Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

Status
Not open for further replies.
GeeMack said:
The plasma cosmology thread is thataway --->. This is the electric Sun thread. Please try to avoid derailing it.
Click to expand...
As maybe, but since the electric sun is part of plasma cosmology it's fair game.

Michael Mozina said:
From Alfven's perspective that was the E component, particularly in light (atmospheric) plasmas. Here's a link to the first few chapters of Alfven's book by the way, along with a link to his opinions on this topic.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZjwoGlIxvLUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hannes+Alfven+Cosmic+Plasma&source=bl&ots=XQJG8AfYon&sig=Ujoerr0NiBUZOA2q-ZO9a86aCs8&hl=en&ei=SGP5TKPYMougsQOn-fTxAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Hannes%20Alfven%20Cosmic%20Plasma&f=false

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14160914/...-Field-Lines-and-Field-Line-Reconnection-1976



Well in that case your "antenna" is a spinning, current carrying plasma filament like you might find in an ordinary plasma ball, but scaled to size of course. :)



I doubt I'd do his answer justice, but if you like the first few chapters of Alfven's book, PM me and I'll send you my copy so you can finish reading it for yourself.
Click to expand...
I'll have to peruse those this weekend. Thanks.
dasmiller said:
That's partly because the variety of antenna shapes is so huge that you can find an antenna that vaguely resembles almost anything.

I know that EMI guys have their own 'special' relationship with antennas, but even I have found myself debating whether my Christmas tree is shaped more like a conical spiral or a log-periodic . . .
Click to expand...
Well, that would depend on how you hang you lights, wouldn't it? Personally, I tend to hand the lights to recreate a yagi. :p
 
kmortis said:
As maybe, but since the electric sun is part of plasma cosmology it's fair game.
Click to expand...


Well so is the solid iron surface of the Sun, so it's a free-for-all!

ETA: And that claim you've made hasn't actually been supported. Looks like it's to you to demonstrate that they are the same subject. Show us the evidence that either is true, kmortis. Explain the science, quantitatively and objectively, that shows they're the same subject or integrally related. You're on.
 
Last edited:
MM cites evidence that MM has been misrepresenting Alfvén

Michael Mozina said:
From Alfven's perspective that was the E component, particularly in light (atmospheric) plasmas. Here's a link to the first few chapters of Alfven's book by the way, along with a link to his opinions on this topic.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zj...onepage&q=Hannes Alfven Cosmic Plasma&f=false

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14160914/...-Field-Lines-and-Field-Line-Reconnection-1976
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
Double Layers
in Astrophysics
Edited by
Alton C. Williams and Tauna W. Moorehead
NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama
Proceedings of a workshop sponsored by
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Washington, D.C., and the Universities Space Research
Association, Washington, D.C., and held at
George C. Marshall Space Right Center
Huntsville, Alabama
March 17-19, 1986
Click to expand...
Thank you. That last citation was for Alfvén's keynote address, which kicked off a workshop he and four others had organized. The full proceedings of that workshop are available online at
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880_1987013880.pdf

Note that the captions for the first three figures are permuted.

In section III.A. of his keynote address, Alfvén admits his share of the blame for introducing and promoting the "frozen-in" simplification, and admits that this simplification leads to a definition of "magnetic field line" that is at odds with Maxwell's equations. Alfvén also writes:
Alfvén said:
If the current system which produced the field changes, the magnetic field changes and field lines can merge or reconnect.
Click to expand...
Alfvén followed that sentence with several technical observations that could easily be misinterpreted by someone who is unfamiliar with Maxwell's equations or with the mathematics of time-varying vector fields. His real point, however, is that he had come to believe that his "frozen-in" simplification had become an impediment to progress.

In section III.B., which Michael Mozina quoted in its entirety, Alfvén explains that his "frozen-in" simplification leads to absurd results when magnetic reconnection is modelled by "merging" of frozen-in magnetic field lines. My reading of that section is that Alfvén felt guilty about his role in promoting the "frozen-in" model, was dismayed by its continuing popularity, and used this keynote address as an opportunity to denounce the textbooks and papers that had attempted to model magnetic reconnection using the broken model that Alfvén had formerly promoted.

That interpretation is supported by the other paper to which Michael Mozina has drawn our attention. Its abstract:
Alfvén said:
It is shown that `frozen-in magnetic field lines' and `magnetic field-line reconnection' are unnecessary and often misleading concepts.
Click to expand...
That may sound like a rejection of magnetic reconnection, but it is only a rejection of the broken concept of magnetic reconnection that is based on the misleadingly simplifying notion of frozen-in magnetic field lines. It is not a rejection of magnetic reconnection with respect to the magnetic field lines of Maxwell's equations. You can see how someone who doesn't understand Maxwell's equations might have been misled by that abstract.

Consider the first sentence of section 2:
Alfvén said:
Much of the discussion of magnetospheric theories is centered on the stationary state, and we shall confine ourselves to this (Figure 1).
Click to expand...
If you understand Maxwell's equations, you know that magnetic reconnection cannot occur within a stationary state. Alfvén understood that:
Alfvén said:
In the stationary state we consider, both the electric and the magnetic fields are static. We can depict the magnetic field by drawing the magnetic field lines (Figure 1), but it should be observed that a magnetic field line has the Maxwellian meaning. It is a line which everywhere has the direction of the magnetic field. To ask whether a field line `moves' or not has no sense....
Click to expand...
Note that Alfvén has taken the trouble to say quite explicitly that he is now talking about Maxwellian field lines, not the counter-Maxwellian field lines he had condemned in his keynote address. You can see how someone who doesn't understand the mathematics could misinterpret such passages as a claim that magnetic reconnection cannot ever occur.

These last few quotations are from

Hannes Alfvén. On frozen-in field lines and field-line reconnection. Journal of Geophysical Research 81(22), August 1, 1976, pages 4019ff.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Note that Alfvén has taken the trouble to say quite explicitly that he is now talking about Maxwellian field lines, not the counter-Maxwellian field lines he had condemned in his keynote address. You can see how someone who doesn't understand the mathematics could misinterpret such passages as a claim that magnetic reconnection cannot ever occur.
Click to expand...


So it would show a serious misunderstanding of Alfvén's work, and/or possibly dishonesty, to suggest Alfvén took the position that magnetic reconnection doesn't exist.
 
You two are taking this denial thing to new heights....

Let's recap shall we?

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfvén, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in 1.3, 11.3, and 11.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.
A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.
I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

In those parts of solar physics which do not deal with the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region (fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid), the state is even worse. It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made necessary (see Section VIII).

I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.
Click to expand...

Give me a break!
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ok Mr. Spock,

Cite a REAL EXPERIMENT for kmortis where "magnetic reconnection/merging" is actually occurring that is not an example of pseudoscience, where *NO* double layers exist, and that involve *NO* pinches in plasma.
Click to expand...


Actually the claim is that electrical discharges are or are the cause of solar flares and CMEs. It is despicably dishonest to ask other people, people who didn't make that claim, to support it or to provide alternative explanations. Apparently the claim is unsupportable.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Let's recap shall we?

Give me a break!
Click to expand...
I guess I should thank you for proving my point. When you read Alfvén, all you see are the words and phrases you highlighted, without any understanding of the context.

For those who care about context, here are a couple of paragraphs from the section that leads into the one Michael Mozina quoted:
Alfvén said:
III. DOUBLE LAYERS AND FROZEN-IN MAGNETIC FIELD LINES

A. Frozen-In Field Lines --- A Pseudo-Pedagogical Concept

In Cosmological Electrodynamics, I tried to give a survey of a field in which I had been active for about two decades. In one of the chapters, I treated magnetohydrodynamic waves. I pointed out that in an infinitely conductive magnetized fluid the magnetic field lines could be considered as "frozen" into the medium --- under certain conditions --- and this concept made it possible to treat the waves as oscillations of the frozen-in medium.

The "frozen-in" picture of magnetic field lines differs from Maxwell's views. He defined a magnetic field line as a line which everywhere is parallel to the magnetic field. If the current system which produced the field changes, the magnetic field changes and field lines can merge or reconnect....

I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became very popular. In reality, however, it was not a good pedagogical concept but a dangerous "pseudo-pedagogical concept." By pseudo-pedagogical I mean a concept which makes you believe that you understand a phenomenon whereas in reality you have drastically misunderstood it.
Click to expand...
And so on. Alfvén is apologizing for his role in promoting the frozen-in concept and the non-Maxwellian concept of magnetic field lines that goes with it. In the next section, which Michael Mozina has now quoted twice, Alfvén attacks the non-Maxwellian concept of magnetic merging he had inadvertently promoted.

Ironic, isn't it? In attempting to undo the damage he had done to his field, Alfvén condemned the results of his own previous approach as pseudoscience, writing words that Michael Mozina and other hobbyists would later interpret as a condemnation of the legitimate Maxwellian concepts of magnetic field lines and magnetic reconnection.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Ironic, isn't it? In attempting to undo the damage he had done to his field, Alfvén condemned the results of his own previous approach as pseudoscience, writing words that Michael Mozina and other hobbyists would later interpret as a condemnation of the legitimate Maxwellian concepts of magnetic field lines and magnetic reconnection.
Click to expand...


Sort of like linking to that paper by Lee which uses the words "electrical" and "discharge" but doesn't objectively support the silly electric Sun conjecture at all. And the flaw in the connection was mentioned by Lee right in the paper. It's almost like the EU/PC crackpots and the electric Sun nutters don't even read the material they wave around. They certainly don't understand it.
 
I'm still waiting for that "correct" MR paper along with an explanation of how it relates to solar flares Mr. Spock.
 
FYI, it would be nice if like the Lee paper, it showed some "similarities" to observed solar flare activities, like heavily ionized iron photons, etc.
 
