<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Er, I'm not "selling" anything, nor is plasma cosmology theory a "new theory". I don't make any royalties when someone buys Cosmic Plasma. I simply have something useful to disucss about EU theory once they have read the book. It's actually very weird that someone would skeptically attack EU theory without first educating themselves somewhere, somehow, at a depth beyond a few simple papers. When DrRocket says things like circuits don't apply to plasma physics, I want to hurl. He professes to know more about MHD theory than the author of the theory *WIHTOUT* ever even reading the theory! That's absurd!I have politely waited for over a year now for him to read that book. Has he never heard of a public library?I could copy and paste his math to this thread, but DrRocket doesn't have a problem with math, just a problem understanding the "basics", like "circuits" in plasma. What's the point of pushing math at him when his problem is conceptual in nature? I thought that the material I posted was highly relevant and directly related to his "problem". The math isn't his problem. His problem relates to concepts involving particle physics at the particle level where Alfven spent most of his time in the book Cosmic Plasma. The whole point in my recommending that book to him in the first place is that he would have some reasonably up to date material from Alfven and a first class mathematical presentation of this material from someone he has every reason to respect and admire. What can I do if has no respect for me, and won't bother to actually read the material I suggest?IMO anyone and everyone *can understand it*. One just has to "want to understand it" and most importantly one has to actually "read the material". Not everyone will necessarily understand all the math, but the basic concepts are not that complicated. While plasma has many complicated properties, there are only a limited number of them and only some of them apply in any given circumstance. Then why won't he read it?It certainly makes him *an* authority on the subject and the natural one to start with if you're trying to understand either MHD theory or plasma cosmology theory, particularly if you have any real interest in actually comprehending these topics.I never claimed otherwise. DrRocket is obviously not infallible either. So what? I'll need an example where you think he's mistaken to be any more specific.It's equally silly that to think DrRocket is infallible too.But I have no logical reason to believe that DrRocket has somehow exceeded Alfven's grasp of MHD theory. Do you?I have presented many statements (and I can obviously include his math) to verify my statements. If DrRocket won't admit that the term "circuits"" applies to plasma physics, no amount of math is going to fix this basic problem. He's missing a critical conceptual understanding of MHD theory and only education from someone he respects is going to resolve that basic problem. I can't help him. He has no respect for me personally, nor any respect for plasma physics or he would simply read the material in question and be done with it. He could have read that book a half dozen times by now and saved us all a lot of grief. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>First, I never claimed it was YOU trying to sell the book or the theory. My claim is that presenting a new theory in a book is not valid. There's no peer review process on a book. A book is not a good resource unless it is simply a detailed rehashing of know, accepted theories. You know, like a text book from a reputable publisher. I'm simply claiming that Alfven's book is not a valid resource no matter how accurate it might be and no matter how credentialed the author is.</p><p>Second, the rest of my post had absolutely nothing to do with DrRocket and I'm confused why you addressed my statements the way you did. I thought I made some rather valid points concerning the authority of Nobel Laureates. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Could you be any more condescending? </DIV></p><p>Point noted. It does however seem like only a "basic" first step in understanding the universe around us. The "circuits" in space are another conceptual understanding that seems to still elude the mainstream. There should be no cofusion about solar wind acceleration. Birkeland showed us all how to explain this phenomenon over 100 years ago using simple electricity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They've been discussing the E field since the 80s at least, and so have many people(see many of the citations to these papers). I'm sorry but their mentioning of the E field cannot be twisted into somehow backing up EU theory. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>If you were to see things from my perspective for just a single day, you would understand how wrong that last statement actually is. The E field is critical in understanding plasma cosmology theory. The E field is generated by the "circuits" in space and all of Birkeland's emprical experiments involved such E fields. Every bit of EU theory is related to following the flow of plasmas in that E field. Accurately predicting where we will find these electric fields, like near the poles of objects in space is what demonstrates the validity of EU theory. The "predictions" of EU theory are panning out in the observations we're making with today's modern satellites. Birkeland "predicted" plasma jet and "cathode rays" from the sun. He "predicted" coronal loops and a host of other observed phenomenon by use of the E field. That E field isn't just a fluke, it's there because we live inside an electric universe and there are "circuits" traversing our physical universe. Following these currents in space will eventually lead us toward a mainstream EU theory, but it may be many decades away. Sooner or later however Birkeland's "predictions' and Alfven's "predictions" will start to be noticed by the mainstream. It's only a matter of time. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First, I never claimed it was YOU trying to sell the book or the theory. My claim is that presenting a new theory in a book is not valid.</DIV></p><p>He presented these ideas in many papers too, but none of those papers is anywhere near as complete as his books. Any serious study of any scientific topic requires more than a few papers to really understand what's going on. A lot of papers are written for 'insiders' that are not easily understood by someone new to the theory. Just look at Priest's paper.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's no peer review process on a book. </DIV></p><p>He wrote many papers about circuits in space, and about plasma cosmology theory, math and everything. What then is DrRocket talking about when he claims plasma has no "wires" or "circuits"? Why is he expecting me to do math at his command when so many papers are so freely avaible to him on this topic? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A book is not a good resource unless it is simply a detailed rehashing of know, accepted theories. </DIV></p><p>I think even you know that's not an entirely true statement. Books can cover a topic in far more in depth that one can cover in a paper that must be printed in a publication. It can be written for a more general audience, present the material more slowly and deliberately. A good book can contain a vast amount more material than a single paper. Cosmic Plasma is such a book. It's pretty much the agreed upon standard cirruculum of EU theorist around the planet. If one intends to be a "skeptic" of the theory, one should at least attempt to understand it. </p><p>I don't generally disagree with your suggestion that we should be able to find similar material from a peer reviewed source, but many of these issues have been covered in papers by Alfven and yet we're still debating basic issues like circuits in plasma. Evidently it's just fine to use monopole analogies in MHD theory and Maxwell's theories, but God forbid we actually use circuit analogies.</p><p>I should not have to justify the statement that circuit theory applies to plasma physics. It should be accepted by everyone who's actually studied this topic. The fact I'm having to argue basic points is frustrating when a little simple reading would do the trick. He can find suitiable material in Alfven's published papers too, but he'd have to read those as well.</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>
Double Layers and Circuits In Astrophysics covers this specific senario in question and Alfven describes these double layer events in terms of circuits and particle physics. In fact anytime he discussed current carrying plasma, this is the model he used. It's not that this material *only* exists in Cosmic Plasma. Much of this material is contained in various papers. This specific papers is directly related to the "magnetic reconnection/circuit reconnection" event in question. The double layer forms between the two circuits and kinetic energy is echanged between the two circuits. Anytime Alfven described current carrying plasma he used the term "circuits". <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'>... When DrRocket says things like circuits don't apply to plasma physics, I want to hurl. He professes to know more about MHD theory than the author of the theory *WIHTOUT* ever even reading the theory! That's absurd!</DIV></p><p>As always you have distorted what I said and are attacking what you wish I had said. What I said is that ciruit theory is a low frequency lumped parameter approximation to Maxwell's equations that can be applied only under certain circumstances. I also noted that circuit theory does not include in its formulation any reflection of physical scale or geometry. All of that is quite true, and it implies that any application be made under circumstances in which the assumptions thap permit valid application of circuit theory be verified. I absolutely stand behind that statement, and in fact they follow directly from Maxwell's equations. You can find derivations of the fundamentals of circuit theory, Kirkoff's current and voltage laws, in any good text on electrodynamics. I can recommend Hayt's <em>Engineering Electrodynamics</em> but any other text on the subject ought to do as well.</p><p>I have certainly not claimed to understand MHD theory better than did Alfven. What I have said I stand behind and if you disagree with these statements then I can certainly assert that I understand MHD, particularly the electrodynamic aspect, and circuit theory better than do you. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I have politely waited for over a year now for him to read that book.</DIV></p><p>Your sense of time is as distorted as your sense of physics. This thread has dates on the posts. Why not take a look.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>e never heard of a public library?I could copy and paste his math to this thread, but DrRocket doesn't have a problem with math, just a problem understanding the "basics", like "circuits" in plasma. What's the point of pushing math at him when his problem is conceptual in nature?</DIV></p><p>I can handle concepts quite well thank you. If you think you have a real argument then go ahead and post it. And do not be afraid to use the language of physics which is mathematics. I am more than a little familiar with "circuits" and with the application of circuit theory, with its relationship to electrodynamics, and with the limitations of the circuit approximation. So go right ahead and present a serious scientific argument using those tools.</p><p>Failure to agree with you is not a failure to grasp the concepts of physics. In fact it is usually quite the opposite. I quite often have found myself in complete agreement with Alfven and in total disagreement with you. I do not need to purchase another $150 book or track it down elsewhere to go through that again. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I thought that the material I posted was highly relevant and directly related to his "problem". The math isn't his problem. His problem relates to concepts involving particle physics at the particle level where Alfven spent most of his time in the book Cosmic Plasma. The whole point in my recommending that book to him in the first place is that he would have some reasonably up to date material from Alfven and a first class mathematical presentation of this material from someone he has every reason to respect and admire. What can I do if has no respect for me, and won't bother to actually read the material I suggest?IMO anyone and everyone *can understand it*. One just has to "want to understand it" and most importantly one has to actually "read the material". Not everyone will necessarily understand all the math, but the basic concepts are not that complicated. While plasma has many complicated properties, there are only a limited number of them and only some of them apply in any given circumstance. Then why won't he read it?It certainly makes him *an* authority on the subject and the natural one to start with if you're trying to understand either MHD theory or plasma cosmology theory, particularly if you have any real interest in actually comprehending these topics.I never claimed otherwise.Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>What does this have to do with your assertion that magnetic reconnection is contradicted by Maxwell's equations, and your utter failure to substantiate that assertion? I have read "the material" in Alfven's first book and have enjoyed it. It bears no resemblance to the nonsense that you have been promoting. Sorry if I read the wrong book. I quite like the one I have and I don't need another. If you think that book supports your "theories" then you are free to use the material therein to support your views. But so far when you have actually quoted the book, the quotes, properly intepreted in the light of real physics, do not support your twisted interpretation.</p><p>[QUOTE}DrRocket is obviously not infallible either. So what? I'll need an example where you think he's mistaken to be any more specific.It's equally silly that to think DrRocket is infallible too.</DIV></p><p>I don't think that I ever claimed to be the Pope. But what does that have to do with the fact that you have been spouting nonsense and that I have presented the physics that shows that to be the case ?</p><p>[QUOTE}But I have no logical reason to believe that DrRocket has somehow exceeded Alfven's grasp of MHD theory. Do you?I have presented many statements (and I can obviously include his math) to verify my statements. If DrRocket won't admit that the term "circuits"" applies to plasma physics, no amount of math is going to fix this basic problem. He's missing a critical conceptual understanding of MHD theory and only education from someone he respects is going to resolve that basic problem. I can't help him. He has no respect for me personally, nor any respect for plasma physics or he would simply read the material in question and be done with it. He could have read that book a half dozen times by now and saved us all a lot of grief. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You made the assertions and it is up to you to present the proof for those assertions. You simply have not done that. You have occasionally quoted Alfven and I have shown that in those few instances you have distorted what he said and mis-stated the physics. I have Alfen's first book on the subject, the one written when he was in his prime and had recently completed the work that won him the Nobel Prize. That ought to be quite sufficient. I have read the book and have show you a few instances in which your version of physics is out of kilter with what has been proven and as reflected in Alflven's own writing.</p><p>You claim that you can obviously include the relevant math. Then do so. But you are forewarned to make sure that you understand what you are posting before you post it. Thus far your posts of quotes from Alfven have not supported your case, because you posted what you did not understand. Mathematics tends to not be ambiguous and it will be difficult for you to use semantic arguments to twist the meaning. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As always you have distorted what I said and are attacking what you wish I had said. What I said is that ciruit theory is a low frequency lumped parameter approximation to Maxwell's equations that can be applied only under certain circumstances. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I.5. <strong>Boundary Conditions. Circuit Dependence</strong><br />In applying the classical theory and its modem development, the importance of boundary conditions has often been neglected . As a result, infmite plasma models, or models with static boundary conditions, are often applied to problems with variable boundary conditions. This gives completely erroneous results (examples are given in III).<br />In many theories, it is taken for granted that the behaviour of a plasma depends only on the local parameters (e .g ., density, temperature, magnetic field) . This can be quite misleading <strong>. As an example, in a non-curlfree (<u>i .e ., current carrying</u>) plasma, the properties of the plasma are not only a function of the local parameters, but also of the outer circuit in which the current I closes (1I .5).</strong></DIV></p><p>That seemed to be news to you. The circuit energy is critically important in such events DrRocket, not just the local conditions in the plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Figure II .16 shows a simple circuit consisting of an electromotive force Vb , a resistor Ro, and an inductance L . By changing R 0 and/or L, the behavior of the plasma may be changed in a drastic way . The value of Ro decides whether the plasma is relatively stable or oscillating . If the plasma contains a double layer which explodes, the circuit energy iLI2 is released in the layer .<strong> Hence, the violence of the plasma explosion is determined largely by the circuit</strong>. <strong>The influence of the `circuit' is essential, not only in a laboratory experiment, but also in space</strong> . In the latter case, the total volume in which the current flows affects the<br />behavior of the plasma at every point . In many instances, it is convenient to introduce the boundary conditions by drawing an `equivalent circuit' (II and III).</DIV></p><p>Get over yourself. You aren't more of a "circuit" expert an how it relates to plasma physics than Hannes Alfven. He certainly understood the boundary conditions and where it would be useful to look at the local plasma conditions and where it would not be useful to look at the energy coming from the whole "circuit". The fact you're still debating this point shows how irrational you've become. There is no doubt that "circuits" can be applied to plasma physics and that Alfven himself applied circuit theory to plasma physics. All the math you'll ever want or desire is in that book and in the work of Anthony Peratt, but of course you're evidently smarter than everyone on circuit theory as it relates to MHD theory, including Alfven, Peratt, Scott and all of their students. </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>
<br /><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:</font></span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">As always you have distorted what I said and are attacking what you wish I had said. What I said is that circuit theory is a low frequency lumped parameter approximation to Maxwell's equations that can be applied only under certain circumstances. <br />Posted by DrRocket</font></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Replying to:</font></span><font size="2"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">I.5. </span><strong><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">Boundary Conditions. Circuit Dependence</span></strong></font><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><br /><font size="2">In applying the classical theory and its modem development, the importance of boundary conditions has often been neglected . As a result, infmite plasma models, or models with static boundary conditions, are often applied to problems with variable boundary conditions. This gives completely erroneous results (examples are given in III).<br />In many theories, it is taken for granted that the behaviour of a plasma depends only on the local parameters (e .g ., density, temperature, magnetic field) . This can be quite misleading </font></span><font size="2"><strong><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">. As an example, in a non-curlfree (<u>i .e ., current carrying</u>) plasma, the properties of the plasma are not only a function of the local parameters, but also of the outer circuit in which the current I closes (1I .5).</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"></span></font><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">That seemed to be news to you. The circuit energy is critically important in such events DrRocket, not just the local conditions in the plasma.</DIV></font></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Once again you have focused on semantics and terminology and have completely distorted the physics and what it is that Alfven has said.</font></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Alfven is quite correct in his concern over proper application of boundary conditions to a distributed parameter problem described by Maxwell’s set of partial differential equations.<span> </span>He is absolutely correct in objecting to static boundary conditions being applied to a dynamic situation.<span> </span>His example, one in which the Maxwell-Faraday equation relating the curl of the E field to the time variation in the B field requires an adequate model.<span> </span>In the non-curlfree situation one applies Stokes theorem and finds that the E field is non-conservative and that an electromotive force exists around closed loops.</font></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Having correctly notices that the situation described by Maxwell’s equations provides for an electromotive force, Alfven uses a model, called an <strong>equivalent circuit</strong> to aid in describing the complex phenomena that are properly described by Maxwell[‘s equations.</font></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">There is nothing wrong with the technique of using an equivalent circuit, once the underlying physics has been properly described by the proper partial differential equations and once necessary approximations have been justified and made to produce the equivalent circuit. <span> </span>The equivalent circuit, being described by ordinary differential equations is easier to solve and provides a useful bit of intuition to someone adept at circuit analysis. <span> </span>But an equivalent circuit is not a physical circuit, and Alfven is not directly applying circuit theory to the plasma, which would be inappropriate without first looking at the problem using more exact methods of field theory.</font></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:</font></span><font size="2"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">Figure II .16 shows a simple circuit consisting of an electromotive force Vb , a resistor Ro, and an inductance L . By changing R 0 and/or L, the behavior of the plasma may be changed in a drastic way . The value of Ro decides whether the plasma is relatively stable or oscillating . If the plasma contains a double layer which explodes, the circuit energy iLI2 is released in the layer .</span><strong><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"> Hence, the violence of the plasma explosion is determined largely by the circuit</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">. </span><strong><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">The influence of the `circuit' is essential, not only in a laboratory experiment, but also in space</span></strong></font><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"> . In the latter case, the total volume in which the current flows affects the<br />behavior of the plasma at every point . In many instances, it is convenient to introduce the boundary conditions by drawing an `equivalent circuit' (II and III).</DIV></font></span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"> </font></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">The emphasis here is yours; notice that Alfven has put the word “circuit” in quotes.<span> </span>And note the last sentence in which he very specifically tells the reader that the circuit in question is an EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT.</font></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Equivalent circuits are a rather standard commodity in electrical engineering.<span> </span>In circuit theory itself once find Thevenin’s and Norton’s equivalent circuits used.<span> </span>In that case the purpose is the reduction of a complex circuit to one involving only a voltage source and a single series impedance (Thevenin) or a current source and a single parallel impedance (Norton).<span> </span>They represent the input-output characteristics of the original linear circuit faithfully, but one loses all information regarding anything that is internal to the circuit.<span> </span>In the theory of machinery one also finds equivalent circuits used to describe the operation of things like motors.<span> </span>Again those circuits are useful tools in describing some aspects of the operation of the machine, but they are limited in application to only some aspects of that operation.<span> </span>Is should be pretty clear that a circuit composed of resistors, capacitors and inductors is not a real motor.</font></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Equivalent circuits are useful models, once the underlying physics has been described by the appropriate partial differential equations of field theory.<span> </span>Only then can valid approximations be made and the resulting equations reduced to analogs in the form of equivalent circuits.<span> </span>The advantage of the equivalent circuit is that one can then apply the intuition that one has from solving circuit equations as a device to help in understanding the more precise and correct formulation of field theory an partial differential equations, but having only to deal with lumped parameter models and ordinary differential equations.<span> </span>This approach is sometimes taken to study the systems of masses, springs and dashpots, studied by mechanical engineers, representing them as ordinary RLC circuits, and in fact building circuit analogs to study those mechanical systems.<span> </span></font></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">In the case of plasmas, what Alfven has done is to apply the full machinery of field theory and his insight into plasmas to construct equivalent circuits to help describe some aspects of the behavior of the plasma.<span> </span>He has not directly applied circuit theory to the plasma, but has constructed a simplified model based on some approximations.<span> </span>The circuit here is not simply some structure that he finds in the plasma itself, but is based on field theory and approximations to it.<span> </span>Properly applied the insight provided is no doubt valuable.<span> </span>Alfven is applying the physics properly.<span> </span>You are interpreting that application improperly.</font></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Given your predilection for abusing terminology and semantics a word regarding the notion of an equivalent circuit is in order.<span> </span>An equivalent circuit in electrical engineering has a rather specific technical meaning.<span> </span>It is equivalent only with regard to certain characteristics.<span> </span>Normally that means that input-output characteristics of the circuit are a good model for the parent phenomena.<span> </span>Thevinin and Norton equivalent circuits are good models downstream of the terminals of the circuit, but internal parameters are irrelevant to the real physics.<span> </span>Equivalent circuits of motors are constructed so that, for instance, the energy dissipated in the resistor is the work performed by the motor.<span> </span>But the equivalent circuit is not the real phenomena the analogy holds only insofar as the circuit is constructed to reflect specific and targeted aspects of those phenomena.<span> </span>The equivalence is not universal.</font></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Get over yourself. You aren't more of a "circuit" expert an how it relates to plasma physics than Hannes Alfven. He certainly understood the boundary conditions and where it would be useful to look at the local plasma conditions and where it would not be useful to look at the energy coming from the whole "circuit". The fact you're still debating this point shows how irrational you've become. There is no doubt that "circuits" can be applied to plasma physics and that Alfven himself applied circuit theory to plasma physics. All the math you'll ever want or desire is in that book and in the work of Anthony Peratt, but of course you're evidently smarter than everyone on circuit theory as it relates to MHD theory, including Alfven, Peratt, Scott and all of their students.</DIV></font></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">So once again, we see that you have distorted the words of Alfven and are again focusing on semantics at the expense of physics.<span> </span>Alfven is not applying circuit theory to plasma physics, but is simply constructing a useful analogy in the form of an equivalent circuit.<span> </span>That construction can and does provide useful insight, but it in no way replaces the need to understand the fundamental nature of the problem which is properly described by a lumped parameter and partial differential equations.<span> </span>Circuit theory is, as I have told you, only a lumped parameter low-frequency approximation to the field theory of Maxwell’s equations, and application of that theory requires first an understanding of what is going on at the field theory level.</font></span><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Equivalent circuits are limited but useful tool.<span> </span>It is important to understand the limitations.<span> </span>The technique and the limitations are widely understood and applied in electrical engineering.<span> </span>If you had not dropped out of that curriculum you might understand that too.</font></span> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Once again you have focused on semantics and terminology and have completely distorted the physics and what it is that Alfven has said.<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I'm trying to figure out how this denial thing on your end is going to play out. After all, he did write the book on plasma cosmology, as well as plasma physics. Sooner or later you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that he described the entire physicsl universe in terms of "circuits" and current flows through plasma. The term "circuit" is used over 200 times in Cosmic Plasma. It's an integrated part of his entire presentation. Sooner or later you're going to have to come to terms with that reality. The guy literally wrote the (math) book on EU theory. In the end, you can't excape that reality DrRocket, nor his continual use of "circuits" when dscribing the boundary conditions of space.</p><p>I'm just amazed you're playing this game even after it's been shown repeatedly that Alfven used the concepts of "wires" and "circuits" very extensively in his work. You can't escape that reality. </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 this have to do with your assertion that magnetic reconnection is contradicted by Maxwell's equations, and your utter failure to substantiate that assertion? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I showed you conclusively that Priest's use of monopoles violated Maxwell's equations, specifically Gauss's law of magnetism. Evidently you rationalize in your head that it's 'OK' to use the term "monopoles" in conjection with plasma physics even though it violates known laws of physics when it's used as an "analogy" which the reader is expected to "figure out" all by themselves. It's evidently not "OK" to use the term "circuits" or ""wires" in conjection with plasma physics however, even though you've never read the book where Alfven describes the whole physicsl unverse in terms of interwoven and interlaced "circuits". That must be quite a juicy rationalization going on in your head. "Monopoles"? Check! "Circuits"? Bad! What they heck are you thinking? Don't you realize that Alfven described the whole physical universe in terms of "circuits"? How long do you figure you can keep this charade going anyway? You don't think someone is going to notice that Alfven used the term "circuit" over and over and over again to describe the boundary conditions of current carrying 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><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm trying to figure out how this denial thing on your end is going to play out. After all, he did write the book on plasma cosmology, as well as plasma physics. Sooner or later you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that he described the entire physicsl universe in terms of "circuits" and current flows through plasma. The term "circuit" is used over 200 times in Cosmic Plasma. It's an integrated part of his entire presentation. Sooner or later you're going to have to come to terms with that reality. The guy literally wrote the (math) book on EU theory. In the end, you can't excape that reality DrRocket, nor his continual use of "circuits" when dscribing the boundary conditions of space.I'm just amazed you're playing this game even after it's been shown repeatedly that Alfven used the concepts of "wires" and "circuits" very extensively in his work. You can't escape that reality. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You are truly amazing. Consider this</p><p>You decry Priests's use of ficticious monopoles as a mathematical device, yet you laud the use of ficticious circuits by Alfven. Both are valid, and equally so. And for the same reasons. </p><p>You laud Alfven;s use of equivalent circuits, while completely misunderstanding what an equivalent circuit it. So you support a good idea for the wrong reasons, while misunderstanding the idea and applying it inappropriately.</p><p>In short you have no idea whatever what you are talking about. Your complete lack of understanding is simply overwhelming. I have never seen the like of it.</p><p>I notice that as I correct you, you start to adopt a bit of proper terminology without understanding theat either -- as in the "boundary conditions of space." That is nonsense term Do you have any idea what a boundary condition is ? But it does show that you have now backed away from the assertion that one can directly apply circuit theory to a distributed parameter system. Yet you are still relying on semantic arguments, not realizing that is the concepts of equivanent circuits and circuit theory that are important and not the terminology. </p><p>Once again the pigeon knocks over the chess piecres, craps all over the board and flies home proclaiming victory,</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are truly amazing. Consider thisYou decry Priests's use of ficticious monopoles as a mathematical device, yet you laud the use of ficticious circuits by Alfven. Both are valid, and equally so.</DIV></p><p>Er, you're missing a critical point here. There is "current" flowing through that "plasma". There are no monoples running through that plasma. While it is logical to suggest that plasma can be modelled like a "circuit" because it's carrying charged particles from one point to another, it is utterly irrational to suggest it carries "monopoles", because monopoles do not exist in nature, and they violate the known laws of physics and they don't exist in plasma.. Charged paritlcle flow violates no laws of physics, whereas monoples do. Charged particles do flow through plasma, whereas monopoles do not. Get it?</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'>Er, you're missing a critical point here. There is "current" flowing through that "plasma". There are no monoples running through that plasma. While it is logical to suggest that plasma can be modelled like a "circuit" because it's carrying charged particles from one point to another, it is utterly irrational to suggest it carries "monopoles", because monopoles do not exist in nature, and they violate the known laws of physics and they don't exist in plasma.. Charged paritlcle flow violates no laws of physics, whereas monoples do. Charged particles do flow through plasma, whereas monopoles do not. Get it? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Priest did not say there are monopoles in space. Both instances are ideas/models/analogies, call it what you will, that describe the physics in a specific way. There are no monopoles(at least, to our knowledge at the time) in space or anywhere, much the same way there are not literal circuits floating around. Last I checked, the sun is not hooked into an actual breadboard and there aren't wires floating about. There are things that are analogous to these ideas(to a limited extent in the case of circuitry), but nobody who invokes such analogies is actually saying the subject of the analogy(monopoles, circuits, your "magical elves") is actually there.</p><p>I really don't think you understand what you quote. You see any mention of the word "circuit" or "electric" and bold it and say "see? look! they mentioned it!" without looking at HOW they say it. Instead, you try to put in your own interpretation and say that is what the quote is saying when it is in fact doing nothing of the sort. As DrRocket said, the idea of circuits CAN be applied to space plasmas...but ONLY under certain conditions. Just because Alfven may mention the words "space plasma" and "circuit" in the same sentence does not mean it can be applied everywhere, unless he explicitly says that(if he did, I'm sure it would've been pasted here and bolded countless times). You say there are charged particles flowing through space, which by definition is current, but that does NOT imply the whole universe is a circuit. Most circuits are characterized by current flow, but not all current flow implies a circuit. </p><p>The problem with this argument is you take an observed characteristic, say current flow, and start coming to all these fanciful conclusions that are only partially(at best) related to the work you speak of. So Birkeland created aurorae with current flow in the lab...nobody is arguing that current flow doesn't produce aurorae. The question is, how can the OBSERVED(not theoretical) acceleration of energies to suprathermal energies be explained? The spirit of Birkeland certainly isn't sitting up there in space with a cathode ray, flipping it on and off like he could in a lab. There has to be a mechanism that accelerates the electrons. This was not addressed in Birkeland's experiment. He started out with the electrons already at the proper energy level by using the cathode ray. People such as the THEMIS team PROPOSED the idea that maybe reconnection is responsible. Whether it is or not has no bearing on whether reconnection occurs or not. </p><p>My point is, I'm sure in your mind you view your arguments as sound and convincing, but to us it appears as though you are twisting things to fall in line with what the "bigshots" of EU(Manuel, Peratt, et al.) say. I understand there is some(a lot) of tension between yourself and DrRocket since you've been discussing this for quite a while, but he has been making valid points regarding the idea of equivalent circuits and such. It would benefit you and the rest of the thread if you'd read them and respond to them entirely(not picking it apart sentence by sentence) in a non-personal way, WITHOUT berating him for not reading Cosmic Plasma. The more you insist that someone does something, the less likely they are going to do it. In this case, this is because you seem to be being so unreasonable about this issue, there is no reason to believe that you will be reasonable later after we read the book and still have objections. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm trying to figure out how this denial thing on your end is going to play out. After all, he did write the book on plasma cosmology, as well as plasma physics. Sooner or later you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that he described the entire physicsl universe in terms of "circuits" and current flows through plasma. The term "circuit" is used over 200 times in Cosmic Plasma. It's an integrated part of his entire presentation. Sooner or later you're going to have to come to terms with that reality. The guy literally wrote the (math) book on EU theory. In the end, you can't excape that reality DrRocket, nor his continual use of "circuits" when dscribing the boundary conditions of space.I'm just amazed you're playing this game even after it's been shown repeatedly that Alfven used the concepts of "wires" and "circuits" very extensively in his work. You can't escape that reality. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>What I have seen of Alfven thus far is a picture of a competent physicist using standard tools and considerable physical intuition to describe a complex subject -- plasma physics. He was rather good at that. There were others who also were adept at the application of plasma physics to questions of astrophysics. Subrahamanyan Chandrasekhar, another Nobel laureate was also adept and among other things wrote the definitive book on the applications of MHD to stellar physics.</p><p>As I have noted the use of EQUIVALENT circuits as a tool in understanding a physical system is well-known and appropriate. But those circuits are not physical circuits and require understanding of the distributed parameter system and associated partial differential equations in order to be formulated in a valid manner. Alfven seems to have done that.</p><p>But if you are attempting to extend such a model to larger galactic and inter-galactic scales then there is going to be a problem. For not only do circuits not directly reflect effects of physical scale (schematic diagrams are rather independent of physical scale) they do not reflect the limitations of the speed of light either.</p><p>EU theory is nonsense whether espoused by Alfven in his dotage or not. Simply quoting Alfven and saying that "he wrote the book" is insufficient justification for anything. Like many extremely good physicists, Alfven had weaknesses. Einstein did not ever accept quantum theory, and his later years were spent in the fruitless pursuit of a theory that would unify general relativity with the electromagnetic theory. Einstein was basiclly wrong. Alfven's espousal of some aspects of EU theory (somewhat less wacko than the notion of a solid iron core for the sun or the major power for the sun coming from an external current) is not necessarily proof of those ideas, or even strong evidence.</p><p>We are apparently coming back to your only defense of outrageous ideas being "Alfven said". In many cases you misinterpret what it was that Alfven actually said. In others it is likely that Alfven was simply wrong, as is being shown by many current physicists and much recent data from very careful measurements.</p><p>The only thing that I have denied is that testimonial evidence is proof of anything. I have demonstrated that your interpretatoions of Alfven's actual statements has been faulty. And I completely deny that theories that are contradicted by empirical measurements and sophististicated models based on established theories backed my mountains of empirical data have any validity at all. In short your brand of EU theory is rubbish. The sun, as recognized by Alfven is almost completely ionized plasma gas, with no solid iron core. The sun is powered by relatively slow fusion reactions that take place in the interior, and it is not a giant neon light powered by an external electric current (any current of that magnitude would produce a magnetic field on the surface of the earth millions of times greater than what is empirically observed as I have shown you before with a mathematical calculation). Galactic rotational speeds are not explained by magnetic forces that would, if they followed the models that you referenced, apply a force perpendicular to the plane of rotation. So <strong>if</strong> you have evidence that Alfven promoted any such notions, my response then is simply that Alflven was wrong, and I would wonder if his mental state had declined markedly as he grew older -- that does happen. And that is reality.</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Double Layers and Circuits In Astrophysics covers this specific senario in question and Alfven describes these double layer events in terms of circuits and particle physics. In fact anytime he discussed current carrying plasma, this is the model he used. It's not that this material *only* exists in Cosmic Plasma. Much of this material is contained in various papers. This specific papers is directly related to the "magnetic reconnection/circuit reconnection" event in question. The double layer forms between the two circuits and kinetic energy is echanged between the two circuits. Anytime Alfven described current carrying plasma he used the term "circuits". <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I don't think mainstream has any issues with double layers. As with magnetic reconnection, double layers have their place when certain conditions are met. I think the issue is that EU proponent want to use their idol's description of double layers whenever there is any high energy cosmic particle accleration. Even magnetic reconnection proponents don't apply it to everything. Only particular scenarios. </p><p>Electric fields are not shunned by mainstream physicists. Given Maxwell's equations, I'm sure magnetic reconnection could be solved with E being the primary. I'd bet whoever tried would have to be intimately familiar and extremely capable, but it could probably be done. However, I think it would be enormously difficult and unnecessarily complicated... hence solving for B which provides the same results. Just my opinion. </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'>Einstein was basiclly wrong. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>He was wrong on a few things. No shame in that.<br /> </p><p>I like to draw a parallel between Einstein and Alfven in that they gave us the equations to work with. For that, they should be recognized. Once those equations became public, there were more than just a few that made it their life's work to understand those equations and create models from them. These folks, quite possibly, understood GR and MHD better than their respective authors. Just because Einstein and Alfven "wrote the book" doesn't mean their models based on "the book" are the correct models. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What I have seen of Alfven thus far is a picture of a competent physicist using standard tools and considerable physical intuition to describe a complex subject -- plasma physics. He was rather good at that. There were others who also were adept at the application of plasma physics to questions of astrophysics. Subrahamanyan Chandrasekhar, another Nobel laureate was also adept and among other things wrote the definitive book on the applications of MHD to stellar physics.</DIV></p><p>IMO you can add Schindler, Hesse and Birn to that list of competent MHD theorists. They didn't attempt to suggest "monopoles" were involved in the reconnection process and paid attention to the real physicsl processes in play. They didn't try to "oversimply" the whole process to B, rather then accounted for the E field explicitly and noted the movement of particles (real physical particles) that are taking place inside these plasma reconnection events. IMO Yevaud was right all along and this is in fact an issue of semantics. I'll write Birn today. I'd like to think about how I intend to phase and frame my question. I believe that if I do a professional enough job, he'll agree that this process can also be called "circuit reconnection" or perhaps "short-circuit reconnection". There is an active E field that drives the current flow events in plasma and at the most basic level, these are kinetic energy transfers between charged particles in a double layer. Alfven explicity treated such events from a "circuit' orientation and I have provided you with his paper that directly addresses the current flow inside of double layers so their can be no doubt about Alfven's position.</p><p>Priest was *not careful* in that one single paper. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually understood the particle physical processes, but he didn't describe them clearly, acurrately, or correctly. The only "particle" or energy being transfered inside the double layer is "particle kinetic energy" and "circuit energy". The whole energy of the entire circuit must be explicitly considered in such energy exchanges. The actual energy exchange takes place at the level of particle physics. The moving charged particles interact inside the current sheet, and no monopoles are involved in this kinetic energy exchange between the two "circuits".</p><p>Whereas Birn and Schindler and Hesse provided an adequate and useful explanation of this particle exchange event in plasma, Priests one paper did not. As I said, I'm more than happy to acknowledge that he's written better papers. I'm simply using his "bad" paper to illustrate my point. It's easy to confuse 'circuit reconnection" with "magnetic reconnection" if you try to oversimplify for B and invoke monopoles to do the energy transfer. In the real world of physics however, the plasma particles exchange kinetic energy and the ciruits more or less 'short circuit" until the plasma threads move away from each other. </p><p>Alfven was extremely careful to look at things from the perspective of particle physics and electrical engineering. He understood the implications of his work in MHD theory as it relates to both the fields of electrical engineering and also the field of nuclear chemistry. By explicitly using the "particle" or circuit viewpoint, he ensured that he used scientific terminology that was consistent with both of these other fields of science. By renaming "circuit reconnection' as "magnetic reconnection", IMO the mainstream has been "less than careful" in their presentation of this matiiel and it's implications for correctly interacting with other fields of science. Any electrical engineer, including Alfven would have referred to this double layer transaction as a "circuit" or "short circuit" type of reconnection process. Alfven tended to switch to a particle physical perspetive when looking at current sheet events and he would *never* have introduced "monopoles" into the discussion. Being careful is about using scientific terms properly in a way that is consistent with the energy exchange process and how these energy exchange events are expressed in other branches of science. In electrical engineering this is a "short circuit" between two "circuits". Alfven therefore explained it that way since he was an electrical engineer. A nuclear chemist might be a lot more interested in the kinetic energy transfer events themselves, particularly when z-pinch processes are involved and neutrons are being pinched from the plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As I have noted the use of EQUIVALENT circuits as a tool in understanding a physical system is well-known and appropriate. </DIV></p><p>And it is therefore appropriate to express all plasma interactions in space in terms of "circuits". That's exactly what Alfven did.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But those circuits are not physical circuits and require understanding of the distributed parameter system and associated partial differential equations in order to be formulated in a valid manner. Alfven seems to have done that.</DIV></p><p>Yes, Alfven explained all that math too. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But if you are attempting to extend such a model to larger galactic and inter-galactic scales then there is going to be a problem.</DIV></p><p>Let's stick to what's happening inside the solar system then for the time being. There are scaling issues to consider, and Peratt and Alfven have explained their beliefs related to the "bigger picture" issues. I'm nostly intererested in what's happening inside of our own solar system in CME events, auroras, coronal loops, and all the things that Birkeland created with 'circuit reconnection" and the mainstream is attributing to "magnetic reconnection".</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
Replying to
riest did not say there are monopoles in space. Both instances are ideas/models/analogies, call it what you will, that describe the physics in a specific way.But it described it the "wrong" way and for obvious reasons. Priest was attempting to *oversimply* everything to B. The only way to get an energy exchange from his completely "field" orientation was to introduce a "magnetic" sidekick to do the actual energy transfer. In the real world however, moving charged particles in the plasma are the things that actually do the energy transfer. He would have needed to add E back into the presentation so he opted to violate the laws of physics and introduce a ficticious particle/wave into the discussion that does not actually exist in nature. What does exist in nature and plasma are "charged particles" that move and tranfer their kinetic energy and circuit energy. Replying to: There are no monopoles(at least, to our knowledge at the time) in space or anywhere, much the same way there are not literal circuits floating around. There are no monopoles to our knowlwedge but Birkeland demonstrated conclusively that there in fact "circuits" floating around in space and around the Earth.Replying to:Last I checked, the sun is not hooked into an actual breadboard and there aren't wires floating about.According to Alfven all the "circuits" are intwoven circuits and the energy is transported by "wires" or "cables" or "ropes" of current carrying plasma filaments. The sun is in fact wired to a series of much large circuits in plasma cosmology theory. That's the whole basis of plasma cosmology theory in fact.Replying to: There are things that are analogous to these ideas(to a limited extent in the case of circuitry), but nobody who invokes such analogies is actually saying the subject of the analogy(monopoles, circuits, your "magical elves") is actually there.The transfer of particle kinetic energy is occuring inside the plasma. It moves circuit energy from one point to another, and an ordinary plasma ball demonstrates this conclusively. There are in fact "circuits" inside that plasma, but there are no monopoles and no elves in that plasma. Replying to:I really don't think you understand what you quote. Ya, but I'm the only one of us that's actually read the book. Put yourself in my shoes for a moment.Replying to:You see any mention of the word "circuit" or "electric" and bold it and say "see? look! they mentioned it!" without looking at HOW they say it. Instead, you try to put in your own interpretation and say that is what the quote is saying when it is in fact doing nothing of the sort.I provided you with a paper on this very same topic where Alfven refers to this exchange in terms of "circuits". IMO DrRocket is in pure denial of the fact that Alfven explicity refered to the whole of the universe as a series of interlaced and interwoven "circuits' of flowing charged particles.Replying to: As DrRocket said, the idea of circuits CAN be applied to space plasmas...but ONLY under certain conditions. Alfven applied that term to all events involving solar atmospheric events and interplantary space. Replying to:Just because Alfven may mention the words "space plasma" and "circuit" in the same sentence does not mean it can be applied everywhere, unless he explicitly says that(if he did, I'm sure it would've been pasted here and bolded countless times). The papers I've posted are plenty explicit enough on this topic. Replying to:You say there are charged particles flowing through space, which by definition is current, but that does NOT imply the whole universe is a circuit.It could be that the whole universe is one big series of interwoven and internconnected current carrying circuits. That is in fact how Alfven explained the "big picture". Replying to:Most circuits are characterized by current flow, but not all current flow implies a circuit. Alfven did however prefer to view this from a "particle'' and "circuit" oriented perspective and it was intentional on his part. He was an electrical engineer. When he saw these moving charged particles, he fully realized the implication in terms of electrical engineering and particle physics. He specfically accounted for the kinetic and circuit energy in such events. He wrote whole papers on the physics occuring in double layers just like the double layer between the two "circuits" in Birn's presentation. Replying to:The problem with this argument is you take an observed characteristic, say current flow, and start coming to all these fanciful conclusions that are only partially(at best) related to the work you speak of.The "conclusion' I come to, are exactly the same conclusions that Alfven came to in Cosmic Plasma. In fact I learned a whole lot from this book even after having read Birkeland's work pretty thuroughly. My conclusions are based on his work. Replying to: So Birkeland created aurorae with current flow in the lab...nobody is arguing that current flow doesn't produce aurorae.It was part of a "circuit" of energy! We can't simply ignore energy of the circuit because that circuit sustains the process. Turn off the circuit, the process stops too.Replying to: The question is, how can the OBSERVED(not theoretical) acceleration of energies to suprathermal energies be explained? Electrical discharges will certainly do the trick. It's about the only thing that will in fact. Even electromagnetic acceleration requires "circuits' and "particle flow" to create the magnetic field.The spirit of Birkeland certainly isn't sitting up there in space with a cathode ray, flipping it on and off like he could in a lab. It's techinically 'always on", and sometimes more active than at other time. It's sort of like having cathode ray on a dimmer switch.Replying to:There has to be a mechanism that accelerates the electrons.That assumption is based on the belief the the physical universe isn't a giant conductor since the electron acceration could come from an external energy source in such a scenario. Replying to:This was not addressed in Birkeland's experiment.Birkeland (and we) cannot necessarily address the original source of "current flow", but his model does explain how 'current flow' manifests inside in "circuits" inside our solar system. Alfven explicitly used the term "circuits" to describe events in interplanetary space.Replying to:He started out with the electrons already at the proper energy level by using the cathode ray.Whereas we would have to start at the teardrop shaped heliosphere and suggest it's carrying current just like the Earth's magenetopshere.It's getting busy at work. I'll check later to see if I missed anything important in the rest of your post. 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
riest did not say there are monopoles in space. Both instances are ideas/models/analogies, call it what you will, that describe the physics in a specific way.But it described it the "wrong" way and for obvious reasons. Priest was attempting to *oversimply* everything to B. The only way to get an energy exchange from his completely "field" orientation was to introduce a "magnetic" sidekick to do the actual energy transfer. In the real world however, moving charged particles in the plasma are the things that actually do the energy transfer. He would have needed to add E back into the presentation so he opted to violate the laws of physics and introduce a ficticious particle/wave into the discussion that does not actually exist in nature. What does exist in nature and plasma are "charged particles" that move and tranfer their kinetic energy and circuit energy. Replying to: There are no monopoles(at least, to our knowledge at the time) in space or anywhere, much the same way there are not literal circuits floating around. There are no monopoles to our knowlwedge but Birkeland demonstrated conclusively that there in fact "circuits" floating around in space and around the Earth.Replying to:Last I checked, the sun is not hooked into an actual breadboard and there aren't wires floating about.According to Alfven all the "circuits" are intwoven circuits and the energy is transported by "wires" or "cables" or "ropes" of current carrying plasma filaments. The sun is in fact wired to a series of much large circuits in plasma cosmology theory. That's the whole basis of plasma cosmology theory in fact.Replying to: There are things that are analogous to these ideas(to a limited extent in the case of circuitry), but nobody who invokes such analogies is actually saying the subject of the analogy(monopoles, circuits, your "magical elves") is actually there.The transfer of particle kinetic energy is occuring inside the plasma. It moves circuit energy from one point to another, and an ordinary plasma ball demonstrates this conclusively. There are in fact "circuits" inside that plasma, but there are no monopoles and no elves in that plasma. Replying to:I really don't think you understand what you quote. Ya, but I'm the only one of us that's actually read the book. Put yourself in my shoes for a moment.Replying to:You see any mention of the word "circuit" or "electric" and bold it and say "see? look! they mentioned it!" without looking at HOW they say it. Instead, you try to put in your own interpretation and say that is what the quote is saying when it is in fact doing nothing of the sort.I provided you with a paper on this very same topic where Alfven refers to this exchange in terms of "circuits". IMO DrRocket is in pure denial of the fact that Alfven explicity refered to the whole of the universe as a series of interlaced and interwoven "circuits' of flowing charged particles.Replying to: As DrRocket said, the idea of circuits CAN be applied to space plasmas...but ONLY under certain conditions. Alfven applied that term to all events involving solar atmospheric events and interplantary space. Replying to:Just because Alfven may mention the words "space plasma" and "circuit" in the same sentence does not mean it can be applied everywhere, unless he explicitly says that(if he did, I'm sure it would've been pasted here and bolded countless times). The papers I've posted are plenty explicit enough on this topic. Replying to:You say there are charged particles flowing through space, which by definition is current, but that does NOT imply the whole universe is a circuit.It could be that the whole universe is one big series of interwoven and internconnected current carrying circuits. That is in fact how Alfven explained the "big picture". Replying to:Most circuits are characterized by current flow, but not all current flow implies a circuit. Alfven did however prefer to view this from a "particle'' and "circuit" oriented perspective and it was intentional on his part. He was an electrical engineer. When he saw these moving charged particles, he fully realized the implication in terms of electrical engineering and particle physics. He specfically accounted for the kinetic and circuit energy in such events. He wrote whole papers on the physics occuring in double layers just like the double layer between the two "circuits" in Birn's presentation. Replying to:The problem with this argument is you take an observed characteristic, say current flow, and start coming to all these fanciful conclusions that are only partially(at best) related to the work you speak of.The "conclusion' I come to, are exactly the same conclusions that Alfven came to in Cosmic Plasma. In fact I learned a whole lot from this book even after having read Birkeland's work pretty thuroughly. My conclusions are based on his work. Replying to: So Birkeland created aurorae with current flow in the lab...nobody is arguing that current flow doesn't produce aurorae.It was part of a "circuit" of energy! We can't simply ignore energy of the circuit because that circuit sustains the process. Turn off the circuit, the process stops too.Replying to: The question is, how can the OBSERVED(not theoretical) acceleration of energies to suprathermal energies be explained? Electrical discharges will certainly do the trick. It's about the only thing that will in fact. Even electromagnetic acceleration requires "circuits' and "particle flow" to create the magnetic field.The spirit of Birkeland certainly isn't sitting up there in space with a cathode ray, flipping it on and off like he could in a lab. It's techinically 'always on", and sometimes more active than at other time. It's sort of like having cathode ray on a dimmer switch.Replying to:There has to be a mechanism that accelerates the electrons.That assumption is based on the belief the the physical universe isn't a giant conductor since the electron acceration could come from an external energy source in such a scenario. Replying to:This was not addressed in Birkeland's experiment.Birkeland (and we) cannot necessarily address the original source of "current flow", but his model does explain how 'current flow' manifests inside in "circuits" inside our solar system. Alfven explicitly used the term "circuits" to describe events in interplanetary space.Replying to:He started out with the electrons already at the proper energy level by using the cathode ray.Whereas we would have to start at the teardrop shaped heliosphere and suggest it's carrying current just like the Earth's magenetopshere.It's getting busy at work. I'll check later to see if I missed anything important in the rest of your post. 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<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't think mainstream has any issues with double layers. </DIV></p><p>Well, it certainly has different ways of describing events inside of double layers. Alfven looked at that process in terms of "circuits" and particles, whereas the mainstream is descrbing these events in terms of "magnetic reconnection". Yevaud could be right and this may simply be a matter of semantics, at least in the case of Schildler, Hesse and Birn's presentation of 'magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As with magnetic reconnection, double layers have their place when certain conditions are met.</DIV></p><p>IMO you have that backwards the double layer forms *because* the conditions are met. In other words that double layer of plasma forms bewteen the circuits to "insulate" them from a direct short circuit. The conditions dictate the behavior of plasma and this is just SOP (standard operator proceedure) of plasma. The "condition" that Alfven used to determine whether he looked at it from a particle physical/electrical viewpoint was whether or not it was carrying current. If that condition was met, he moved away from trying to undertand it from these events from what he refered to as the field (or magnetic) perspective. The conditions *are* met according to Alfven. In fact he explicitly rejected any sort of "magnetic reconnection" because it was unnecessary and confusing to look at it that way rather than from the perspective of particle physics. His naming convention and use of terms was directly related to his desire to keep MHD theory congruent with electrical theory and particle physics. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the issue is that EU proponent want to use their idol's description of double layers whenever there is any high energy cosmic particle accleration.</DIV></p><p>That is because double layers are the known source of acceleration events inside plasma in a lab. Why would we expect plasma to behave any differently in space?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Even magnetic reconnection proponents don't apply it to everything. </DIV></p><p>IMO that is the problem. They should. Electrical engineers do. That's why Alfven did. They should too. It would be far less confusing if they did. If and when we come across something that *can't* be explained by a double layer acceleration process, then it's logical to look elsewhere. There is however an obvious way to explain the acceleration of charged particles, specifically the energy exchange of a double layer. They have a double layer forming between the circuits. That's where the particle acceleration happens in "magnetic reconnection" theory too. They are one and the same definition.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Only particular scenarios. Electric fields are not shunned by mainstream physicists. Given Maxwell's equations, I'm sure magnetic reconnection could be solved with E being the primary.</DIV></p><p>Me too, but both fields are useful in understanding these kinetic energy transfer events. That's why I have no beef with Schindler's presenation and why I had big problems with Preists invokation of monopoles to describe plasma transactions inside of a double layer.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I'd bet whoever tried would have to be intimately familiar and extremely capable, but it could probably be done. However, I think it would be enormously difficult and unnecessarily complicated... hence solving for B which provides the same results. Just my opinion. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Well, I don't actually have any beef with the paper UFmbutler recommented. I had lots of problems with Priests explanation because it was devoid of any recognition of the actual energy transfer process, specifically the movement of charged particles through the double layer. Monopoles are not tranfering the kinetic energy between the two circuits. Charged particles are moving and transfering the kinetic energy between the two circuits. Birn's approach was much more accurate in defiing the actual "physics" going on, but their use of the term "magnetic reconnection" is in fact backwards. The particles and the circuits exchange energy and the circuits in the plasma rearrange themselves as a result of the short circuit process. No magnetic lines are disconnected or reconnected from an other magnetic field lines. At it's purest level is is simply a kinetic energy transfer process betweeen moving charged particles. It's pure physics, kinetic energy and charge attraction/repulsion in motion. There are no monopoles involved in these kinetic energy transfers, just charged particles.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
I would like to point out that Birn and Priest are pretty familiar with each other. They were coauthors on the book of magnetic reconnection I posted earlier(Birn being the primary author). So while Priest's paper may resonate poorly with you, he is essentially saying similar things to Birn. Have you emailed him yet? I am curious as to what he will say. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would like to point out that Birn and Priest are pretty familiar with each other. They were coauthors on the book of magnetic reconnection I posted earlier(Birn being the primary author). So while Priest's paper may resonate poorly with you, he is essentially saying similar things to Birn. Have you emailed him yet? I am curious as to what he will say. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Actually I was just adding a few of his own quotes from his paper to my email and looking for his email address in the earlier pages of the thread. I would have sworn you posted it here earlier, but I can't find it. If you would post it, or email me it to me at michael@etwebsite.com, I'll be sure to send it this evening.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Second, it is obvious that plasma particles must be present inside the plasmoid region in order to carry the current inside each closed magnetic field loop.</DIV></p><p>IMO, this quote is the difference between Birn's presenation and Priest's presentation. It may be "obvious" that this is the case to Birn, but that is not obvious in Priest's "explanation". It's also a critical issue. I can't make monpoles do what only electrical current can do. This one quote from Birn seems highly important. Here he's describing the real physical mechanism of kinetic energy transfer, and acknowledging the electrical current inside each "circuit.". IMO it's a much "better" and far less confusing explanation of the real physics going on inside the plasma circuits and the double layer between them.</p><p>I have no problem with the way Birn describes events in plasma because it's based on real physics and real physical particles. I'm sure that Priest may understand these points too, but he did not explain them correctly in his *one* paper. I'm not trying to suggest that the one paper is indicative of all of Priest's work, but this line from Birn's paper immediately conveyed a great deal more information about the actual physical process they are describing. </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'>Have you emailed him yet? I am curious as to what he will say. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>FYI, I did email him today. It wasn't exactly a "short" email, and it is Friday so it would be prudent to be patient. I too am very curious about his answer. We'll have to wait and see. </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'>FYI, I did email him today. It wasn't exactly a "short" email, and it is Friday so it would be prudent to be patient. I too am very curious about his answer. We'll have to wait and see. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>While you are waiting you might want to take a look at some of his recent paers. http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~eric/papers.html</p><p>Or other interests. http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~eric/<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually I was just adding a few of his own quotes from his paper to my email and looking for his email address in the earlier pages of the thread. I would have sworn you posted it here earlier, but I can't find it. If you would post it, or email me it to me at michael@etwebsite.com, I'll be sure to send it this evening.IMO, this quote is the difference between Birn's presenation and Priest's presentation. It may be "obvious" that this is the case to Birn, but that is not obvious in Priest's "explanation". It's also a critical issue. I can't make monpoles do what only electrical current can do. This one quote from Birn seems highly important. Here he's describing the real physical mechanism of kinetic energy transfer, and acknowledging the electrical current inside each "circuit.". IMO it's a much "better" and far less confusing explanation of the real physics going on inside the plasma circuits and the double layer between them.I have no problem with the way Birn describes events in plasma because it's based on real physics and real physical particles. I'm sure that Priest may understand these points too, but he did not explain them correctly in his *one* paper. I'm not trying to suggest that the one paper is indicative of all of Priest's work, but this line from Birn's paper immediately conveyed a great deal more information about the actual physical process they are describing. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I don't fully understand the difference and don't have time to research an answer for you, but there is a difference in the models Birn and Priest are explaining. Priest is modeling 2d reconnection while Birn is modelling 3d reconnection. </p><p>Apparently, 3d reconnection has stability issues, but I don't understand what those issues are. I've been terribly busy lately and don't have time to try to figure it out.</p><p>Any chance you could post what you emailed to Birn?<br /></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>Sorry I missed your message about sending you his email. It looks like you found it though. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>]<br /><p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">As I have noted the use of EQUIVALENT circuits as a tool in understanding a physical system is well-known and appropriate. (DrRocket)</div><p> </p><p>And it is therefore appropriate to express all plasma interactions in space in terms of "circuits". That's exactly what Alfven did.</p><p>Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>It requires a rather astounding leap of illogic to to take a statement that the use of the notion of EQUIVALENT circuits is appropriate under certain circumstances and with clear qualifiers and conclude from it that ALL PLASMA INTERACTIONS in space can be described in terms of CIRCUITS. I am quite sure that Alfven did not do that in the manner that you suggest -- he was somewhat smarter than that.</p><p>Your propensity to make conclusions based solely on terminology and to completely ignore the underlying physics is just unbelievable. You don't even bother to consider the definition of the terms involved. Where did you learn physics -- from a Thesaurus ?</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram