, you have a confused community AND a confused public) I do agree clarity is a good thing to have in names, but there has never been a reason to call it circuit reconnection. Nobody has shown rigorously that it should be. Maybe it can be shown, maybe it can't. If it doesn't change any of the physics though, then nobody will dedicate their time to working through it. In essence what I'm saying is that if you can't perform this derivation, it is likely that nobody ever will. Essentially all it would be is a nod to the electrical engineers and plasma physicists. Which is nice and warm and fuzzy but really, who cares? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>FY... He's got physics standing on it's head by claiming that the field strength decreased while the current flow increased. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Why would you say such a silly thing ?</p><p>Back to the automotive ingnition coil example. The current that produces the spark is produces precisely by the collapse of the B field in the coil. It goes to zero to produce the current and the spark.</p><p>Alternately look at it from the pont of view of conservation of energy. Therre is energy stored in the<strong> </strong>B field. When the B field changes density, through a topology change called reconnection, that energy has to go somewhere. It can go into increased current -- the kinetic motion of particles of which you seem to be quite fond. If both current and B field are increasing there must be an outside source of energy. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why would you say such a silly thing ?</DIV></p><p>Um, because it's one of those little laws of phyiscs things you keep ignoring.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Back to the automotive ingnition coil example. </DIV></p><p>You mean *induction* where one circuit transfers it's energy to another circuit? What does that have to do with "magnetic reconnection" or "monopole sources"? </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>he current that produces the spark is produces precisely by the collapse of the B field in the coil.</DIV></p><p>It doesn't transfer magnetic energy of one cicuit to the *SAME CIRCUIT*. There are two circuits involved and a very specific configuration of these circuits involved in this *INDUCTION* (not magnetic reconnection) process. Again, what does any of have to do with Priest's statements and his "bondary conditions or his definition of "magnetic reconnection". Induction is not magnetic reconnection. It's not a unique form of energy transfer DrRocket and it involves the flow of electrons to get it to work. It's trigger by "circuit disconnection" in one circuit which induces current the other circuit. There is no form of "magnetic reconnection" involved in that process at all.</p><p>[QUOTE}It goes to zero to produce the current and the spark.</DIV></p><p>It goes to zero because the *circuit* is disconnected, and then "reconnected" again and again. No form of "magnetic reconnection" is required.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alternately look at it from the pont of view of conservation of energy. Therre is energy stored in the B field.</DIV></p><p>How is that energy stored DrRocket. You seem to be suggesting there is some way to generate "stored" magnetic energy that is somehow different from the stored kinetic energy in the flowing electrons. The flow of currest creates the field in the first place and the current flow does all the work. Leave both circuits open indefinitely and I guarantee you no spark is going to happen. You'll have disconnect the "circuit" to get the other circuit to recieve any transfer of energy from the other circuit.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> When the B field changes density, through a topology change called reconnection, that energy has to go somewhere.</DIV></p><p>All you'd get it a transfer of energy from one circuit to another, just like any ordinary coil analogy. The only difference is that plasma would take the place of wires in the circuit. This is still a form of *induction* caused by "circuit disconnection and reconnection". No magnetic lines "reconnected" at any point in the energy transfer process. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It can go into increased current</DIV></p><p>Not in the same circuit it can't.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>-- the kinetic motion of particles of which you seem to be quite fond. If both current and B field are increasing there must be an outside source of energy. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The more I read the more I realize that it is the kinetic energy of both circuits driving this "reconnection" process. The is no "null point", just a "reconnection point" or a "short circuit point" in the "circuits." The label of magnetic reconnection is absolutely false. It's circuit reconenction and "short circuit reconnection" at that. There's no form of "magnetic reconnection" required or described in these formulas. Magnetic fields don't disconnect to create induction. Only circuits do that. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I like how you completely ignored the part where I said you need all three facets of science working together..</DIV></p><p>I'm not ignoring it, I'm insisting upon it. IMO you skipped the third and most important part of science. You never showed that auroras could be sustained around the poles of spheres in a vacuum using "magnetic reconnection". In addition, Occum's razor arguments should make you do an about face here. We don't need any exotic forms of "magnetic reconnection" to create aurora around spheres in a vacuum. Simple circuit reonnection does the job just fine. Birkeland already showed us that. He didn't turn off the experiment by breaking a magnetic line. He disconnected and then reconnected the "circuit" to make these events take place and it works perfectly. Why do we need "magnetic reconnection" wihen simple "circuit reconnection" has already done the job?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Empirical science has its place and is ultimately the best form of science, and nobody questions Birkeland's experiments as they stand. </DIV></p><p>You seem to believe you can substitute his circuit reconnection process with "magnetic reconnection" and that they are somehow different and unique. When did you demonstrate this emprically?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What we do question is their relevance to reconnection. </DIV></p><p>I don't see how that is even possible. He "reconnected' and "disconnected" circuits to light up the aurora around his sphere. How can his experiments *not* relate to "reconnection" in plasma?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We are now at a point where you acknowledge your argument is purely an issue with the name. </DIV></p><p>But it's not just an issue with the name or you would simply agree with me that circuit reconnection and magnetic reconnection are the same thing. The fact you refuse to acknowledge this point shows that there is a much bigger and much more complex problem at play here. If you agreed with me that circuit reconnection and magnetic reconnection were the same process then it would only be a matter fo semantics. The fact that you believe that "magnetic reconnection" is a unique form of "reconnection" that is different from the reconnection process in Birkeland's experiments shows that this is not simply a word problem, it's a conceptual problem too.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To me, this doesn't matter. They could call it Grand Fish Unification Theory Version 3.0.2.1.0.3.4 for all I care. </DIV></p><p>Words matter or you would have no problem just admitting that this is simple circuit reconnection. Why do you resist just agreeing with me if it doesn't matter what we call it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All I care about is the underlying physics. </DIV></p><p>Me too. The fact you seem to believe that magnetic reconnection is a unique "reconnection" process however shows that the underlying physics is important and relevant, as is conceptual understanding.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only people who will be mislead by the term are complete laymen to the field. </DIV></p><p>YOu don't seem to be a "layman" in the field by you seem to be confused about the fact that this is in a unique form or reconnection, just simple circuit reconnection. There is confusion on your part about what's really happening here. As I see things, your "understanding" is hindered by the use of a bad label. If they called this circuit reconnection, you wouldn't see it as being any different than the reconnection mechanism that Birkeland used in his experiments with aurora around spheres in a vacuum. The fact you see them as being different somehow only demonstrates to me that you are being victimized by a label. You shouldn't be disagreeing with me if your "conceptual understanding" was not being affected by this label. Somehow you see thse "reconnection" processes as being different. They are not.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In general, the field of people who actually care about magnetic reconnection is tiny. Anyone who wants to know about reconnection either already knows the correct general idea or would quickly find out after reading even one paper. </DIV></p><p>That's not true. I've read a bunch of them now and I still have a long ways to go before I really feel "comfortable" about these ideas. I can't tell you how many lines in these papers made me literally "cringe" because of the misinformation they contain. Believe me, it's not easy to understand this theory because they've cludged up the process. Magnetic fields do not "store" energy that is not contained in the kinetic energy in the particles in the current flow. There are no real "null points" even though they keep calling them null points. There are only "reconnection" (short circuit) points in the circuits. There's a lot of misinformation in these papers and it's no wonder your confused about it IMO. This is intense and difficult reading and it's loaded with misinformation and misleading statements.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I really do not see why the term is such a big deal. </DIV></p><p>It's a "big deal" because you seem to believe it's somehow different than Birkeland's "circuit reconnection". It's not. If it wasn't a "big deal", you'd just agree with me and we'd be done now. The fact you can't admit that this is a ""circuit reconnection" process at a fundamental physics level shows that there is a major problem caused by mislabeling this process.</p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Essentially all it would be is a nod to the electrical engineers and plasma physicists. Which is nice and warm and fuzzy but really, who cares? <br /><p> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>It's not just a nod to electrical engineers. It resolves our dliemma immediately because we are all immediately on the same page if we call it 'circuit reconnection". If we don't call it circuit reconnection, people like you will believe that it is somehow different from "circuit reconnection", but that is impossible. Magnetic fields cannot disconnect or reconnect. Only cirucuits and particles do that. It's not only a nod to electrical engineering, it's a step toward clear communcation and a better fundamental understanding of what's going on in space.</p><p>The importance of this issue is found in the fact that you, Derek and DrRocket all seem to believe that "magnetic reconnection"' and "circuit reconnection" are not the same thing. They must be the same thing. They are the same thing. There are not "reconnections" possible in a magnetic field that has no beginning and no ending. The currrent carrying circuits 'reconnect'. but the magnetic lines cannot reconnect. There is a fundamental understanding at stake here as it relates to what we call this reconnection process. Alfven called it "circuit reconnection", as would any electrical engineer. No translation between eletrical engineering and MHD theory as Alfven described it is necessary. There there should be no translation necessary between astronomers and other fields of science. Why create a skism that creates communications problems by mislabeling circuit reconnection "magnetic reconnection"? If you weren't fighting me on this point, you might have a case about this being an issue of semantics. Since you seem to think that magnetic reconnection is somehow different from circuit reconnection, it shows that there is a conceptual skism between us caused by these improper use of terms in astronomy. </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
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
How 2024 brought us deeper into the world of particles- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram