Then why not just call them what they are, "current threads" or "discharges"? Why give the process a name that is self conflicted? Magnetic lines lack physical substance and form a full and *COMPLETE* continuum, without beginning and without end. They can't "reconnect". Circuits can and do "reconnect". Why call it "magnetic reconnection" then at all?
Ohhhh playing word games again, MM. Just because you see only half of a loop, we should not call it loop. I think that any person looking at a picture of a coronal loop would call it a loop even if it is only half-a-one. This is just childish.
The magnetic field lines are naturally closed, the close again under the "surface" of the Sun. Why would the not. And yes, maybe to the uninitiated some of the terms that physicists use are a bit strange, when we talk about "open field line" for example, we do not mean that they are just flapping around on one end, we mean that the are not returning to the point where we see that the other starting point is.
Another weird example is hole-conduction in semi conductors, where the hole has both a mass and a charge, whereas there is actually nothing there. Confusing, yes, but sometimes you have to go more into the stuff to understand it. The same can be said for many a research direction and not necessarily only in physics.
Literally millions of them.
Well, you have looked at half-loops ...
Then they should be visible at the surface and also somewhat below the surface of the photosphere, particularly if they are heated at the bases of the loops by shear forces. Why would they only become visible "high up" in the atmosphere?
Because the loops are denser than their surroundings, because they are hot and emit radiation, because because because. Don't insult yourself by asking such questions MM. Only when the contrast is big enough can something be seen, take a picture of a bright white wall and someone standing in the shadow of a tree that is cast on the wall. If you don't use your flash you will not be able to see the face. Too little contrast.
They are not full circles and they have a definite footprint. If they start under the photosphere, why wouldn't we see them *AT* the photosphere?
see above
Birkeland called them by their proper name - discharges. So did Bruce.
Well, birkie was wrong then and bruce (whoever he is) too. It is not a discharge, it is escaping magnetic field from the surface of the sun. The terella experiment was only a analogue (as in your quoted birkie text) and an analogue does not mean that exactly the same is happening on the sun.
Yes, but the x-rays are not visible at the base of the 171A images.
Well, maybe your are looking at the wrong wavelength band? Just use ADS and find X-ray brightening of coronal loop foot points.
Here is a start for you. Not everything revolves around one pathetic wavelength.
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg[/qimg]
Notice the layered effect? What's that from?
It's layered because two images have been put on top of eachother.
You're trying to tell me that a "shearing effect" in plasma that is like 1/15th the density of air at sea level is going to cause plasma to reach a million degrees? Come on. What's the more likely "cause", shearing or "discharge"? That Birkeland current flying off the sun in the image I posted for David sure has all the "twists" one expects to find in a "Birkeland current".
The fact that YOU cannot imagine it happening does not mean that it does not happen. Apparently, you are not well versed in plasma physics. Just read up on all the papers I linked to, you might learn something.
Birkeland currents (in the global usage, which I do not favour, but anyway) are just
field aligned currents, nothing magical nothing special, but happening in magnetized plasmas over which an EMF is placed (beit through shearing or induction or what) and when these currents flow, their toroidal field will be added to the main field of the loop or filament or what-have-you-nots and twist the field. What is the big deal here? The fact that they are twisted means that there is current flowing which means that there is Ohmic dissipation. And how much dissipation, you might be surprised about how much, look it up in the literature.
That "twisting" helix shape in plasma is called a "Birkeland Current".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Magnetic_rope.png/300px-Magnetic_rope.png[/qimg]
It is often referred to as a "magnetic rope" as well, a term that Alfven explicitly explained as a "current carrying" z-pinch filament or Bennett pinch.
No, wrong, get your definitions straight! A Birkeland current is a magnetic field aligned current,
which will cause a toroidal field around the main field, and then you get a twist.
In special cases you may call this a magnetic rope (e.g. you may not call it that when you are discussing the REAL Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere) magnetic ropes are single entities, found e.g. in the solar wind, and whether or not it pinches is a whole different question.
What's with nature and all it's discharges? Discharges heat plasma to millions of degrees. "Shear" processes in wind never do that.
Wrong comparison MM, the shear of the magnetic field causes a time change of the magnetic field which creates an electric field which drives currents which can Ohmically dissipate.
I do always claim that plasma is a gas, but only for the right situations. Talking about magnetic shear and the currents it drives cannot be compared with a simple gas model like "shear winds" because now we are dealing with a real plasmaphysical phenomenon.
What the hell is ohmic heating in loops unless you have "current flow" heating the loops?
What part of my message did you not read MM? I clearly stated that in coronal loops currents are flowing. I claimed it at the top of the messages to which this was your reply and I claimed it several times hence. Bit short of memory are we, when we are excited about not understanding plasma physics.?
The currents in the coronal loops, driven e.g. by the shear motion of the foot points (and that means that both foot pionts do not move in the same way to clear that up for you) can have Ohmic disspation. You might remember that from your days at highschool P = I
2 R.
Look at any electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere. That's what I'm talking about. Nature has created a perfectly "natural" way to heat plasma to millions of degrees, namely by running electrons through plasma. What exactly do you mean is specifically *PHYSICALLY* unique and different from a standard discharge when you say "magnetic reconnection"? When did magnetic reconnection ever "naturally" occur on Earth or Mars or Saturn or any of the places where nature has been shown to generate huge discharges?
What do you think Ohmic disspation means?
Compared to the plasma in those loops, it's nothing. The plasma in the loops is OOMS hotter than the plasma doing the "shearing" you describe. It's one thing to expect a 10K shearing effect, it's quite another to expect shearing to cause million degree coronal loops.
As you obviously have not understood the shearing motion and the Ohmic dissipation, I will let this hang ...
The discharges in my plasma ball are constant as long as I leave the switch turned on. How does "magnetic reconnection" stay "constant" and heat even individual loops to millions of degrees again?
Again you have not understood a word of what I explained to you, just keep your mind closed MM, that way you don't have to worry.
Ok, so what? Birkeland's loops remained there for as long as he kept the power turned on. He had no problems with longevity of the loop because it wasn't "shear" force that powered it. A shear scenario would tend to be short lived.
And what makes you think that a shear scenario would be short lived? Read the papers describing this process? There are certain conditions that need to be fullfilled for a loop to flare, and it takes time to build that up.
Again, that is simply expected and predicted in Birkeland's work. What's your point?
My point is that they are not
discharges. Sheesh, read!
Which explains your witch trials related to anything about his work over at Baut?
What witch trial? I only object to false interpretations of the things that Birkeland has done, like the claims you are making.
The things I'm describing were all lab tested by Birkeland and his team, or postulated by Birkeland himself in the case of a fission power source. They created jets and loops and lots of the same things we observe in satellite images.
Yeah, and experimentation stopped after Birkeland died.
That should be done in a lab, not on website in cyberspace. Instead of spending all your time and money on magic magnetic fields I suggest you folks spend more time in the lab in real experimental settings with real plasma. In spite of all Birkeland's work you refuse to even discuss the bulk of his work on forums where you moderate and you hold witch trials for anyone who dares to do so. That is not science, that is religion. When are you folks ever going to stop playing with your invisible magic math constructs and get in a lab and practice real experimental science for a change? Plasma has predictable properties that are not that difficult to understand as long as you understand that it's "current carrying" plasma.
Nature does not "do" magnetic reconnection. It does generate "discharges" on virtually every planet in the solar system an it generates x-rays and gamma rays that way every single day. Why would you not expect discharges to occur in the solar atmosphere as well?
No, you could easily write down the equations MM, but then, you don't know the math, and you just throw around words and use Birkeland as your religion, without even trying to see wheter after Birkies death anything new has been discovered (a well maybe by B's acolyte Alfvén) or experimented on.
You are lost in the first half of the 20th century, MM, please try to catch up with the 21th century.