IMO Alfven was trying to be nice by even INSINUATING the problem had anything to do with his work. Some folks took an abstract tool he applied to *DENSE*, *NON CURRENT CARRYING PLASMA* and attempted to apply that very same abstraction tool to *LIGHT*, CURRENT CARRYING plasmas. For a couple of decades he renounced the idea and yet folks *SLILL* wrote about it. He *ASSUMED* it would die a nature death, but the "pseudoscience" continues. That is of course unless you're abandoning the Sweet & Parker approach to "magnetic reconnection" (or anything remotely like it) because Aflven was well acquainted with that concept and rejected it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
IMO Alfven was trying to be nice by even INSINUATING the problem had anything to do with his work.
Click to expand...


Or maybe Alfvén was confessing that he had made a serious blunder that could be misinterpreted by crackpots of every stripe. Too bad the old fellow has croaked and we can't ask him.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Been there, done that. You dodged it then, you'll dodge it now:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6295678&postcount=3652
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6297439&postcount=3672
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6303798&postcount=3698
Click to expand...

Er, no. That's a "math homework assignment", not a paper linking flares and "magnetic reconnection". You don't seem to grasp the "show and tell" part of the discussion. When asked to provide evidence between a link between discharges and solar flares I provided this paper (among many others):

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

Notice how Lee studies *LABORATORY* phenomenon (not computer models), and demonstrates a number of physical links/similarities between laboratory discharges and solar flares in terms of iron ion wavelengths observed in flares?

That's what I'm looking for from your side of the aisle. I'm looking for a published, peer reviewed paper that shows some sort of physical connection between *LABORATORY* examples of "magnetic reconnection" that produce flare like effects that we observe in solar flares. Do you have such a thing? We know from Tim that no experiments link gamma rays and "magnetic reconnection" the way they are associated with discharges. Is there however *ANY* link whatsoever between *LAB TESTS* of 'magnetic reconnection' and solar events, yes or no?

Keep in mind that Alfven put some further constraints on your model. No double layers can be involved and since you deny your "magnetic lines" are nothing more than "pinched currents", you'll need an example of magnetic reconnection in the lab that doesn't involve pinched currents too.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Er, no. That's a "math homework assignment", not a paper linking flares and "magnetic reconnection". You don't seem to grasp the "show and tell" part of the discussion. When asked to provide evidence between a link between discharges and solar flares I provided this paper (among many others):

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

Notice how Lee studies *LABORATORY* phenomenon (not computer models), and demonstrates a number of physical links/similarities between laboratory discharges and solar flares in terms of iron ion wavelengths observed in flares?

That's what I'm looking for from your side of the aisle. I'm looking for a published, peer reviewed paper that shows some sort of physical connection between *LABORATORY* examples of "magnetic reconnection" that produce flare like effects that we observe in solar flares. Do you have such a thing? We know from Tim that no experiments link gamma rays and "magnetic reconnection" the way they are associated with discharges. Is there however *ANY* link whatsoever between *LAB TESTS* of 'magnetic reconnection' and solar events, yes or no?

Keep in mind that Alfven put some further constraints on your model. No double layers can be involved and since you deny your "magnetic lines" are nothing more than "pinched currents", you'll need an example that doesn't involved pinched currents too.
Click to expand...


Of course, as has been pointed out many, many times, it is a dishonest argument to ask other people to propose alternatives to a crackpot claim. Apparently dishonesty is one of the fall-back strategies of the cranks when there isn't any legitimate scientific support for an inane claim.

So the question still remains: Is there any scientific, quantitative, objective support for the claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, solar flares and CMEs? The answer so far seems to be, "No."
 
Michael Mozina said:
W.D.Clinger said:
Been there, done that. You dodged it then, you'll dodge it now:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6295678&postcount=3652
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6297439&postcount=3672
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6303798&postcount=3698
Click to expand...

Er, no. That's a "math homework assignment", not a paper linking flares and "magnetic reconnection".
Click to expand...
The very first link above cites an important paper that suggested a link between flares and magnetic reconnection. Your inability to discuss that or any other paper that links flares to magnetic reconnection is explained in some detail by the three JREF posts whose URLs appear above. Because there may still be some readers of this thread who are more interested in reading about the science than in seeing you demonstrate yet again why you cannot, I will ignore the rest of your dodge.

Here are full citations for three scientific papers that have helped to develop the possible link between solar flares and magnetic reconnection:

R.A.Kopp and G.W.Pneuman. Magnetic reconnection in the corona and the loop prominence phenomenon. Solar Physics 50 (1976), 85-98.
http://www.springerlink.com/index/Q64134U3U72Q3664.pdf

P.J.Cargill and E.R.Priest. Slow-shock heating and the Kopp-Pneuman model for `post'-flare loops. Solar Physics 76 (1982), 357-375.
http://www.springerlink.com/index/U6R4R74576430513.pdf

D.S.Spicer, D.Sibeck, B.J.Thompson, and J.M.Davila. A Kopp-Pneuman-like picture of coronal mass ejections. The Astrophysical Journal 643(2), 2006 June 1, 1304-1316.
doi: 10.1086/503274
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/643/2/1304
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/643/2/1304/pdf/0004-637X_643_2_1304.pdf

All three of those papers were published in peer-reviewed journals. I do not pretend to be an expert on solar physics, or a physicist of any description, but it seems to me that those three papers explain why solar physicists have come to regard magnetic reconnection as a key mechanism in solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs). From the introduction to the most recent of those papers:
Spicer said:
The reader will note that we use the term "picture" as opposed to "model."...Most of what we call CME and flare models are heuristic "cartoons" or more politely "pictures" of what we believe is occurring....Even our CME numerical models are not really models, but numerical experiments, because (1) many are 2.5-dimensional, that is, two components of velocity and three components of the magnetic field computed on a two-dimensional mesh; (2) both the initial and boundary conditions are chosen to test a hypothesis, not because data define them; and (3) many critical pieces of physics are missing that are essential if the numerical results are to be validated against empirical data....
Click to expand...
In short, the current picture falls short of the mathematical rigor we would expect of a full model. (It should be obvious that a hypothetical hobbyist who's stymied by even the most elementary mathematical prerequisites of the current picture is not going to contribute to its further development into a proper model.) In section 3, the authors of that most recent paper summarize their contributions:
Spicer said:
Our picture of CMEs and large flares utilizes the basic geometry utilized by Kopp & Pneuman (1976).... We expand on their picture in three fundamental ways. First we allow for three-dimensional reconnection; second, we utilize reconnection only as a mechanism to release stresses in the magnetic field configuration...; and third, the acceleration of particles is a direct result of the bulk plasma flows that result from the reconnection process, the structure of the magnetic field configuration into which the accelerated plasma flows, and the restructuring of the magnetic fields made permissible by reconnection.
Click to expand...
Lest some hypothetical hobbyist complain that these scientists are ignoring Alfvén or MHD, note that Alfvén is mentioned 12 times in that paper, and MHD is mentioned 19 times.
 
I haven't been through the second two links yet, but the first one does not appear to be related to a *LABORATORY* experiment per se. Some of the others may in fact provide such info. Nevertheless, I have two initial question for you about the first paper.

A) What is an "open" field line?

B) How is a "magnetic flux tube" not a "Bennett Pinch/Magnetic Rope/Pinched filament/circuit" as Alfven describes them?
 
The second paper doesn't seem to involve laboratory experiments either.
However, if the velocity of shock propagation approaches the Alfvén speed, then temperatures of 10^8 K are produced.
Click to expand...

Produced in a lab, or produced in their computer simworld?
 
First Quesion on the third paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/643/2/1304

In addition, we discuss betatron acceleration during the dipolarization process that occurs when the flux rope/CME is ejected and how the hot particles generated during the dipolarization process can lead to traps in solar loops, thereby helping to explain long-duration events.
Click to expand...

Same question applies in terms of the "flux rope". How is it not a "Bennett Pinch/current flow/yada, yada, yada"?
 
The current sheet in a helmet streamer–like magnetic field configuration reconnects,....
Click to expand...

IOW it's the "current flow" that "reconnects", and since current flows do the work, it's the "circuits" that reconnect, not the "magnetic lines".

Virtually every single one of your links relies upon a "magnetic flux rope/tube". How did you intend to avoid those double layers nails in the "reconnection" coffin when you're starting with a "Bennett Pinch" inside of a 'current carrying' medium??????

Oy Vey.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I haven't been through the second two links yet, but the first one does not appear to be related to a *LABORATORY* experiment per se. Some of the others may in fact provide such info. Nevertheless, I have two initial question for you about the first paper.

A) What is an "open" field line?
Click to expand...
For this post only, I will pretend you understand the concepts of vector fields and magnetic field lines.

An open field line c(t) is one for which c(t)=c(t') implies t=t'.

Michael Mozina said:
B) How is a "magnetic flux tube" not a "Bennett Pinch/Magnetic Rope/Pinched filament/circuit" as Alfven describes them?
Click to expand...
From what you have written about the latter, it appears to me that examples of the latter are examples of the former, but not every example of the former is an example of the latter.

ETA: Sorry, I was wrong. According to Wikipedia, a Bennett pinch is a phenomenon, like the other stuff described by Alfvén, and informal. A magnetic flux tube, on the other hand, is a mathematically precise concept (as are magnetic field lines), although astrophysicists may well speak informally of magnetic flux tubes that do not coincide with their mathematical definition.
 
Last edited:
FYI, not *ONE SINGLE ONE* of those links involved laboratory experiments like Lee's paper (and Birkeland's work). I'd like to see something that actually *WORKS IN THE LAB*. You guys keep talking about all this progress that's been made in this field, but thus far you can't link "magnetic reconnection" to anything in a lab *WITHOUT* using "electrical current" to A) create the plasma and B) sustain the current flow through the plasmas.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
From what you have written about the latter, it appears to me that examples of the latter are examples of the former, but not every example of the former is an example of the latter.
Click to expand...

Well, since every single one of those papers relies upon that rope/tube/current flow through plasmas, it looks to me like you've pretty much nailed that coffin shut. They are in fact using that same "Bennett Pinch/Flux Tube" to deliver energy to the point of "reconnection".

How much energy is there in the magnetic field at that point anyway?
 
I must admit I'm a little disappointed in terms of *LABORATORY* examples of this process. Math is great, but I want to see the physics in action. If in fact these "flux tubes" are nothing more than "Bennett Pinches/Z Pinches/Pinches" in current carrying plasma, then Alfven's criticisms apply to your concept of "reconnection". It's not the "magnetic lines" doing the "reconnecting", it's the "physical current flows" doing the "reconnecting" inside that explosive double layer that Alfven describes in the paper you cited earlier.
 
has he learned something?

Michael Mozina said:
You guys keep talking about all this progress that's been made in this field, but thus far you can't link "magnetic reconnection" to anything in a lab *WITHOUT* using "electrical current" to A) create the plasma and B) sustain the current flow through the plasmas.
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
It's not the "magnetic lines" doing the "reconnecting", it's the "physical current flows" doing the "reconnecting" inside that explosive double layer that Alfven describes in the paper you cited earlier.
Click to expand...
With all due respect to the points you are attempting to make (ignoring them, in other words), your statements appear to accept that magnetic reconnection has been demonstrated and is consistent with Maxwell's equations.

If that is so, then you have actually learned something during these past three months.

Is that true? Are you retracting the claims quoted in the posts cited below?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=3652
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=3672
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=3698
 
W.D.Clinger said:
The very first link above cites an important paper that suggested a link between flares and magnetic reconnection. Your inability to discuss that or any other paper that links flares to magnetic reconnection is explained in some detail by the three JREF posts whose URLs appear above. Because there may still be some readers of this thread who are more interested in reading about the science than in seeing you demonstrate yet again why you cannot, I will ignore the rest of your dodge.

Here are full citations for three scientific papers that have helped to develop the possible link between solar flares and magnetic reconnection:

R.A.Kopp and G.W.Pneuman. Magnetic reconnection in the corona and the loop prominence phenomenon. Solar Physics 50 (1976), 85-98.
http://www.springerlink.com/index/Q64134U3U72Q3664.pdf

P.J.Cargill and E.R.Priest. Slow-shock heating and the Kopp-Pneuman model for `post'-flare loops. Solar Physics 76 (1982), 357-375.
http://www.springerlink.com/index/U6R4R74576430513.pdf

D.S.Spicer, D.Sibeck, B.J.Thompson, and J.M.Davila. A Kopp-Pneuman-like picture of coronal mass ejections. The Astrophysical Journal 643(2), 2006 June 1, 1304-1316.
doi: 10.1086/503274
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/643/2/1304
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/643/2/1304/pdf/0004-637X_643_2_1304.pdf

All three of those papers were published in peer-reviewed journals. I do not pretend to be an expert on solar physics, or a physicist of any description, but it seems to me that those three papers explain why solar physicists have come to regard magnetic reconnection as a key mechanism in solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs). From the introduction to the most recent of those papers:

In short, the current picture falls short of the mathematical rigor we would expect of a full model. (It should be obvious that a hypothetical hobbyist who's stymied by even the most elementary mathematical prerequisites of the current picture is not going to contribute to its further development into a proper model.) In section 3, the authors of that most recent paper summarize their contributions:

Lest some hypothetical hobbyist complain that these scientists are ignoring Alfvén or MHD, note that Alfvén is mentioned 12 times in that paper, and MHD is mentioned 19 times.
Click to expand...
As has been said, more than once and by more than one JREF member, the effort that you (and others, such as tusenfem, Tim Thompson, and many more) have put in to examining the claims by MM (etc), and showing that they are totally devoid of any scientific merit is worthy of great praise; thank you.

I know it takes a lot of time, and may appear quite thankless at times, but it's posts like this that give the E in JREF its true meaning.

FWIW, I recall reading some material - in space.com, I think - by someone who was intrigued (if that's the right word) by MM's claims (DrRocket?), and went and read Alfven's book (the one MM keeps citing), cover to cover. His demolition of MM's absurd, pure ignorant-and-I'm-proud-of-it claims was, IIRC, quite a treat to read (unfortunately I can't seem to find it just now).
 
Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection II

Michael Mozina said:
I must admit I'm a little disappointed in terms of *LABORATORY* examples of this process. ...
Click to expand...
Evidently you have a flawed & highly selective memory. See Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection I and links therein. Specifically, I showed you the laboratory experiments more than once. For instance Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III from last March (that's 9 months ago now). I posted Comments on Magnetic Reconnection on 13 February 2009, nearly 2 years ago, specifically demonstrating confirmed laboratory observations of magnetic reconnection.

Your response has been consistent. Not once have you ever actually looked at or considered any of these laboratory experiments. You reject them without examination out of pure and unadulterated prejudice. So nobody cares about your dishonest wailing about the lack of laboratory experiments; we recognize it for what it really is, a pure sham. You don't care, and never will care about actual laboratory experiments, and you will not ever look at the data or any paper describing laboratory experiments. I have myself pointed out books that describe the state of laboratory experience, and you always have (and always will) ignore them all.

So everything you are so "disappointed" about not seeing has in fact been shown to you for nearly 2 years, and probably longer considering your numerous discussion boards. You are not now, and have never have been interested in anything that any normal person would consider an "honest" discussion, so answering you directly is a waste of effort. The only reason I bother to post at all is that other people actually do care, and maybe somebody will learn something, even if it's never going to be you.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
- in space.com, I think - by someone who was intrigued (if that's the right word) by MM's claims (DrRocket?), and went and read Alfven's book (the one MM keeps citing), cover to cover. His demolition of MM's absurd, pure ignorant-and-I'm-proud-of-it claims was, IIRC, quite a treat to read (unfortunately I can't seem to find it just now).
Click to expand...
I think that you mean Report on Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma started by DrRocket.
 
tusenfem said:
than come on MM, present your circuit reconnection model, show us how it works in detail, show us how in this circuit reconnection the observed demanetization of ions and electrons happens, how the topology of the magnetic field changes, how the plasma is accelerated perpendicular to the magnetic field direction .....

I know I will never even get an answer, because you don't have this model, there is no such model, I will just get to hear Alfvén talked about circuits and called MRx pseudoscience. Then my answer is SO WHAT, show me the money! Show me your model.
Click to expand...


So dear Michael Mozina, are you going to answer this question for me any time soon?
 
tusenfem said:

So dear Michael Mozina, are you going to answer this question for me any time soon?
Click to expand...

I don't have a personal model. :) In fact there is no need of *ANY* additional models. Calqvist (more than Alfven IMO) and Alfven already did that *AGES* ago. In terms of flares, Alfven described them as exploding double layers, much like the ones he studied while working for the power company. What exactly do you need me for? Read any of the materials by Calqvist that I have posted in this thread! Read Alfven's speech (the entire speech) at that conference.

He makes it quite clear that any condition where a double layer exists (or any other current flow condition), "merging" automatically becomes "pseudoscience". Any scenario where there is current flow *THROUGH* the "double" layer, or plasma region, "reconnection" is directly related to *CURRENT FLOW*, not "magnetic lines". The lines are along for the the ride, pinching the "current stream" into a cohesive filament. It's no different than what happens inside of an ordinary plasma ball were you to run two "circuits" of plasma threads together. Eventually the CURRENT FLOWS would rearrange themselves and the topology of the *ELECTROmagetic* stream would change. No big deal. No "magnetic lines" are 'reconnecting', just 'current flows'.
 
Michael Mozina said:
From Alfven's perspective that was the E component, particularly in light (atmospheric) plasmas. Here's a link to the first few chapters of Alfven's book by the way, along with a link to his opinions on this topic.
Click to expand...

What exactly does a plasma make "light"?? That is one of these Mozina definitions, that has no explanation. It it that the ions are light (e.g. only H and He) or that the density is small (so that the ball of plasma would float on water) or maybe that the plasma is made out light? Who knows? MM has been using this term for years now, and still has not deigned to explain to us what he means with it.

Michael Mozina said:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Zj...onepage&q=Hannes Alfven Cosmic Plasma&f=false

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14160914/...-Field-Lines-and-Field-Line-Reconnection-1976
Click to expand...

No idea what the first link is supposed to show apart from the name of a book I have.

The second link on frozen in fields and reconnection is interesting. Indeed, Alfvén was right to complain about the frozen in concept, because in the early years when he published that people just ran with it, without even thinking about whether it applies or not. Now a few decades later, we find that in e.g. the Earth magnetotail and in the solar wind, the frozen in condition is very well fulfilled and having to look for situations in which this condition is broken is hard, but they can sporatidally be found. Here is a paper by Tony Lui about the breakdown of the frozen in condition in the magnetotail and here is a paper by Rikard Lundin about the breakdown near magnetospheric boundaries.

Now, about reconnection in that paper Alfvén writes:

HA said:
In case the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near neutral points may change in such a way that it is legitimate to speak of a 'field-line reconnection.' We cannot exclude the possibility that some of the field-line reconnection formalism may be applicable, but this remains to be proved. In fact, of the most conspicuous nonstationary phenomenon, magnetic
substorms are explained by current disruption (survey by Boström [1974]).
Click to expand...

Now, these comments are highly remarkable by such a staunch adversary of the pseudoscience of magnetic reconnection. First of all, current disruption (at least as it is known today) is one of two models for substorm onset (highly debated by two groups, which make themselves ridiculous by maintaining that it is an either/or question). For the rest, there is little or no evidence that MRx is indeed a pseudoscience from this Alfvén paper, definitely not considering the remarks above. He gives a gedanken experiment which does not say much. He goes a long way about the identity of field lines, which is only a valid concept when the plasma is magnetized and the field frozen in (see the excellent book by [http://www.amazon.com/Conversations...f=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291567764&sr=8-1]Eugene Parker "conversations on electric and magnetic fields ..."[/url]. And he says that the Maxwellian interpretation of a field line should be changed when plasma is present.

However, he shows a model of the magnetosphere and the tail, with open and closed field lines. He does not say how the open lines get closed, a problem that was well known already in 1976, but he just ignores that in his paper.

So, no, this Alfven paper does not shoot magnetic reconnection down. Also, Alfven did not know about the excellent observations that we got with Cluster on this process. He would be amazed at how we measure the magnetic and electric fields and deduce the currents and get the plasma densities. He would have loved it.
 
Alfven from Cosmic Plasma:

113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES
What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface . In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface.
All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention . This does not mean that all papers in which `magnetic merging' is used are of no interest, because there exist some good papers (e .g., Hill, 1975) in which the term is merely a synonym for "current sheet acceleration ."

1I .6 .3. ENERGY RELEASE IN DOUBLE LAYERS
If a double layer has been formed by a current I, energy at a rate is released in the double layer . This energy is mainly used for accelerating charged particles. A small fraction is usually dissipated as noise . Of course, the accelerated particles interact with the plasma and produce a number of secondary effects so that the released energy finally is dissipated as heating and radiation . Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of Magnetic merging' or of magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration (II.33, II.53). In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).
Click to expand...

All these conditions must be met.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
With all due respect to the points you are attempting to make (ignoring them, in other words), your statements appear to accept that magnetic reconnection has been demonstrated and is consistent with Maxwell's equations.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm convinced from reading enough papers on this topic that the mathematics are correct, just as they were correct in Alfven's time. Just like Alfven said however, what you're calling "magnetic reconnection" is synonymous with two "pinches" of "current flow" interacting through a double layer. There's no *NEED* of any sort of exotic explanation, since Calqvist and Alfven already explained all this stuff *AGES* (well, ok, decades) ago.

If that is so, then you have actually learned something during these past three months.
Click to expand...

Actually the debates at Space.com convinced me of that years ago, but yes, I did come to accept the mathematical accuracy of the concept, although balked a few too and cited the error (assumption of magnetic monopoles).

What I'm ultimately saying is that you're attempting to suggest "reconnection happens" inside of a "current carrying (million mile per hour)" plasma. Alfven refers any current carrying scenario as an epic fail for reconnection theory. That's a big problem for you with Alfven since *ALL* electric sun theories (Alfven's too) involve "current flow" from the photosphere to the heliosphere. It's problem for you observationally too because the solar wind whips by at over a million miles per hour and those 'current flows' of charged particles light up the aurora.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
I think that you mean Report on Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma started by DrRocket.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link, Reality Check. Interesting to note the responses to the article. The arguments of the primary detractor seem to be a lot of lies, accusations that pretty much everyone including all the world of professional physicists don't understand something that apparently he alone does, dishonest attempts to shift the burden of proof, and intentional efforts to treat people like crap. From the related discussions here on the JREF, it seems par for the course.
 
Alfven's tools misused

tusenfem said:
How on Earth could one have a dense non current carrying plasma in the middle of e.g. the Earth's magnetotial where there are oppositely directed magnetic fields, which ........ require a current to flow!
Click to expand...
He said other people took an abstract tool that only applied to "non-current-carrying" plasmas and tried to apply it in practical calculations, leading to erroneous results, not that Alfven applied this tool improperly, but that other people did. He also said "IMO", which I take to mean "in my opinion".
 
experiment verifies CME's are electrically driven

GeeMack said:
That is, of course, not true.
Click to expand...

It is true. I've read the paper in question, and from my previous knowledge, I and many others have concluded (quite correctly) that electric discharge can and does produce the exact phenomena we observe in CME's and "solar flares".

GeeMack said:
And even if it were, evidence that something is capable of doing something is not evidence that it does.
Click to expand...

Yeah, actually, that's how science works. You verify a phenomenon by recreating it under controlled conditions that mirror the observed conditions and seek to exclude other possible explanations. Until somebody else produces this phenomenon using other methods, this phenomenon is successfully explained by electric discharge. In other words, it is VERIFIED that CME's and "solar flares" are electric discharge phenomena.

GeeMack said:
The claim is that electrical discharges are or are the cause of CMEs and solar flares. No objective quantitative evidence has been offered yet to substantiate that claim.
Click to expand...

The above statement is only true if you define "objective quantitative evidence" as "evidence that is known to and accepted by everyone". There is abundant evidence that CME's and "solar flares" are electrically driven. You refuse to accept it, partly due to your willful ignorance and partly due to your misplaced sense of pride in your supposed "knowledge" to the contrary.

GeeMack said:
The paper certainly does not conclude in any objective quantitative way that electrical discharges cause CMEs and solar flares.
Click to expand...

The paper does conclude that CME's can be phenomenologically generated using electric discharge. What this means is that electric discharge reproduces the phenomenon. No, it doesn't "prove" that electric discharge "causes" CME's, but to date it's the only known way to reproduce the phenomenon. In science, this is known as verification of a hypothesis. That electric discharge can accurately reproduce this phenomenon (while no other method can) verifies the hypothesized electrical nature of CME's (until a competing explanation is offered with experimental verification equal to what we already have for electric discharge).

GeeMack said:
Only an idiot would bring this up again as if it weren't addressed. Only a liar would claim it hasn't been addressed. Only a dyed-in-the-wool crackpot would so severely and dishonestly misrepresent Lee's work to claim it supports the electric Sun lunacy.
Click to expand...
I won't even get into the number of presuppositions contained in these few lines you tacked on the end here. Suffice it to say the assumptions implicit in your statements are readily falsified. If you're not convinced, let me know, I'll dismantle it a word at a time for you in a lengthy post devoted just to you.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I don't have a personal model. :) In fact there is no need of *ANY* additional models. Calqvist (more than Alfven IMO) and Alfven already did that *AGES* ago. In terms of flares, Alfven described them as exploding double layers, much like the ones he studied while working for the power company. What exactly do you need me for? Read any of the materials by Calqvist that I have posted in this thread! Read Alfven's speech (the entire speech) at that conference.

He makes it quite clear that any condition where a double layer exists (or any other current flow condition), "merging" automatically becomes "pseudoscience". Any scenario where there is current flow *THROUGH* the "double" layer, or plasma region, "reconnection" is directly related to *CURRENT FLOW*, not "magnetic lines". The lines are along for the the ride, pinching the "current stream" into a cohesive filament. It's no different than what happens inside of an ordinary plasma ball were you to run two "circuits" of plasma threads together. Eventually the CURRENT FLOWS would rearrange themselves and the topology of the *ELECTROmagetic* stream would change. No big deal. No "magnetic lines" are 'reconnecting', just 'current flows'.
Click to expand...

Just what I expected, you have nothing, and just throw important sounding words around.
There is no reconnection in a plasma ball, there hardly is any plasma in a ball.
If you would only put in like 10% of the effort to describe the "circuit reconnection" model that I have put in trying to explain to you the physics and math related to double layers, reconnection, Birkeland's writings, then you may find even some admiration from your greates critics here on the board, but no, you just point to Carlqvist (who, if I remember correctly, uses a DL to unwind a twisted magnetic field, nothing explodes) or you say double layers explode in Alfven's books (but then an exploding DL has never been observed) etc. etc.
 
Looks like we have a new electric sun proponent so I will answer:
cev08241971 said:
Feel free to explain about what Alfven was wrong.
Click to expand...
Not that it has anything to do with this thread but Alfven was wrong about Plasma cosmology

cev08241971 said:
MM seems more than qualified to discuss this issue and to understand and relate Alfven's work.
...
Click to expand...
You have probably missed the posts in other threads where MM displays his lack of knowledge of science, e.g. the week or so that it took him to find the definition of pressure. You are probably unaware of his idea that the sun has an iron crust.

However his inability to understand the impossibility of electrical discharges on the Sun alone should be enough to show that he would have problems understanding Alfvens work.

cev08241971 said:
It may or may not be correct that Alfven never directly proposed the electric star model, but it's implicit in much of his research, for example:

"Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven, although not aware of the Juergens Electric Sun model, advanced his own theory (3) of how prominences and solar flares are formed electrically. It is completely consistent with the Juergens model. It too is electrical."
Click to expand...
That quote lies. Allven modeled solar flares with an electric circuit approach to MHD, e.g. representing magnetic fields with inductors. It was electromagnetic.

P.S. Birkeland (the subjust of the statement) was not Alfven.


cev08241971 said:
This is abjectly false.
...
Click to expand...
Birkeland (the subject of the statement) was not Alfven.

cev08241971 said:
See directly above where this nonsense is refuted.
Click to expand...
Birkeland (the subject of the statement) was not Alfven.

cev08241971 said:
As noted above, and as could just as easily be noted in the case of Birkeland, and several others, these "dead guys" are universally regarded (except by you, apparently) as the founders of these branches of research, as geniuses, as pioneers, pick your favorite appellation.
Click to expand...
Umm - yes: That list includes Birkeland and Alfven.
It does not include the inane theories that cranks attach to Birkeland's name.
It does not include the invalid theories that Alfven cam up in his later work.

cev08241971 said:
This comment is absolute gibberish. These scientists to which you obliquely refer owe their professions to the men you keep calling "dead guys", and for the most part they all know it. Notice none of them are here joining you in your crusade against known science.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. There are seveal scientists here. I was one for a couple of years. Tim Thompson is a retired (I think) scientist. tusenfem worked with Alfven.
None of us are joining GeeMack in your crusade against known science.
We are all joining GeeMack in your crusade against known psudo-science such as the electric sun.

cev08241971 said:
This is demonstrably false. The sun is powered by this electric discharge, ...
Click to expand...
This is demonstrably false. The sun is powered by fusion.

cev08241971 said:
We don't have to re-write physics to understand plasma and electric discharge. We pretty much have a firm grasp on both, both firmly rooted in experimental verification and practical technologies.
Click to expand...
We understand the definition of electrical discharge (it needs the breakdown of a dielectric media).
We understand plasma and that it is not a dielectric media.
To get electric discharges with plasma, the electric sun fans need to rewrite physics.
 
math is a tool one needs to learn to use

GeeMack said:
One would have to actually possess the qualifications to understand the math involved to make a substantiated statement to this effect. There hasn't been any evidence that any of the electric Sun cranks posses the qualifications to understand math at all, period, much less the level of math necessary to understand and discuss the relevant physics in a competent, meaningful way.
Click to expand...
I can make a competing claim that is equally valid:
There hasn't been any evidence that the electric sun model is falsified by any experiment.

It seems to be your contention that people who realize the electrical nature of the sun are incompetent at math. Do you have some support for this blanket generalization?

Do you have any support for the notion that you understand the math involved?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom