Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
Apparently so, and apparently it explains that individual charged particles follow predictable and mathematically quantifiable paths when exposed to EM fields. They individually and collectively share that trait.
Click to expand...

That's true - but it's not useful when applied to 10^23 particles, because it's completely impossible to keep track of them all.

Yes one does have to learn to walk (with a single particle) before one can learn to run (with a bunch of them). It doesn't now however change the fact that these formulas relate to *PHYSICAL* things called "electrons", "ions" and "photons".
Click to expand...

You still don't get it. Sure, the formulas of MHD "relate" to electrons, ions etc., because MHD is often used as an approximate description of fluids containing them. But it does not describe the particles or molecules the fluid is composed of in any way, shape, or form other than in huge quantities and under certain conditions. From the MHD description, you couldn't determine what the particles are.

Look - MHD can be used to describe an extremely hot plasma. It can also be used to describe salty water at room temperature. Precisely the same theory, the same equations with a few parameters different - and yet the particles involved are totally different. Why does it work? Because the collective behavior in both cases is governed by the fact that both are fluids and both are electrically conductive. It makes almost no difference what the particles are, and the MHD approximation doesn't describe those differences.

Yes I would, and of course the "properties" (like the freezing point) of water are of interest. For instance, water does not behave in space at all the way "Newtons theories" might expect.
Click to expand...

Freezing point is a good example, actually. When water freezes, the hydrodynamic description totally breaks down. So that's one parameter you need if you want to know when hydrodynamics is valid (although of course knowing that still doesn't mean you know what the molecular constituents are). Similar things go for MHD - it will break down in various regimes (tus can tell you more about that than I can), and it's clearly desirable to know where. But MHD itself doesn't contain much information about where it will break down, any more than the Navier-Stokes equations for water tell you about the water-ice phase transition - that's something external you have to know about.

Tubbythin said:
Don't you mean dihydrogen monoxide?
Click to expand...

Oops - thanks. :blush:
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
sol invictus said:
That's just flat-out false. There's no equivocation, no way around it - it's just not true. Here's an explicit counterexample:

[latex]$\vec B(x,y, t) = a(t) y \hat x + b(t) x \hat y$[/latex].

If a and b are constants, nothing changes. But give them any time dependence at all (except a/b is constant) and the field lines reconnect at x=y=0. Draw a picture if you're not capable of doing the math (yes, MM, that means you).
Click to expand...
Before we can talk about what "connects" and "reconnects" at various locations, I need to ask you two basic "physics" questions, starting with the same question I put to tusenfem.

In terms of actual "physics" and physical things, what exactly *DO* you think these formulas relate to *if* not the charged particles of the plasma and not the photons of the EM field? Inquiring minds really want to know.

In terms of what "physically reconnects", what *physical things(s)* are you claiming is 'reconnecting' at *ANY* location in plasma?

I expect you to answer these two question too DRD.
Click to expand...
(bold added to last sentence)

I feel somewhat honoured, to be considered as belonging to an exclusive club of two members, with si the other one! :D

But as CMO (Chief Membership Officer) of this exclusive club, I have decided to invite several others to join: Ziggurat, tusenfem, Tubbythin, Reality Check, GeeMack, ..... and Zeuzzz.

However, while there are still only two members, allow me to quote from the collective works of these two:
DeiRenDopa said:
"Known forces of nature"

Here's an idea, wrt MM's "known forces of nature".

Start with gravity, which is, per his own statements, one such.

IIRC, MM proposed a very simple test which demonstrates that gravity, as a force of nature, exists*; something like this: hold your Tesco plasma ball in one hand, hand facing down; with your other hand underneath it, palm up, let go of the ball ... the ball will drop into your (lower) hand; ergo, gravity exists.

As was pointed out, and as is clear anyway, all this test shows is that the plasma ball falls when released from one's hand; to call that 'gravity' is rather underwhelming.

However, we can proceed empirically - being very careful to define just what we mean by this word - and do lots of tests with lots of different objects, in lots of different places, at lots of different times.

We will find - empirically - that there are plenty of cases where objects do not drop, or fall, when released; for example, a leaf on a windy day, a piece of wood released under water. And we need to confront the problem of induction too.

By being careful, and using induction, we can gradually build more and more powerful summaries of the results of hundreds, thousands, millions, ... of tests, and in the best of these summaries the word 'gravity' will be used, as will the word 'nature'.

In that sense the word 'gravity' may be said to have great explanatory (and predictive) power.

In parallel, and to some extent overlapping, we may develop other summaries of empirical tests (of 'nature') which include another word with great explanatory (and predictive) power, 'force'.

Historically, with some anachronisms and a bit of revisionism, this gets us up to somewhere in the 1500s, maybe a bit earlier, maybe a bit later.

Now we add a true revolution, which I shall term the quantitative revolution ... we can move on from nice word summaries to adding first numbers and then equations, and 'gravity as a force of nature' becomes something whose explanatory and predictive powers expand enormously ... but only if the equations and numbers are understood! We are now in the time of Galileo (more or less).

At that time the heavens and Earth were separate - nature consisted of two almost totally independent parts, each with its own 'forces'; how the planets moved across the sky, for example, had nothing to do with how cannon balls (and feathers) fell when let go.

Then, in the myth, an apple fell on Newton's head while he was gazing at the Moon (it was daytime) ... and nature became unified, and the universal law of gravitation was published.

It was quickly tested, by 'curve fitting' - applying math to points in the sky** - and found to work.

And a century or so later - well after Newton had died - a key part of Newton's law was tested in the lab.

So what does all this have to do with MM's ideas? A great deal actually.

First, 'known forces of nature' are so known via equations and numbers only; if you work at the 'qualitative' level, you cannot have 'known forces of nature'.

Second, a century (or more) may well pass between the first publication of the equations and numbers describing a 'known force of nature' and its testing in the lab.

Third, the application of math to points on the sky can lead to acceptance of a new 'force of nature'.

And so on.

Now we know, from a great many of MM's posts, that he rejects all three of the above points, especially the third one. This alone makes his approach to science very different than that of scientists - or at least physicists - over the past four+ centuries ... and it means that the discussion we should be having is not about Birkeland, the solar wind, inflation, Einstein's EFE, negative pressure, etc; rather it should be about what constitutes science (or at least physics).

If we were to have such a discussion, I think we'd find that a key aspect of MM's approach is an unstated, and possibly unrecognised, misunderstanding of equations and numbers; in short, a world where the quantitative revolution didn't happen.

* I think I've got it right; if not, would someone please point me to his post(s) which say otherwise?
** That's not exactly what MM said, in another context, but it's close, I think.
Click to expand...
(source)
sol invictus said:
DeiRenDopa said:
Now we know, from a great many of MM's posts, that he rejects all three of the above points, especially the third one. This alone makes his approach to science very different than that of scientists - or at least physicists - over the past four+ centuries ... and it means that the discussion we should be having is not about Birkeland, the solar wind, inflation, Einstein's EFE, negative pressure, etc; rather it should be about what constitutes science (or at least physics).
Click to expand...
Indeed. But such a discussion wouldn't be necessary with anyone other than MM, and with him it would be excruciatingly tedious.
If we were to have such a discussion, I think we'd find that a key aspect of MM's approach is an unstated, and possibly unrecognised, misunderstanding of equations and numbers; in short, a world where the quantitative revolution didn't happen.
Click to expand...
One relatively interesting question related to that is why math works so well (whether being long since settled in everyone's mind but MM's). I think the answer is that math is science in the sense that it is discovered rather than invented. That is, it might appear that we invented math - we made up some arbitrary rules and played with them. But if that were the case one wouldn't expect it to work as a description of physics any better than English words do. Instead, we are capable of making incredibly precise predictions and checking them.

How can that be? Only if math is simply a symbolic expression of a deep set of truth about the world - that it operates according to the rules of logic.
Click to expand...
(source)

So, the simplest answer to your first question ("In terms of actual "physics" and physical things, what exactly *DO* you think these formulas relate to *if* not the charged particles of the plasma and not the photons of the EM field?") is something like "magnetic fields described in a quantitative form that is logically and mathematically consistent with Maxwell's equations (and, in case you have forgotten, these equations are consistent with the totality of experimental and observational results of the late 19th century)." Going a little further, if you wish to relate the equation(s) to charged particles in a plasma and photons, then you need to switch to QED, and recognise that Maxwell's equations are only an approximation.

I'm sorry to say that your second question ("In terms of what "physically reconnects", what *physical things(s)* are you claiming is 'reconnecting' at *ANY* location in plasma?") is not meaningful to me ... would you mind clarifying please?

The bottom line here MM is this: as with "known forces of nature", the "*physical things*" at the heart of this sub-thread on plasmas, magnetic reconnection, etc can be understood only in terms of the ~half millennium old quantitative revolution in physics. Sadly, there is an abundance of evidence - objective, incontrovertible, independently verifiable evidence - that you, MM, live in a world where this revolution has yet to happen ... and it follows that you will not, nay cannot, understand the answers I have given^.

^ ditto those, future, ones by si, and any other members of the (newly expanded) club ...
 
Michael Mozina said:
I want to hear Sol and DRD respond to this question as well. I want to see if they are as clueless as you are.
Click to expand...
Wow! Nominated twice now to be in an exclusive club!! :D

Here's tusenfem's earlier post, that lead to MM's (quoted):
tusenfem (extract) said:
Michael Mozina said:
The movement of charged particles creates "magnetic fields', but that EM field is carried by photons. The only "things" that MHD theory describe or can describe are the particles of plasma (the electrons/protons/ect) and the photons that make up the EM field. You don't even seem to understand *WHAT* these formulas relate to in terms of actual physical things like photons and the actual particles of plasma. In terms of actual "physics" and physical things, what exactly *DO* you think these formulas relate to if not the charged particles of the plasma and not the photons of the EM field? Inquiring minds really want to know.
Click to expand...
(my bold)
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! MHD has an H which stands for hydro, this theory describes the plasma as a fluid NOT as particles.
Click to expand...
MM, I'm sure you were already pretty certain of the answer before either si or DRD replied (ditto Tim Thompson, maybe in the future), and since your post (that I am quoting), si has joined tusenfem in clueless-land (as have several others).

Well, I am honoured to say that I am, in this particular case, as clueless as tusenfem ... MHD treats plasmas as fluids, as is obvious from even a cursory read of any standard textbook ...
 
sol invictus said:
That's true - but it's not useful when applied to 10^23 particles, because it's completely impossible to keep track of them all.
Click to expand...

Alfven's "method" of describing MHD theory begins with the discussion of the flow of a single charged particle. Only by understanding the effect of the EM field on a single charged particle, can you begin to appreciate the effect of MANY such particles and a "flow" of such particles. He certainly "kept track" of single charged particles. Their is a "fluid-like" component to plasma, but the magneto side of MHD theory is all about understanding the effect of the EM field on individual and collective charged particles. Even the charge of the particle has a very significant outcome on it's movement patterns in the EM field. We don't need to "keep track of them all" once we figure out what happens to a few test particles, but it is often handy (and Alfven's personal teaching technique) to simply look at the flow of a single charged particle to understand the "flow patterns" that occur when we put many of them into the 'circuit'. Alfven continually refers to these current flows in terms of circuits and "particles". You can't ignore influence of the EM field any particles.

You still don't get it. Sure, the formulas of MHD "relate" to electrons, ions etc., because MHD is often used as an approximate description of fluids containing them.
Click to expand...

Well, ultimately the math is designed to "approximate the physical processes that occur inside the plasma."

But it does not describe the particles or molecules the fluid is composed of in any way,
Click to expand...

Sure it does. Even the charge of the particle matters.

From the MHD description, you couldn't determine what the particles are.
Click to expand...

From the MHD description we realize that individual particles act "collectively" and form "organized structures" like those Birkeland currents and plasma filaments in an ordinary plasma ball. It's advantageous now in MHD theory to treat them as "circuits" rather than individual charged particles.

Look - MHD can be used to describe an extremely hot plasma.
Click to expand...

The only way we're going to generate that much "heat" in a light plasma is to add "circuit energy" to the system. While plasma is an "excellent' conductor, it is not a 'perfect' conductor, and heating occurs as a result of the current flow in and through the plasma and the collisions that occur inside the z-pinch. We observe this heating process in nature in every discharge here on Earth.

It can also be used to describe salty water at room temperature. Precisely the same theory, the same equations with a few parameters different - and yet the particles involved are totally different. Why does it work? Because the collective behavior in both cases is governed by the fact that both are fluids and both are electrically conductive. It makes almost no difference what the particles are, and the MHD approximation doesn't describe those differences.
Click to expand...

But your "salty water" has "properties" that mimic plasma. The "properties" of the "particles" that make up the medium matters a great deal. It's only because the salt water molecules conduct electrical energy and have a north and south pole these formulas work in a similar way. The properties of the particle matter.

Oops - thanks. :blush:
Click to expand...

Oh well, I missed it too darn it. ;)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Their is a "fluid-like" component to plasma, but the magneto side of MHD theory is all about understanding the effect of the EM field on individual and collective charged particles.
Click to expand...

Michael, this is very simple. The "H" in MHD stands for "hydro". That means the plasma (or salty water, or whatever) is treated mathematically as though it was a completely continuous substance, with no molecular substructure.

Don't believe me? Go look at the equations. Notice how everything involved is a field, a density, a viscosity, etc.? Notice how there are no indices keeping track of individual particles?

Sure it does. Even the charge of the particle matters.
Click to expand...

Of course the properties of the particles matter - for example if there were no charged particles at all in the fluid in question, you could forget about the "M" in MHD. No one ever said otherwise. But they only matter in so far as they determine the bulk properties of the fluid - its conductivity, viscosity, etc. Given just those parameters, you have all you need to do MHD. And the map only goes one way: you cannot reconstruct the properties of the constituent particles given the MHD description, and you certainly cannot keep track of the motions of individual particles.

If you take a poll of 1,000 random people, you can extrapolate that it to a much larger group - say an entire country. Now, would you regard that extrapolation as a description of all the individuals in that entire country? Of course not, since the poll only sampled a tiny fraction of all those people, and only asked them a few questions. And yet, the poll (if it was done well) is useful for predicting some aspects of the mass behavior of all the people in the country under some circumstances, like who they're going to elect next week.

Obviously the beliefs of those people matter for the results of the poll, as does knowing something about how individuals behave (for example, that they rarely switch from extreme left to extreme right in one week) - but the poll results don't tell you anything about how any particular individual will vote, because they don't keep track of that.

I don't know how I can make this any more clear...
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
Wow! Nominated twice now to be in an exclusive club!! :D
Click to expand...

If by "exclusive club", you mean people that have no clue about the actual physics going on inside the plasma, wow, what an honor. :)

Well, I am honoured to say that I am, in this particular case, as clueless as tusenfem ... MHD treats plasmas as fluids, as is obvious from even a cursory read of any standard textbook ...
Click to expand...

Tusenfem also promotes something that Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" and tusenfem has no idea of what is physically occurring inside the plasma at the point of "reconnection".

MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits as any of Alfven's later writings will attest. At the level of physics, there is a kinetic energy transfer process going on between plasma particles and the EM field carrier particles inside plasma. It's not a 'magnetic" process, it's an *ELECTROmagnetic* process that has a *PHYSICAL* component to it. As long as you ignore the physics, it may be possible to believe that "magnetic lines" (which lack physical substance) can "reconnect". Particles and circuits reconnect. When photons of a changing EM field influence the movement of charged particles that is called "induction". It has a proper name already.

There are only two possible sources of the kinetic energy at the point of reconnection, plasma particles and carrier particles of the EM field, AKA photons. Induction has a proper name, so any movement of the particles as a result of changes to the EM field are not a form of "magnetic reconnection", they are a form of induction. There is no physics to support your belief in "magnetic reconnection". The only two sources of kinetic energy are "particle kinetic energy" and the EM carrier particles that go along for the ride.

A "reconnection" inside a current sheet is nothing more than a "short circuit" between two ordinary filaments, the same kind of pinched filaments inside a plasma ball. While the "circuits' may reconnect, and induction may occur as a result of changes in the magnetic field during the transition period, but the total circuit energy determines what happens at the point of 'reconnection'.

At the level of physics, there are only plasma particles and carrier particles of the EM field to transfer energy at the point of 'reconnection'. What else exists *physically* that can "reconnect"? Induction is not "magnetic reconnection". Circuit reconnection is not "magnetic reconnection'. A short circuit between two z-pinched filaments is not a form of "magnetic reconnection', it is a form of "circuit reconnection".
 
Michael Mozina said:
At the level of physics, there is a kinetic energy transfer process going on between plasma particles and the EM field carrier particles inside plasma.
Click to expand...

Back to this old misconception, I see. Michael, this has been explained to you before, in great detail: the potential energy stored in electromagnetic fields is not kinetic energy.

When photons of a changing EM field influence the movement of charged particles that is called "induction". It has a proper name already.
Click to expand...

You will find that photons appear nowhere within the MHD equations. Or even Maxwell's equations.
 
sol invictus said:
Michael, this is very simple. The "H" in MHD stands for "hydro".
Click to expand...

Nobody doubts this sol. The M in there stands for magneto, and even the charge of the particles influence the movement of the fluid-like plasma. You can't ignore plasma properties like charge. They matter too.

Sooner or later you're going to recognize that there there is a physical process occurring in the plasma between electrons, ions and carrier particles of the EM field which all these mathematical equations attempt to "describe". The particles do the "reconnecting", not the 'magnetic lines'. The circuit energy determines the "reconnection rate" at the point of 'reconnection'. It is all about "circuits' and "particles" at the point of kinetic reconnection. The magnetic line is nothing but a "carrier particle". It is therefore "particle reconnection". It is also logical and rational to call it "circuit reconnection". It is irrational to call it "magnetic reconnection' because magnetic lines are nothing more than carrier particles in motion and the transfer of energy between photons and charged particle is kinetic in nature, and it has a proper name in "circuits", called "induction".
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Nobody doubts this sol. The M in there stands for magneto, and even the charge of the particles influence the movement of the fluid-like plasma. You can't ignore plasma properties like charge. They matter too.
Click to expand...

What, you think charge can't be treated as a continuum property? Of course it can be. And it usually is.

But perhaps you just don't understand what everyone means by "continuum" here. Is that your difficulty?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Nobody doubts this sol. The M in there stands for magneto, and even the charge of the particles influence the movement of the fluid-like plasma. You can't ignore plasma properties like charge. They matter too.
Click to expand...

I like how you completely ignored the rest of my post: like where I said
Of course the properties of the particles matter
Click to expand...
and explained precisely how. That kind of stupidly transparent trick doesn't buy you anything, Michael.

Anyway, this little sub-conversation is over. You were dead wrong, as usual - MHD does not describe particles; it's a continuum fluid approximation - and we've beaten it into the ground to the point even you must know it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What are the carrier particles of the EM field
Click to expand...

There are no carrier particles in classical electrodynamics. There aren't carrier particles in any classical field theory. Photons are the carrier particles in quantum electrodynamics, but MHD doesn't use quantum electrodynamics, it uses classical electrodynamics. Don't you know this?
 
sol invictus said:
MHD does not describe particles;
Click to expand...

MHD theory does describe the collective moment of charged particles in terms of "circuits" and "particle flow". As long as you refuse to acknowledge the electro half of "electromagnetism", you'll continue to be mystified by things Birkeland understood and "predicted" over 100 years ago. These high temp plasmas have *NOTHING* to do with "magnetic reconnection" and everything to do with "current flow" inside of plasma. Even single coronal loops reach millions of degrees, not just the ones that "reconnect" with other loops. MHD theory certainly does describe these particle/circuit behaviors in plasma and it has a "particle" (E) orientation as well as a field (B) orientation. Alfven switched between them interchangeably but he understood *WHICH* methods worked best in specific conditions. Your industry only understands the B field orientation of MHD theory and you utterly ignore the particle orientation which Alfven applied to all activities in space.
 
Michael Mozina said:
So by "classical", I'm supposed to now limit my understanding of the EM field to what we knew in the 19th century?
Click to expand...

I don't care what you do with your "understanding", such as it is. But MHD uses classical electrodynamics, not quantum electrodynamics. And there are no photons in classical electrodynamics.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't care what you do with your "understanding", such as it is. But MHD uses classical electrodynamics, not quantum electrodynamics. And there are no photons in classical electrodynamics.
Click to expand...

I don't care if there are photons in classical electrodynamics. There are photons in nature and they are the recognized carrier particle of the EM field.
 
Michael Mozina said:
[...]

MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits as any of Alfven's later writings will attest.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

OK, that should be easy enough to demonstrate ...

... please provide BOTH an MHD equation from one of Alfvén's "later writings" AND its derivation (together with a sufficiently unambiguous reference), and explain how plasmas (or a plasma) are (is) treated as particles.

For avoidance of doubt, my question is about an equation and its derivation.

At the level of physics, there is a kinetic energy transfer process going on between plasma particles and the EM field carrier particles inside plasma. It's not a 'magnetic" process, it's an *ELECTROmagnetic* process that has a *PHYSICAL* component to it. As long as you ignore the physics, it may be possible to believe that "magnetic lines" (which lack physical substance) can "reconnect". Particles and circuits reconnect. When photons of a changing EM field influence the movement of charged particles that is called "induction". It has a proper name already.

[...]
Click to expand...
OMG, you really don't have a clue, do you?

Déjà vu all over again, with the Casimir effect and pressure on the side ...
 
Michael Mozina said:
I don't care if there are photons in classical electrodynamics. There are photons in nature and they are the recognized carrier particle of the EM field.
Click to expand...

Nobody denied that. But photons can frequently be ignored because the classical description is sufficient. Likewise individual particles of a fluid can frequently be ignored and only the continuum properties (density, viscosity, etc) considered, as in the Navier-Stokes equation. And in MHD? The individual particles (including photons) are also ignored. It is a classical continuum theory. Nobody denies that the particles exist, but there's simply no need to treat them individually. So we don't. Yes, yes, Alfven mentions individual particles when describing electrodynamics in his intro. Ever heard of the concept of a "test charge"? That's what he's talking about. The actual equations, the actual math that Alfven does with MHD, is all continuum.

But you wouldn't know that, because you've never actually done a calculation in your life.

And once again, even in quantum electrodynamics, the energy stored in electric and magnetic fields is not kinetic energy.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nobody denied that. But photons can frequently be ignored because the classical description is sufficient.
Click to expand...

At the point of "reconnection" it's "sufficient" to call it "induction" too. If we're going to look at what physically occurs in the plasma based on a more "modern" understanding of the process, we see this is simply "particle reconnection" between electrons, ions and photons.

Likewise individual particles of a fluid can frequently be ignored and only the continuum properties (density, viscosity, etc) considered, as in the Navier-Stokes equation.
Click to expand...

Alright, sure under *SOME* circumstances we're better off looking at the process from the "field" orientation. In light current carrying plasma however (everywhere in space) it is often important to consider the particle/circuit orientation and note the boundary conditions due to the circuit configurations.

And in MHD? The individual particles (including photons) are also ignored. It is a classical continuum theory. Nobody denies that the particles exist, but there's simply no need to treat them individually.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you must treat an electron differently than a proton inside the same plasma. You can't simply ignore the individual properties of individual particles.

So we don't. Yes, yes, Alfven mentions individual particles when describing electrodynamics in his intro.
Click to expand...

And yes, yes, Maxwell's equations apply to all the charged particles in the plasma, both individual and collectively.

Ever heard of the concept of a "test charge"? That's what he's talking about. The actual equations, the actual math that Alfven does with MHD, is all continuum.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but you folks *IGNORE* the math you don't like. You ignored his "solutions" to these same solar activities in terms of "circuits". Why?

But you wouldn't know that, because you've never actually done a calculation in your life.
Click to expand...

Man are you folks desperate or what?

And once again, even in quantum electrodynamics, the energy stored in electric and magnetic fields is not kinetic energy.
Click to expand...

Please explain then how electrons start moving in the secondary in an ordinary coil. Where do they get their kinetic energy?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
(bold added)

OK, that should be easy enough to demonstrate ...

... please provide BOTH an MHD equation from one of Alfvén's "later writings"
Click to expand...

Cosmic Plasma, page 6, chapter 1

I .3 . Field and Particle Aspects of Plasmas

We have discussed the translation of results from one region to another . However, another translation which is equally important is the translation between a magnetic field description and a current description of plasma phenomena. Space measurements of magnetic fields are relatively easy, whereas dri ect measurements of electric currents are very difficult, in many cases impossible . Hence, it is natural to present the results of space exploration (from spacecrafts and from astrophysical observations) with pictures of the magnetic field configuration . Furthermore, in magnetohydrodynamic theories, it is convenient to eliminate the current (i = current density) and to represent electric currents by curl B. This method is acceptable in the treatment of a number of phenomena (see Figure I .4).
However, there are also a number of phenomena which cannot be treated in this way, but which require an approach in which the electric current is taken account of explicitly.

The translation between the magnetic field description and the electric current description is made with the help of Maxwell's first equation
The displacement current can usually be neglected . However, it is often convenient to account for the kinetic energy of a magnetized plasma by introducing the permittivity e = eo (1 + (c/VA )2 ), where c and VA are the velocities of light and of hydromagnetic waves (CE 3 .4.4) . If this is done, the displacement current is often large.
Click to expand...

If you want the rest of the math formulas, go look them up for yourself.
 
Michael Mozina said:
At the point of "reconnection" it's "sufficient" to call it "induction" too.
Click to expand...

We've been over this before too, Michael. Nobody cares if you have semantic objections to the term "magnetic reconnection".

Sometimes you must treat an electron differently than a proton inside the same plasma. You can't simply ignore the individual properties of individual particles.
Click to expand...

Which is why MHD can sometimes fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics
"MHD is a continuum theory and as such it cannot treat kinetic phenomena, i.e. those in which the existence of discrete particles or of a non-thermal velocities distribution, are important."
Regardless of what you think is important, regardless of what is important, MHD does in fact ignore the properties of individual particles. Those properties appear nowhere in the equations of MHD.

Please explain then how electrons start moving in the secondary in an ordinary coil. Where do they get their kinetic energy?
Click to expand...

There is a transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy. Freshman physics, Michael.
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
OK, that should be easy enough to demonstrate ...

... please provide BOTH an MHD equation from one of Alfvén's "later writings"
Click to expand...
Cosmic Plasma, page 6, chapter 1



If you want the rest of the math formulas, go look them up for yourself.
Click to expand...
Let's remind ourselves of my actual question, shall we?

Here it is, in bold:

please provide BOTH an MHD equation from one of Alfvén's "later writings" AND its derivation (together with a sufficiently unambiguous reference), and explain how plasmas (or a plasma) are (is) treated as particles.

For avoidance of doubt, my question is about an equation and its derivation.

The first part, immediately after "BOTH", is "an MHD equation".

Now I appreciate that for you, MM, mathematics more advanced than arithmetic is extremely challenging; however, your post contains no MHD equations, let alone any derivations of them.

Would you like to try again?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Indeed, but you folks *IGNORE* the math you don't like.
Click to expand...


This from a guy who ignores all math!
:dl:​

So how's the work coming along on that experiment, Michael? I'm sure you agree that unless you can show the experiment that demonstrates a method for seeing below several thousand kilometers of opaque plasma by looking at graphs of mathematical equations created from data obtained several thousand kilometers above that opaque plasma, it doesn't meet your standards of evidence. Oh, and if you ever do come up with the experiment, make sure it can be done right here on Earth, is mathematically reasonable and physically consistent, repeatable, with no fudge factors and nothing metaphysical. And do make sure it's objective, you know, so that other people performing the same experiment can be expected to come to the same conclusion you have.

Or how about you just take down that running difference graph from your web site like an honest person who doesn't live with an unsupportable delusion would do? Like a rational, sane, intelligent person would do? After all, you wouldn't want anyone thinking you're not, like, honest, sane, or intelligent, would you, Michael? ;)

(Another tantrum? Probably. Maybe more sheer ignorance? Likely that, too. Any way about it I'd be willing to bet $50 paid to my favorite charity against Michael's $50 paid to his that he won't offer up the experiment... again.)
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Let's remind ourselves of my actual question, shall we?

Here it is, in bold:

please provide BOTH an MHD equation from one of Alfvén's "later writings" AND its derivation
Click to expand...


I'm not your math mommy. If you're interested in a derivation, go look it up for yourself!

Would you like to try again?
Click to expand...

Er, no. Like I said before, I'm not going to bark math for you on command anymore. I did that one time for you on a public forum and that's all you will *EVER* get from me. You ignored my last mathematical presentation, pretty spread sheet and everything, so it's clear you have no interest in the math, it's just 'busy work'.
 
Ziggurat said:
We've been over this before too, Michael. Nobody cares if you have semantic objections to the term "magnetic reconnection".
Click to expand...

Alfven rejected it too. Why? It's not personal to "Michael Mozina", and the guy with the Nobel prize also rejected that notion as "pseudoscience". Why do you suppose *HE* did that?

Which is why MHD can sometimes fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics
Click to expand...

Ya, I noticed there is a "citation needed" comment right after than line too. As if Wiki is the most accurate of scientific information too, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection
A current sheet (as shown) may be present but is not required for reconnection to occur. This process is not well understood: once started, it proceeds many orders of magnitude faster than predicted by calculation from first principles.
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me that the current sheet is actually "optional"? Please demonstrate that Wiki claim for me too.

Regardless of what you think is important, regardless of what is important, MHD does in fact ignore the properties of individual particles.
Click to expand...


No, it does not. It fully recognizes that electrons and protons will act differently in the presence of EM fields.

There is a transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy. Freshman physics, Michael.
Click to expand...

How does it do that? The answer to that isn't going to be found in "Freshman physics".
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
Let's remind ourselves of my actual question, shall we?

Here it is, in bold:

please provide BOTH an MHD equation from one of Alfvén's "later writings" AND its derivation
Click to expand...
I'm not your math mommy. If you're interested in a derivation, go look it up for yourself!

Would you like to try again?
Click to expand...

Er, no. Like I said before, I'm not going to bark math for you on command anymore. I did that one time for you on a public forum and that's all you will *EVER* get from me. You ignored my last mathematical presentation, pretty spread sheet and everything, so it's clear you have no interest in the math, it's just 'busy work'.
Click to expand...

(quoting MM's post, reply, in full, for the record)

As you wish.

MM's inability, so far, to provide any objective, independently verifiable, evidence to back his (outrageous, ridiculous) claim that "MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits as any of Alfven's later writings will attest" is hereby noted.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Alfven rejected it too. Why?
Click to expand...

I don't really care.

It's not personal to "Michael Mozina"
Click to expand...

That will be relevant once Alfven starts posting here. But for the moment, you are the one voicing an objection.

Ya, I noticed there is a "citation needed" comment right after than line too. As if Wiki is the most accurate of scientific information too, right?
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is convenient. And that claim is correct. Which is why you can't show anything that contradicts the part I quoted. If it's wrong, that should be quite easy: just show a MHD equation which takes into account the particle nature of the charge carriers. But you won't do that. In fact, you can't do that, because MHD is indeed an explicitly continuum theory.

No, it does not. It fully recognizes that electrons and protons will act differently in the presence of EM fields.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, Michael. MHD makes no reference to protons and electrons. Neither do Maxwell's equations. Both distinguish between positive and negative charges, but the particle nature of those charges is not included.

How does it do that? The answer to that isn't going to be found in "Freshman physics".
Click to expand...

Yes, actually, the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy is indeed covered in Freshman physics. But you've long had trouble grasping the concept of potential energy.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
(quoting MM's post, reply, in full, for the record)

As you wish.

MM's inability, so far, to provide any objective, independently verifiable, evidence to back his (outrageous, ridiculous) claim that "MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits as any of Alfven's later writings will attest" is hereby noted.
Click to expand...

DRD's inability to read or respond to the materials written by Alfven that have already been provided are so noted.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...eq=no_params&author=Alfven, Hannes&db_key=AST
 
Ziggurat said:
[...]

If it's wrong, that should be quite easy: just show a MHD equation which takes into account the particle nature of the charge carriers. But you won't do that. In fact, you can't do that, because MHD is indeed an explicitly continuum theory.

[...]
Click to expand...
(bold added)

MM's is now 0 for 2 in this regard; maybe if GM, RC, si, tusenfem, TT, ... were to ask the same question, each would have the pleasure of not being answered by MM too ... :p

But wait! Didn't tusenfem already ask a similar question, and get a non-answer? Perhaps MM is really 0 for 3 already?
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't really care.
Click to expand...

You don't really care because it doesn't suit you to care. If you did care, you would have to figure out why you're in direct disagreement with the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory on this topic. You would have to figure out *WHY* you disagree with *HIM* on this topic and that would blow your entire show.

That will be relevant once Alfven starts posting here. But for the moment, you are the one voicing an objection.
Click to expand...

I'm simply quoting the author of MHD theory on this topic Zig. My math skills or lack thereof have nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. It's not *MY* personal objection, it's Alfven's objection too. It's "pseudo-science" because it's "pseudo-accurate'. The "more accurate' way to address these issues is via the "particle" and yes, he calls it the "particle" side of MHD theory. That is the side of MHD theory you simply ignore but that Alfven applied to many, many, many,many, many different topics related to space plasmas. You're welcome to read any of those papers anytime you like.

Alfven was first and foremost an electrical engineer. He realized that all transactions inside the double layer were driven by larger "circuits" and he explicitly explains astronomical events in terms of circuits and even uses the term "short circuits" in his presentations. You aren't going to change history simply by ignoring it and these are his views, not just mine. I don't actually agree with all of them personally, but hey, I'm closer to his position on the universe than to yours. :)
 
DeiRenDopa said:
But wait! Didn't tusenfem already ask a similar question, and get a non-answer? Perhaps MM is really 0 for 3 already?
Click to expand...

Um, you're now something like 0 for 200+ papers that Alfven personally wrote on these topics. I could not *POSSIBLY* do any worse than you at non-responsiveness, like your inability to address anything at all in any of the images on my website, starting with the RD and Kosovichev Doppler images. You utterly suck at responding to anything.
 
Last edited:
MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits according to Alfven

Michael Mozina said:
MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits as any of Alfven's later writings will attest
Click to expand...
First asked 29 July 2009
MHD theory is defined as
Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magnetofluiddynamics or hydromagnetics) is the academic discipline which studies the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water. The word magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is derived from magneto- meaning magnetic field, and hydro- meaning liquid, and -dynamics meaning movement. The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén[1], for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.
The idea of MHD is that magnetic fields can induce currents in a moving conductive fluid, which create forces on the fluid, and also change the magnetic field itself. The set of equations which describe MHD are a combination of the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics and Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. These differential equations have to be solved simultaneously, either analytically or numerically. MHD is a continuum theory and as such it cannot treat kinetic phenomena, i.e. those in which the existence of discrete particles or of a non-thermal velocities distribution, are important.[citation needed]
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)
Thus by definition there are no particles in MHD theory.

MHD is used to describe plasmas. Se there are descriptions like "the plasma flows along the magnetic field". There are also descriptions like "the particles in the plasma flows along the magnetic field".
Thus descriptions of the applications of MHD theory to plasmas can mention particles.

Can you give a citation to where Alfven states that he derives the equations of MHD from collections of particles rather than a fluid?

This should be easy. Just read his book. These should be lots of sums over particle properties, e.g. the sum of the magnetic fields of particles.
 
Last edited:
I don't suppose *ANY* of you have actually looked at or responded to that the white light flare I cited in the LMSAL video? Didn't you see the loops light up the photosphere? Why not? I cited the timestamp on the image for you and everything and I explained how to download it. As long as you all refuse to address any of the visual evidence, or any of the many papers on this topic, or any of the many other materials on this topic by Bruce and Peratt and many others, how exactly did you expect to learn anything? 256 papers on these topics from Alfven himself? What 256 papers? Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Sheesh.
 
Reality Check said:
Can you give a citation to where Alfven states that he derives the equations of MHD from collections of particles rather than a fluid?
Click to expand...

Can you cite a single paper he wrote in the last 20 years of his life that didn't describe space plasmas in terms of "circuits" and from the "particle" side of MHD theory?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Can you cite a single paper he wrote in the last 20 years of his life that didn't describe space plasmas in terms of "circuits" and from the "particle" side of MHD theory?
Click to expand...
Please cite the paper where he derived the MHD theory using particles.

No one thinks that he did not describe the appliaction of MHD to plasmas in terms of circuits and particles. That is a sensible thing to do. Plasmas contain particles. So you can say that a plasma flows or that the plasma particles flow.

You are the only one here (and probably in the world) that has the idea that MHD theory is derived from particles.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'm simply quoting the author of MHD theory on this topic Zig.
Click to expand...

Which matters... why? Because he's automatically right? No, Michael. Argument from authority is a fallacy. You, and Alfven, have failed to point to any actual errors. Alfven doesn't like the terminology at least in part because he thinks it confuses the issue, but regardless of the merit of that position, it's still a mere semantic objection. If he had any factual objections, well, they're wrong.

My math skills or lack thereof have nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. It's not *MY* personal objection, it's Alfven's objection too.
Click to expand...

You still need to be able to back up what you say, Michael. And you can't.

It's "pseudo-science" because it's "pseudo-accurate'.
Click to expand...

"pseudo-accurate" is meaningless. And the accuracy or inaccuracy of an idea is not what makes it psuedo-science.

The "more accurate' way to address these issues is via the "particle" and yes, he calls it the "particle" side of MHD theory.
Click to expand...

Nope. That's not MHD. Apparently you're still having trouble grasping the "hydro" part. Alfven may well have gone beyond MHD, but that's a separate issue. MHD includes nothing about individual particles.

Alfven was first and foremost an electrical engineer. He realized that all transactions inside the double layer were driven by larger "circuits" and he explicitly explains astronomical events in terms of circuits and even uses the term "short circuits" in his presentations.
Click to expand...

You do know, don't you, that electrical engineers very rarely use a particle description of electrodynamics, don't you? No, I guess you don't.

Really, Michael, the easiest way to disprove me is to point me to an MHD equation which uses the particle nature of the charge carriers. But you haven't done so. You haven't even tried to do so. Which makes me wonder if you would even be able to recognize whether or not an equation was a continuum equation or not. I'm guessing you can't. But go on, prove me wrong.

And I'm still waiting for you to quantify any of your ideas, Michael.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I don't suppose *ANY* of you have actually looked at or responded to that the white light flare I cited in the LMSAL video? Didn't you see the loops light up the photosphere? Why not? I cited the timestamp on the image for you and everything and I explained how to download it. As long as you all refuse to address any of the visual evidence, or any of the many papers on this topic, or any of the many other materials on this topic by Bruce and Peratt and many others, how exactly did you expect to learn anything? 256 papers on these topics from Alfven himself? What 256 papers? Flying stuff? What flying stuff? Sheesh.
Click to expand...
Why should we waste our time?
You know that two people have already looked at the video where you stated this "white light flare" existed and could not see any such thing.
So you either
  • Told them to download the wrong video or
  • Told them to look at the wrong place in the right video or
  • The "white light flare" does not exists except in your mind.
Given your track record ("mountain ranges" in the corona from RD animations!), I would go for the last.

As you know we have addressed all of the visual evidence. The problem that you have with understanding it is your problem not ours.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Sure we are. We are simply improving our understanding of the entire physical process by recognizing that there is a carrier particle of the EM field.
Click to expand...

Nope. Since MHD is by definition the coupling of Maxwell's equations and the Navier-Stokes equations and neither of these allude to any specific information on the particles involved then MHD can quite clearly not include a single particle perspective. As has been pointed out to you previously, the clue is in the name.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom