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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
I really like Dungey's paper because it does in fact "bridge the gap" between *DISCHARGE/Particle/Circuit* theory, and what you are calling "magnetic reconnection". It's clear that a *STREAM OF CHARGED PARTICLES* actually 'reconnect', not intangible 'magnetic lines".

You've essentially got two huge problems on your hands now. Not only is MR theory not a threat to my beliefs, it *CONFIRMS* Peratt's definition to a tee. In other words, the transfer of magnetic field energy to charged particles is by *DEFINITION* an 'electrical discharge" in plasma according to Peratt.
Click to expand...
So after months of claiming that magnetic reconnection does not even exist, and that magnetic reconnection is inconsistent with Maxwell's equations, you now admit that magnetic reconnection exists but claim it "*CONFIRMS*" your beliefs.

What's more, you think your change of heart confirms your credibility. (Which, in a way, it does.)

Michael Mozina said:
The second major problem you have on your hands now relates to that *CURRENT FLOW* which automatically disqualifies any concept of "magnetic reconnection" from even applying to *THESE SPECIFIC* circumstances according to the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory.
Click to expand...
No. Apart from you, no one has ever claimed that magnetic reconnection is inconsistent with current flows. You can't even explain what you mean by "*THESE SPECIFIC* circumstances". Your interpretation of Alfvén's writing has been shown to be unreliable, but even so you can't possibly hope to get anywhere by arguing that one of your heroes, Alfvén, disputed magnetic reconnection as described by your current protagonist, Dungey.

Michael Mozina said:
I'm in a "no lose' scenario. I can keep leaning on you over the fact it's a "current carrying' plasma, and therefore Alfven's *NAILS* apply. I could also simply 'go with the plasma flow' now since Dungey makes it *EXTREMELY* clear that "reconnection' occurs between two "discharge streams". I have absolutely nothing to lose either way you look at it.
Click to expand...
In other words, you're going to claim victory regardless of facts. You claimed victory when you were claiming that magnetic reconnection didn't exist. Now you're claiming victory because magnetic reconnection exists.

Michael Mozina said:
In other words he demonstrated that what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" is nothing more than "circuit reconnection" with a "dumbed down" name.
Click to expand...
Complaining about its name won't hide your failure to understand it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'm not denying that OTHER options might exist,
Click to expand...

But you said
The fact that iron *IS* ionized to a +20 state demonstrates that there is an 'arc discharge' involved.
Click to expand...
(bolding mine) and that implies that there are no other options.

If we dial back from "+20 state demonstrates that there is an arc discharge" to "+20 is consistent with an arc discharge" then I think we can put this bit behind us.

I simply know of a SIMPLE way to explain such emissions that requires "nothing new under the sun" so to speak.
Click to expand...

To the extent that "SIMPLE" means 'in few words', then "plasma discharge" has a slight advantage over "really, really hot." But saying "plasma discharge" raises the questions of how such enormous charge separation could occur within a conducting plasma, why the sun doesn't simply fly apart, why the discharges don't seem to link the heliosphere with the photosphere, etc, etc.

Of course, simply saying "parts of the solar atmosphere are really, really hot" also raises the question of why (and that's definitely an interesting question), but that doesn't make the discharge hypothesis correct.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Current flow and typically *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES* in plasmas (as defined by Peratt).
Click to expand...

Wrong, Mikey, just a current is not enough for a Bennett pinch, try again, you may find it in Peratt's book. What is the specific condition for a Bennett pinch to occur?


Michael Mozina said:
I think the operative phrase in your statement is "sort of ends'. It doesn't actually "end" it simply becomes less dense, so you're "sort of" wrong.
Click to expand...

No, it really ends, the atmosphere is per definition not ionized. If you get higher than several tens of km you will find only ionized material, the ionosphere, which starts at about 50 km. So the atmosphere really ends. The sort of that I put in there is just because I did not want to give numbers as they would only confuse you.

So I am not "sort of" wrong, I am completely right. You might want to read up on atmospheres, ionospheres, aurorae and at what height what exists.

Michael Mozina said:
Actually he did several experiments (including the one you mentioned) but opted to bombard a neutral sphere with a cathode and an anode in some experiments too. You might read through his whole set of experiments some time. It's actually very interesting.
Click to expand...

He opted to bombard a neutral sphere with a cathode and an anode? Man, I can just see those pieces of equipment fly through the glass box. So, I guess I can send this to the realm of fables by MM.

As to your information I have started a whole thread discussion the works of Birkeland scientifcally[/uel], which you deigned not join, even though you are supposedly the expert on what Birkie wrote.

Michael Mozina said:
If we're going to talk about solar events, the terella was a CATHODE and the box was the ANODE. The LOOPS he created did indeed follow the ELECTROmagnetic field lines, but the DISCHARGE between the cathode sphere and anode box was continuous. Turn off the "electricity" to the device and the party is over. :)
Click to expand...

No, the loops follow the magnetic field that was created by the strong electromagnet that was inside the sphere. As the magnetic field is basically static, there is no electro component.

And yes if you turn off the electricity it all stops, but what exactly does this have to do with your weird notion that the electromagnetic fields were creating a charge separation in the terrella experiments.

Michael Mozina said:
IMO Birkeland's "cathode in space" model more correctly describes the "flow pattern" of charged particles than any "externally powered" solar model I've seen to date, save perhaps a scalar wave model. In either case, the discharge between the surface and the heliosphere is CONTINUOUS and the surface acts as the cathode in a continuous discharge process.
Click to expand...

But there is no discharge between the Sun and the heliosphere, otherwise the neutral solar wind, and please understand that neutral means that there are equal amounts of positive and negative charge in any volume greater than the Debye sphere (see e.g. Alfven, Peratt, ...), would not be flowing just away from the Sun. If there were a discharge, or a current, then the electrons would move in one direction (e.g. towards the sun as you want her to be an anode) and the ions would move away from the Sun. This is not what is observed by any mission up to date in space.

Please show proof that there is this discharge between the Sun and the heliosphere.

Please give me your idiot proof description of how the observed reconnection signatures (as in the paper by Runov et al) can be explained by this mysterious circuit reconnection, because this idiot does not understand it.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

The B&W image is from Birkelands experiments. You'll notice he created distinct "loops" in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

The loops that you see in the BW picture are created by the magnetic field of the dipole in the sphere.
Irregularities on the surface of the sphere are more prone to let the electrons escape, and one can see from the pulled-out-ness of the emissions (created by electrons interacting with the out gassing of the sphere during the experiment) that the electrons move to the furthest end of the stretched dipole field.
If the resolution would have been better one would see that at the furthers end the electrons escape and will flow to the anode on the walls of the box.
 
Peratt uses the standard defintion of electrical discharge

Michael Mozina said:
It all sounds perfectly correct to me.
Click to expand...

So you acknowledge that Peratt states that in two adjoining sentences:
  • "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy."
  • "This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium."
The subject of the second sentence is the "this" in the first sentence, i.e. an electrical discharge. Thus Peratt is stating that
  • an electrical discharge is a sudden release of energy
  • and this sudden release of energy generally occurs because of the breakdown of a medium.
Perrat is an electrical engineer specializing in plasma. IN electrical engineering "breakdown" is a term for the transition of an insulating medium to a conducting medium.

So we are back to the standard definition of an electrical discharge that rules them out within a plasma.

Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
So after months of claiming that magnetic reconnection does not even exist, and that magnetic reconnection is inconsistent with Maxwell's equations, you now admit that magnetic reconnection exists but claim it "*CONFIRMS*" your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Actually Mr. Spock, those are YOUR silly strawmen, not my statements. I've been calling it "circuit reconnection" for several years now, and yes, Dungey's paper confirms that this is *EXACTLY* what's going on.

What's more, you think your change of heart confirms your credibility. (Which, in a way, it does.)
Click to expand...

Well, I personally didn't call magnetic reconnection theory "pseudoscience" like Alfven, I called it "circuit reconnection" with a really stupid/inconsistent name (on the part of the mainstream). My position on this topic hasn't actually changed.

No. Apart from you, no one has ever claimed that magnetic reconnection is inconsistent with current flows.
Click to expand...

No, *I* do not say that, *ALFVEN* said that those current flows negate the need for any exotic energy transfers and turn "magnetic reconnection theory" into a "pseudoscience" under those specific conditions. He personally treats it as *CIRCUIT ENERGY*.


You can't even explain what you mean by "*THESE SPECIFIC* circumstances". Your interpretation of Alfvén's writing has been shown to be unreliable, but even so you can't possibly hope to get anywhere by arguing that one of your heroes, Alfvén, disputed magnetic reconnection as described by your current protagonist, Dungey.
Click to expand...

Dungey (in that paper) and Alfven describe the events as a "current flow" of "pinched" plasmas. In no way that that negate the E orientation, in fact Dungey provides the bridge between the B and E orientations! There's no way around that fact Mr. Spock.

In other words, you're going to claim victory regardless of facts.
Click to expand...

No, it's still an "electrical discharge" because it's a fast release of magnetic field energy either way you look at it. By *DEFINITION* it is still an "electrical discharge" no matter HOW you transfer the energy to the charged particle. Since *INDUCTION* does that just fine, there's no need for any sort of exotic energy transfers in the first place!

You claimed victory when you were claiming that magnetic reconnection didn't exist. Now you're claiming victory because magnetic reconnection exists.
Click to expand...

I claim "victory" because Dungey makes it's very clear that the "current carrying" PLASMA THREADS reconnect, not the "magnetic fields" alone. In *EITHER* case it's still an 'electrical discharge' no matter what! This statement is still a pathological lie no matter how you slice it or dice it.

There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.
Click to expand...

By *DEFINITION*, it's still an "electrical discharge", regardless of whether the transfer of magnetic field energy is cause by "magnetic reconnection", induction, or caused by an ordinary discharge.

1.5 Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.
Click to expand...

Complaining about its name won't hide your failure to understand it.
Click to expand...

The name is the main problem. The math is fine. The concept is sound. The problem is that the transfer of magnetic field energy into the various circuits is called *INDUCTION*, not 'magnetic reconnection'.
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
But you said (bolding mine) and that implies that there are no other options.
Click to expand...

It does *IMPLY* that SOMETHING heats atmospheric plasmas way beyond photosphere temperatures, and the easiest way in nature to explain that is with a 'discharge'. It cannot be explained without additional energy (beyond simple heat from the photosphere).

If we dial back from "+20 state demonstrates that there is an arc discharge" to "+20 is consistent with an arc discharge" then I think we can put this bit behind us.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

To the extent that "SIMPLE" means 'in few words', then "plasma discharge" has a slight advantage over "really, really hot."
Click to expand...

Well, we still need some kind of heat source since the photosphere isn't anywhere near a million degrees.

But saying "plasma discharge" raises the questions of how such enormous charge separation could occur within a conducting plasma, why the sun doesn't simply fly apart, why the discharges don't seem to link the heliosphere with the photosphere, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

During flares I would argue that stuff "flies apart". None of that can happen IMO without a charge separation (continuous) between the solar surface and the heliosphere.

Of course, simply saying "parts of the solar atmosphere are really, really hot" also raises the question of why (and that's definitely an interesting question), but that doesn't make the discharge hypothesis correct.
Click to expand...

Well, ever one of Peratt's criteria is met or defined by what occurs in a flare. We see heating processes in play, fast particle emissions, and high energy photon emissions consistent with pinches and discharges in plasma.

What's the alternative? Dungey demonstrates that what actually "reconnects" are the various "discharges" and plasma particles! It's still a transfer of magnetic field energy into a "circuit" and it's still "induction' with a dumb name.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

The B&W image is from Birkelands experiments. You'll notice he created distinct "loops" in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Oh dear: You really are persisting in documenting your delusions about Birkeland's book.
The B&W image is from Birkelands experiments and is specificially a anology for Saturn's rings!
These 11 questions about your assertions about Birkelands work date from 7th July 2009 and include Is Saturn the Sun? (14th July 2009)
  • The first image is Birkeland's attempt for an analogy of Saturn (fig. 247a). It is in visible light.
  • The second image is a soft X-ray (not visible light) image of the Sun.
  • The gasses used in the experiments were not a highly conductive plasma.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually I don't have to assert anything other than the fact that an arc discharge does explain higher energy wavelengths of light, not only highly ionized iron, but x-rays and even gamma rays.
Click to expand...
You are wrong - the observed x-ray spectra from flares shows that they are not electrical discharges as has been pointed out in several posts before.
That one observation rules out electrical discharges being involved in flares. The definition of electrical discharges also rules them out (see Peratt).

ETA
Maybe only one post: In the context of the electrical discharges of EU comets: Electric Comets III: No EU X-rays
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
W.D.Clinger said:
So after months of claiming that magnetic reconnection does not even exist, and that magnetic reconnection is inconsistent with Maxwell's equations, you now admit that magnetic reconnection exists but claim it "*CONFIRMS*" your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Actually Mr. Spock, those are YOUR silly strawmen, not my statements.
Click to expand...
Speaking of denial...

The quotation above links to a post of mine that links to a post in which Michael Mozina denies the possibility of magnetic reconnection:
Michael Mozina said:
That same lack of a conceptual understanding of subatomic physics shows up in your great love of what Alfven himself called "pseudoscience". You can't physically tell me the difference between induction and magnetic reconnection, or ordinary particle collisions in plasma. Instead you simply cling to the concept in spite of the fact that every electrical textbook on the planet points out that magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum, without beginning and without end. They are physically *INCAPABLE* of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other magnetic line. Induction is not "magnetic reconnection". Circuit reorientation is not "magnetic reconnection". Alfven rejected that whole concept as pseudoscience his *ENTIRE* career, yet you prattle on about it in paper after paper.
Click to expand...
Just two days ago, I explained what is meant by magnetic reconnection, taking special care to refute the claim that, being a mathematical abstraction, magnetic reconnection has no physical meaning.

Michael Mozina said:
In other words, you're going to claim victory regardless of facts.
Click to expand...

No, it's still an "electrical discharge" because it's a fast release of magnetic field energy either way you look at it. By *DEFINITION* it is still an "electrical discharge" no matter HOW you transfer the energy to the charged particle.
Click to expand...
Apart from you, no one has denied that magnetic reconnection involves "magnetic field energy". If you want to redefine "electrical discharge" to include magnetic reconnection, I guess we can't stop you.

Michael Mozina said:
Since *INDUCTION* does that just fine, there's no need for any sort of exotic energy transfers in the first place!
Click to expand...
Apart from you, no one has claimed that magnetic reconnection involves "exotic energy transfers".

Michael Mozina said:
You claimed victory when you were claiming that magnetic reconnection didn't exist. Now you're claiming victory because magnetic reconnection exists.
Click to expand...

I claim "victory" because Dungey makes it's very clear that the "current carrying" PLASMA THREADS reconnect, not the "magnetic fields" alone. In *EITHER* case it's still an 'electrical discharge' no matter what! This statement is still a pathological lie no matter how you slice it or dice it.
Click to expand...
Yes, what you wrote above is still a pathological denial of fact, but it's nice to see your implicit admission that "magnetic fields" reconnect. That's nonsensical terminology, of course, but it's probably the best you can do given your limited understanding of the subject.

Michael Mozina said:
Complaining about its name won't hide your failure to understand it.
Click to expand...

The name is the main program. The math is fine. The concept is sound. The problem is that the transfer of magnetic field energy into the various circuits is called *INDUCTION*, not 'magnetic reconnection'.
Click to expand...
Is that going to be your strategy for the next few days/weeks/months? To proclaim that everything ever written about magnetic reconnection is wrong because we should have been calling it "induction"?

Listen, Michael: We know that both induction and magnetic reconnection involve magnetic fields. Apart from you, most of us also know that induction seldom involves magnetic reconnection. But if you want to conflate magnetic reconnection with induction, then we can just add "induction" and "magnetic reconnection" to the extremely long list of scientific terms that you do not understand but are determined to abuse.
 
tusenfem said:
Well, if the temperature is high enough Saha's equation shows that highly ionized states can occur.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how *ONE* (singular) loop reaches *MILLIONS* (plural) of degrees? A plasma pinch due to a 'discharge/current flow' is definitely capable of, and has been documented to have done all the following in the lab:

Heats plasma to millions of degrees.
Emits gamma rays.
"Pinches" free neutrons from plasma.
Emits many other lower radiation, including x-rays, FE ions of all types, neon photons from high energy states, etc.
Is found in nature in the atmospheres of ALL large bodies with an atmosphere and a magnetic field.

Which of these can any of you directly link *IN THE LAB* with "magnetic reconnection"?

Which of those things is done in way that satisfied all the criteria that ALFVEN (not me) outlines and doesn't nail the coffin shut according to Alfven?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, ever one of Peratt's criteria is met or defined by what occurs in a flare. We see heating processes in play, fast particle emissions, and high energy photon emissions consistent with pinches and discharges in plasma.
Click to expand...

But are they all met by the same discharge model?

If I may return to my yard-walrus:
. . . It has 5" whiskers, which is characteristic of (adult male) walruses.
. . . It has 1" fur, which is characteristic of (newborn) walruses.
. . . It has 1/2" incisors, which is characteristic of (adult female) walruses.
. . . It sometimes chases butterflies, which is characteristic of (cartoon) walruses (e.g. Chumley).
(I made up some walrus trivia for illustrative purposes)

But barring some Frankenwalrus, I don't get to compare my backyard creature with a wide variety of walruses and assemble a composite. I have to show that it strongly resembles a particular type of walrus.

Similarly, I don't think it's conclusive or even very suggestive to say that some observed features of the sun are consistent with plasma discharges unless you can say that they're all consistent with the same model of plasma discharges.

For example, suppose your model said that a typical large flare started with a 9E6 volt charge separation over 90,000 km, and that the initial current was 300,000A, dropping to 100,000A before the filament broke (when it dropped to zero). Then we could say, "ah, yes, thus the resistance started at 100 ohms, and the total energy dissipated was X, distributed over Y kg of solar atmosphere, giving an average of Z degrees of heating, and that would give us W watts of X-ray and U% of Fe+20 etc etc.

But I suspect that there's no voltage/current profile that will give results that are consistent will all of the data. Perhaps the Fe+20 will require 10E12 Amps, while the heating would be consistent with 9E8 Amps and the fast particle emission would only make sense at 5E6 Amps.

And without a model that we can compare with our observations, all you can do is speculate that there is some combination of parameters that would make the electric sun theory give good results.

What's the alternative?
Click to expand...
I don't know, and others will have to respond.

But before the germ theory of disease, there weren't a lot of good alternatives to the four humours, but that didn't make the four-humours theory correct.

ETA: For reasons that I can't quite explain, I feel a nigh-overwhelming urge to photoshop a picture of a miniature walrus creeping up on my birdfeeder.
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
Just two days ago, I explained what is meant by magnetic reconnection, taking special care to refute the claim that, being a mathematical abstraction, magnetic reconnection has no physical meaning.
Click to expand...

Dungey gave us a very specific physical meaning however as he bridged the gap between discharge theory and 'reconnection' theory. He makes it *VERY* clear that what "reconnects" are the plasma discharges/pinches at the *ELECTRO*magnetic null point. It's the kinetic energy of the PARTICLES and INDUCTION (AKA the transfer of kinetic energy from the magnetic field to a charged particle). No magnetic lines "disconnect" or "reconnect', just "discharges' and "current streams" of charges particles. No magnetic lines ever "reconnect".

Alfven was essentially correct. MR theory will forever be a form of "pseudoscience", because it's "pseudo-correct". It's mathematically correct, as were all the MR papers Alfven ever read. It's just physically mislabeled in terms of the actual *PHYSICAL* process. The process is *INDUCTION* and *PARTICLE COLLISION*. The null is simply experiencing a "discharge' through the double layer. Alfven describes this process in terms of an exploding double layer and automatically and forcefully disqualifies MR theory in any current carrying plasma scenario.

Apart from you, no one has denied that magnetic reconnection involves "magnetic field energy". If you want to redefine "electrical discharge" to include magnetic reconnection, I guess we can't stop you.
Click to expand...

Well, it's 100% clear that he intentionally included induction as an option in his definition. It's clear that you're trying to transfer magnetic field energy into charged particles which is *NORMALLY* (in other branches of physics) associated with INDUCTION. If you want to call induction "magnetic reconnection", I guess I can't stop you. :)

Apart from you, no one has claimed that magnetic reconnection involves "exotic energy transfers".
Click to expand...

Well, particle collisions have a proper scientific name. Induction has a proper scientific name when we're talking about transferring magnetic field energy into charged particles. Evidently you've already RULED OUT these other mundane options in favor of something "exotic" (not induction). Why?

Yes, what you wrote above is still a pathological denial of fact, but it's nice to see your implicit admission that "magnetic fields" reconnect.
Click to expand...

No, implicit in Dungey's explanation is the fact that "current carrying (discharge) pinched plasma filaments actually "reconnect". In Birkeland currents (yes that's what Peratt calls them) the magnetic and electric field wind around each other and run parallel to each other in a "pinched" thread.

The magnetic field topology changes only because the current flow topology changes over time. There's nothing "mystical" going on here. At the level of "physics", it's the "particles" and what Alfven calls "circuits" that 'reconnect" at the *ELECTRO*magnetic null point.
 
dasmiller said:
But are they all met by the same discharge model?
Click to expand...

Sure, so long as we recognize that two "pinched currents" are involved, everything reconciles between Alfven, Peratt, Dungey, Bruce (well kinda), and Lee. Throw in a few 'experiments' from the real world (like the z-machine experiments) and it all reconciles to a "discharge" (as Peratt defines it) process.

If I may return to my yard-walrus:
. . . It has 5" whiskers, which is characteristic of (adult male) walruses.
. . . It has 1" fur, which is characteristic of (newborn) walruses.
. . . It has 1/2" incisors, which is characteristic of (adult female) walruses.
. . . It sometimes chases butterflies, which is characteristic of (cartoon) walruses (e.g. Chumley).
(I made up some walrus trivia for illustrative purposes)

But barring some Frankenwalrus, I don't get to compare my backyard creature with a wide variety of walruses and assemble a composite. I have to show that it strongly resembles a particular type of walrus.
Click to expand...

Alright. Let's look at the criteria outlined by Peratt:

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent processes such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microwανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.
Click to expand...

Is a flare a violent process? Yep.
Does it experience rapid heating (beyond 5700K). Yep.
Does it ionize things like iron to a +20 state, neon to a +5 state, Carbon to a +3 state, etc? Yes.
Does it create pinched filament channels, the kind that might pinch neutrons from plasma and emit gamma rays? Yep.
Does it accelerate charged particles? Yes.
Does it emit many types of high energy wavelengths of light? Yep, it sure does.

In every respect an EM flare meets the criteria as described by Peratt as an "electrical discharge" in plasma.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in a separate response.
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
Similarly, I don't think it's conclusive or even very suggestive to say that some observed features of the sun are consistent with plasma discharges unless you can say that they're all consistent with the same model of plasma discharges.

For example, suppose your model said that a typical large flare started with a 9E6 volt charge separation over 90,000 km, and that the initial current was 300,000A, dropping to 100,000A before the filament broke (when it dropped to zero). Then we could say, "ah, yes, thus the resistance started at 100 ohms, and the total energy dissipated was X, distributed over Y kg of solar atmosphere, giving an average of Z degrees of heating, and that would give us W watts of X-ray and U% of Fe+20 etc etc.

But I suspect that there's no voltage/current profile that will give results that are consistent will all of the data. Perhaps the Fe+20 will require 10E12 Amps, while the heating would be consistent with 9E8 Amps and the fast particle emission would only make sense at 5E6 Amps.
Click to expand...

I will have to look for a quote after work today from Peratt's book, but in there he describes concentric filaments of different plasmas (separated by elements and ionization energies) that might do the trick. I'll see if I can't round you up a quote as I get time today. The basic premise is that each element has a specific ionization energy and each concentric "flux tube" spins inside the other, like Russian dolls, one inside the other.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Is a flare a violent process? Yep.
Does it experience rapid heating (beyond 5700K). Yep.
Does it ionize things like iron to a +20 state, neon to a +5 state, Carbon to a +3 state, etc? Yes.
Does it create pinched filament channels, the kind that might pinch neutrons from plasma and emit gamma rays? Yep.
Does it accelerate charged particles? Yes.
Does it emit many types of high energy wavelengths of light? Yep, it sure does.

In every respect an EM flare meets the criteria as described by Peratt as an "electrical discharge" in plasma.
Click to expand...

Of course, my response will be:

But would a specific discharge provide the total energy release that we observe (the violent process), create the observed amount of heating, create the observed levels of ionization, (are the pinched filament channels observed?), the observed distribution of charged particles, and the observed optical spectrum?

But from your next post it appears that you may already be planning to address this a little later.

So I'll defer that part. But of the features you list, how many are specific to electrical discharges rather than simply being the sorts of things you'd expect when a huge amount of energy is dumped into the solar atmosphere, regardless of the mechanism?

A flare is a violent process, certainly, but not all violent processes involve electrical discharges.

As for the rapid heating, that's simply a result of the violent process.

The ionization, in turn, may be a simple result of the heating.

I can't speak to the filament thing.

As for accelerating charged particles, I'd think that anything that violently moved a plasma in a magnetic field would accelerate some charged particles.

Now, for the high energy wavelengths of light, that should be somewhat dependent on the heating mechanism. Do flares emit high-energy spectra that are characteristic of discharges? (I'll assume that you believe they do, others here seem to believe that they don't).

So, for me, your list boils down to "flares must be electrical discharges because they're violent," with open questions on the filament thing and the observed spectrum. And that's not compelling for me.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Explain to me how *ONE* (singular) loop reaches *MILLIONS* (plural) of degrees? A plasma pinch due to a 'discharge/current flow' is definitely capable of, and has been documented to have done all the following in the lab:
Click to expand...

Oh, please, stop with the silly millionssssss of degrees, that is not even a keV (that would be a kilo electron volt), so that is not even very interesting. A loop where a current is flowing will be heated, yes, I have neve ever said anything different. However, this has nothing to do with what was discussed. The question was how Fe XX could be created, I just said if the temperature (like in the corona) is high enough, then high ionization states will emerge, as described by Saha's law.

Michael Mozina said:
Heats plasma to millions of degrees. sure
Emits gamma rays. most of the Xrays are bremsstrahlung you need no pinch
"Pinches" free neutrons from plasma. this does not make any sense, where would suddenly neutrons come from?
Emits many other lower radiation, including x-rays, FE ions of all types, neon photons from high energy states, etc.and this does not make any sense either. I guess a pinch creates neon through fusion or something Oh wait, neon photonse, whatever those are. I guess if you do experiments in the lab with neon plasma then you will get photons from the neon energy spectrum
Is found in nature in the atmospheres of ALL large bodies with an atmosphere and a magnetic field.and you still don't know what an atmosphere is

Which of these can any of you directly link *IN THE LAB* with "magnetic reconnection"? MRx has been shown to happen in the lab and has been shown to happen in the Earth's magnetosphere. As most of the things you write down have absolutely nothing to do with pinches I guess I need not answer this

Which of those things is done in way that satisfied all the criteria that ALFVEN (not me) outlines and doesn't nail the coffin shut according to Alfven? I have shown you that Alfven kept the door to MRx well open in his JGR paper, but apparently you don't want to read that.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, I notice that you only discuss simple remarks, but whenever there is real science in a message of mine (or anyone else) you happen to miss those posts.

When can I expect my idiot explanation about how your circuit reconnection can explain the MRx signatures that were measured by Cluster as shown in the Runov et al paper (if you don't have access to the paper, just say so, I am co author, and have the pdf)
 
Michael Mozina has been denying the magnetic reconnection in Dungey's paper. Here is Dungey's Figure 1, rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise:

dungeyFigure1.jpg


Here is Wikipedia's picture of magnetic reconnectionWP (which is in the public domain, and is being served from my web site):

380px-Reconnection.gif


Wikipedia's animation of that image shows why this phenomenon is known as magnetic reconnection. The red and blue lines correspond to the long curved lines of Dungey's Figure 1; they are magnetic field lines. The dotted lines that cross at the center of Wikipedia's image represent the boundaries between magnetic domains; those boundaries correspond to the long straight lines of Dungey's Figure 1. The central point, where those boundaries cross, is the neutral point N of Dungey's paper.

The lines of force are perpendicular to the magnetic field lines; in Dungey's Figure 1, the lines of force are illustrated by the short arrows that are labelled f; those lines of force do not appear in Wikipedia's images.

As the magnetic field changes over time, the magnetic field lines in the north and south quadrants flow toward the center of the image, where each magnetic field line appears to split into two halves and join up with the corresponding half of the magnetic field line approaching from the opposite direction. These new magnetic field lines then appear to move west and east, away from the center of the image. Wikipedia's animation makes this beautifully clear.

Michael Mozina said:
W.D.Clinger said:
Just two days ago, I explained what is meant by magnetic reconnection, taking special care to refute the claim that, being a mathematical abstraction, magnetic reconnection has no physical meaning.
Click to expand...

Dungey gave us a very specific physical meaning however as he bridged the gap between discharge theory and 'reconnection' theory. He makes it *VERY* clear that what "reconnects" are the plasma discharges/pinches at the *ELECTRO*magnetic null point. It's the kinetic energy of the PARTICLES and INDUCTION (AKA the transfer of kinetic energy from the magnetic field to a charged particle).
Click to expand...
No. A physical situation similar to the one shown in the pictures above and in the animation can be created by time-varying electrical currents running in four symmetrically placed wires that run perpendicular to and outside the images. As Dungey himself notes, there needn't be any current at the neutral point N:
Dungey said:
The limiting lines of force through N form an X and would be perpendicular, if there were no current flowing in the z-direction (normal to the paper).
Click to expand...
Note, however, that the highlighted phrase is incorrect; Dungey is referring to the boundary lines, which are asymptotic to the magnetic field lines, not to the lines of force.

Michael Mozina said:
No magnetic lines "disconnect" or "reconnect', just "discharges' and "current streams" of charges particles. No magnetic lines ever "reconnect".
Click to expand...
As I have explained, the visual impression created by Wikipedia's animation corresponds to a mathematical characterization in which magnetic field lines of the time-varying magnetic field approach the boundary lines from above and below and vanish as they meet the boundary lines; at the instant a pair of magnetic field lines vanish, another pair of magnetic field lines emerges from the boundary travelling east and west.

This mathematical account of what's happening doesn't just agree with what we see in the animation; it also agrees with the physical reality described by Maxwell's equations. The magnetic reconnection is just as real as the magnetic field lines, which are just as real as the magnetic field.

Michael Mozina said:
Alfven was essentially correct. MR theory will forever be a form of "pseudoscience", because it's "pseudo-correct". It's mathematically correct, as were all the MR papers Alfven ever read. It's just physically mislabeled in terms of the actual *PHYSICAL* process. The process is *INDUCTION* and *PARTICLE COLLISION*. The null is simply experiencing a "discharge' through the double layer. Alfven describes this process in terms of an exploding double layer and automatically and forcefully disqualifies MR theory in any current carrying plasma scenario.
Click to expand...
That can't possibly be right, because we can generate the time-varying magnetic fields and accompanying magnetic reconnection shown in the images and animation using nothing more than four conventional wires running perpendicular to and outside the images: no particles at all within the space shown by the images, hence no particle collisions, no discharges, and no double layers, exploding or otherwise.

Michael Mozina said:
Apart from you, no one has claimed that magnetic reconnection involves "exotic energy transfers".
Click to expand...

Well, particle collisions have a proper scientific name. Induction has a proper scientific name when we're talking about transferring magnetic field energy into charged particles. Evidently you've already RULED OUT these other mundane options in favor of something "exotic" (not induction). Why?
Click to expand...
Because you are lying about what I have written?

Apart from you, no one has claimed that magnetic reconnection involves "exotic energy transfers".

Michael Mozina said:
The magnetic field topology changes only because the current flow topology changes over time. There's nothing "mystical" going on here. At the level of "physics", it's the "particles" and what Alfven calls "circuits" that 'reconnect" at the *ELECTRO*magnetic null point.
Click to expand...
As Dungey noted, there needn't be any particles or current at his neutral point N. The magnetic fields that give rise to the magnetic field lines shown in Wikipedia's animation can be generated by running time-varying currents through conventional wires outside the field of view. Conclusion: Your explanation can't possibly be correct.

Maybe you should listen to people who actually understand this stuff, like tusenfem:
tusenfem said:
When can I expect my idiot explanation about how your circuit reconnection can explain the MRx signatures that were measured by Cluster as shown in the Runov et al paper (if you don't have access to the paper, just say so, I am co author, and have the pdf)
Click to expand...
 
Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection V

W.D.Clinger said:
Listen, Michael: We know that both induction and magnetic reconnection involve magnetic fields. Apart from you, most of us also know that induction seldom involves magnetic reconnection. But if you want to conflate magnetic reconnection with induction, then we can just add "induction" and "magnetic reconnection" to the extremely long list of scientific terms that you do not understand but are determined to abuse.
Click to expand...
I am personally convinced that Mozina has never been interested in what any normal person would call an "honest" discussion of science. Just consider this from Mozina, today (8 Dec 2010), with hilite emphasis added by me:
Michael Mozina said:
No, it's still an "electrical discharge" because it's a fast release of magnetic field energy either way you look at it. By *DEFINITION* it is still an "electrical discharge" no matter HOW you transfer the energy to the charged particle. Since *INDUCTION* does that just fine, there's no need for any sort of exotic energy transfers in the first place!
Click to expand...
Now consider this from me, in the post Magnetic Reconnection Redux VII, dated 17 January 2010:
Tim Thompson said:
Why not induction?
Now, Mozina insists that what we are really seeing is induction. Is this a reasonable assertion? At the level of real physics it appears to be unrealistic. We know that induction is invariably constrained (or unconstrained) by the characteristic diffusion time for the magnetic field in a given environment. Remember that in the process of induction, the magnetic field move with respect to the charged particles, and it is that relative motion between field & particle that determines the transfer of energy from the magnetic field to the particles. Let me quote once again from Priest & Forbes, this time from section 1.1 ("The Origins of Reconnection Theory"), pages 6-7: "For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 105 km is of the order of 106 yrs. Typically, phenomena like the solar flare and the substorm require a significant fraction of the stored magnetic energy to be converted within a few Alfven time-scales. Such rapid time-scales are easily achieved in ideal MHD processes, but not in non-ideal ones. Although ideal MHD processes can release energy quickly, they rarely release a significant amount because of the topological constraints which exist in the absence of dissipation. In contrast, magnetic reconnection is not topologically constrained, and therefore it can release much greater amounts of energy (Kivelson and Russell, 1995)."
Click to expand...
Now, above Mozina tells us "*INDUCTION* does that just fine", despite being informed nearly a year ago that induction will not do that just fine and in fact, cannot do that at all. Why does he do that?

It is not physically possible for induction to be at the root of any process that results in the fast release of magnetic energy. There is in fact one and only one process known to physics which can do that, and that process s magnetic reconnection. It is not, as Mozina continually repeats, an "exotic" process. It is in fact rather mundane and ordinary, as physics goes, a necessary consequence of the physics of electromagnetism, and it even has whole books devoted to it (like the one I cited above, Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000).

Mozina always ignores anything, real physics included, even bona fide controlled laboratory experiments, that does not fit his prejudice and there is nothing intellectually honest about that.
 
Last edited:
See this is what I don't understand. Any scientist who developed a working and detailed electric universe/electric sun/electric something-or-other model that both explained what we see now, and predicted correctly what the consequences of such a model would be, would instantly win acclaim and nobel prizes.

Why can't any of these EU proponents point to a single, solitary, quantitative prediction? Why can't they show any kind of mathematical description?

If it was a real physics based effect that could be quantified, it would have been.
 
Energy build-up and release mechanisms in solar and auroral flares

Michael Mozina said:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r51v538631610x8j/
Click to expand...
Energy build-up and release mechanisms in solar and auroral flares (1975)
Flare phenomena in the solar atmosphere and in the terrestrial magnetosphere exhibit many similarities. The mechanical energy of enhanced photospheric motion is converted and stored in the form of magnetic potential energy in sunspot fields, which is analogous to the case of the growth phase of magnetospheric substorms. The energy release during the explosive phase is initiated by a sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology and the X-type magnetic neutral point is created in the corona. Subsequent electrical discharge takes place in the form of an intense electrojet current flowing in the base of the chromosphere at the altitude where the Cowling conductivity is a maximum. It is suggested that the acceleration of particles by field-aligned electric fields and the Ohmic heating in the chromosphere result in major features of solar flares.
Click to expand...
Yet another failure, Michael Mozina. But not as bad as the last one!

The abstract does have the term "electrical discharge".
But the paper in fact just has 2 instances of the word discharge. It is clear that this is the discharge of current from the sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology. See page 202.
 
Reality Check said:
No mention of electrical discharges.
Plenty of electric fields, currents, current densities (and magnetic fields!) are mentioned - in other words standard physics.
Click to expand...

I only briefly looked at that paper, but how can you say it doesn't mention electric discharges if it mentions electric fields, electric currents, electric current densities and magnetic fields? Are you aware that electric discharge is the only known way to produce a magnetic field? Mentioning a magnetic field is implicitly mentioning the electric field driving it. A field isn't an infinite plane like the geometrical construct, it's electricity in motion, electricity discharging. There are several modes of electric discharge, not all of it produces visible light, but every electric discharge consists of a specific current, and a specific current density. You can't have this current and current density without the discharge. If you're finding yourself in conflict over this specific issue a lot, perhaps it's time to reexamine some of your basic assumptions.
 
nvidiot said:
Any scientist who developed a working and detailed electric universe/electric sun/electric something-or-other model that both explained what we see now, and predicted correctly what the consequences of such a model would be, would instantly win acclaim and nobel prizes.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that by virtue of being right it's possible to also be convincing to people who have radically different beliefs? Is this what history shows us is typical for new discoveries? Was Galileo showered with accolades and treasures for his contributions to the sum of human knowledge?

FattyCatty said:
Why can't any of these EU proponents point to a single, solitary, quantitative prediction?
Click to expand...

Kristian Birkeland predicted in 1913 that plasma was ubiquitous in space, this has been confirmed by every probe launched with the capability to measure. None have ever left a plasma environment. Birkeland also correctly predicted that "solar wind" particles would be found to behave exactly like all charged particles do when subjected to an electric field. You asked for one, now you have two, I could have given you dozens if you'd asked.
 
Reality Check said:
The abstract does have the term "electrical discharge".
But the paper in fact just has 2 instances of the word discharge. It is clear that this is the discharge of current from the sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology. See page 202.
Click to expand...

Are you reading these papers fully or just doing word searches to get word counts?

Can you explain what you mean by "discharge of current from a sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology"?
 
Tim Thompson said:
Now, above Mozina tells us "*INDUCTION* does that just fine", despite being informed nearly a year ago that induction will not do that just fine and in fact, cannot do that at all.
Click to expand...

Timmy, what do you mean? Are you saying induction can't transfer energy (aka momentum) to a charge particle? if that's the case then how do linear induction charged particle accelerators work? They aren't just theoretical, there are many working examples.

Tim Thompson said:
Why does he do that?
Click to expand...

Because he's right and you're being obtuse?

Tim Thompson said:
It is not physically possible for induction to be at the root of any process that results in the fast release of magnetic energy.
Click to expand...

Timmy, can you define the nature of "magnetic energy" so that it accords with your claim that induction can't possibly result in the "release" of it? How does one release magnetic energy? Can you story it as well? Presumably, since you think it can be release. How is the storage accomplished?

Tim Thompson said:
There is in fact one and only one process known to physics which can do that, and that process s magnetic reconnection.
Click to expand...

That process is metaphysical at best, Timmy. In grade school physics they teach that every magnetic field line must begin and end at the magnet. What you're suggesting is that this can be suspended for the purposes of explaining things like CME's and solar flares. We don't have to invoke special rules that don't apply elsewhere, we can take advantage of our knowledge of electrical engineering and of plasmas. CME's and solar flares are exploding double layers in plasma.

Timmy, plasmas form double layers spontaneously in the presence of electric fields. The entire voltage difference is expressed across that double layer. If the current density becomes too high at the double layer, it can explode violently. We see this in the lab and it mimics CME's and solar flares precisely, even down to the radiation and streams of particles they hurl off. It's cut and dried, these phenomena are electrical in nature. This absurd and untestable fantasy about "magnetic reconnection" is mooted by an adequate explanation.

Tim Thompson said:
Mozina always ignores anything, real physics included, even bona fide controlled laboratory experiments, that does not fit his prejudice and there is nothing intellectually honest about that.
Click to expand...

I wish you'd spend less time talking about your fantasies involving other posters and more time discussing the subject at hand. I find this topic fascinating, when people actually stay on it.
 
Arthur Mann said:
Are you suggesting that by virtue of being right it's possible to also be convincing to people who have radically different beliefs? Is this what history shows us is typical for new discoveries? Was Galileo showered with accolades and treasures for his contributions to the sum of human knowledge?
Click to expand...

If you can show why you're right and prove it then yes. Gallileo isn't exactly the modern definition of a scientist. Einstein would be a better example.

And he was right, and he was showered with accolades, (not so much the treasures, but that's your strawman not mine). His contributions to science are standard text now. If the electric universe theory could come up with one, quantifiable prediction that it got even within an order of magnitude right, then the sciences would look at it.

What possible reason would any scientist worth the title not want to investigate it if it was a real and quantifiable effect?



Kristian Birkeland predicted in 1913 that plasma was ubiquitous in space, this has been confirmed by every probe launched with the capability to measure. None have ever left a plasma environment. Birkeland also correctly predicted that "solar wind" particles would be found to behave exactly like all charged particles do when subjected to an electric field. You asked for one, now you have two, I could have given you dozens if you'd asked.
Click to expand...

Again with Birkeland. You think maybe we understand things a bit better since we have had opportunities to send craft into space and around solar bodies? You think maybe if there was a massive electric current supplying the sun with energy that we may have noticed it frying out sattelites left right and center?
 
Last edited:
Arthur Mann said:
I only briefly looked at that paper, but how can you say it doesn't mention electric discharges if it mentions electric fields, electric currents, electric current densities and magnetic fields?
Click to expand...
I read the paper. It does not contain the term electrical discharge.

Arthur Mann said:
Are you aware that electric discharge is the only known way to produce a magnetic field?
Click to expand...
Magnetic fields are basically created by moving charges.
An electrical discharge is one example of moving charges and produces a magnetic field.
A current in a wire is another example and produces a magnetic field.
A current in a plasma is another example and produces a magnetic field.
 
Reality Check said:
I read the paper. It does not contain the term electrical discharge.


Magnetic fields are basically created by moving charges.
An electrical discharge is one example of moving charges and produces a magnetic field.
A current in a wire is another example and produces a magnetic field.
A current in a plasma is another example and produces a magnetic field.
Click to expand...

It's almost as if they don't actually have a definition for the term "electrical discharge".
 
Arthur Mann said:
Are you reading these papers fully or just doing word searches to get word counts?
Click to expand...
I am skimming through them rather than analyzing them word by word.
Michael Mozina has a track record of bad citations (see my last post about his citations). I am not going to waste much of my time in his assertions.

Arthur Mann said:
Can you explain what you mean by "discharge of current from a sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology"?
Click to expand...
I mean whatever the author meant :D.

But Maxwell's equations (the basis of electromagnetism) state that changing magnetic fields exert forces on charges. That is how dynamos work.
A "sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology" is a changing magnetic field. This will exert force on charges. These forces will make the charges move faster, especially electrons. The charges that move faster form a discharge of current.
 
Arthur Mann said:
Timmy, what do you mean? Are you saying induction can't transfer energy (aka momentum) to a charge particle? if that's the case then how do linear induction charged particle accelerators work? They aren't just theoretical, there are many working examples.
Click to expand...
You need to read the quoted post.
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
Why not induction?
Now, Mozina insists that what we are really seeing is induction. Is this a reasonable assertion? At the level of real physics it appears to be unrealistic. We know that induction is invariably constrained (or unconstrained) by the characteristic diffusion time for the magnetic field in a given environment. Remember that in the process of induction, the magnetic field move with respect to the charged particles, and it is that relative motion between field & particle that determines the transfer of energy from the magnetic field to the particles. Let me quote once again from Priest & Forbes, this time from section 1.1 ("The Origins of Reconnection Theory"), pages 6-7: "For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 105 km is of the order of 106 yrs. Typically, phenomena like the solar flare and the substorm require a significant fraction of the stored magnetic energy to be converted within a few Alfven time-scales. Such rapid time-scales are easily achieved in ideal MHD processes, but not in non-ideal ones. Although ideal MHD processes can release energy quickly, they rarely release a significant amount because of the topological constraints which exist in the absence of dissipation. In contrast, magnetic reconnection is not topologically constrained, and therefore it can release much greater amounts of energy (Kivelson and Russell, 1995)."
Click to expand...

The time scale of solar flares means that induction cannot be causing the energy release. Solar flares last for 100 seconds. Their scale means that it would take 1,000,000 years for induction to release the same amount of energy.

Arthur Mann said:
Because he's right and you're being obtuse?
Click to expand...
No because Tim Thompson is presenting the science.
Micheal Mozina has been persistently ignoring the science.

Arthur Mann said:
That process is metaphysical at best, Timmy.
...
Click to expand...
You need to research the observations of magnetic reconnection and experimental research into magnetic reconnection.
And maybe learn what it is: Magnetic reconnection.

Arthur Mann said:
Timmy, plasmas form double layers spontaneously in the presence of electric fields.
...
Click to expand...
Plasmas also form double layers spontaneously when 2 different plasmas are close.
I seem to recall that double layers can account for the energy released in solar flares. The problem is that they cannot explain much much else. But Tim Thompson knows more about this than me.
 
Reality Check said:
Michael Mozina has a track record of bad citations (see my last post about his citations).
Click to expand...

So you're just skimming (word-searching) his sources and then announcing his failure to do what you have demanded? I'm not getting it. Where is the skepticism? You seem to be engaged in wholesale bias against this individual, as evidenced by your own statements. If his "track record" consists of allegations put forth by you, I'd say it's safe to discard it as irrelevant.

Reality Check said:
I am not going to waste much of my time in his assertions.
Click to expand...

You seem to have wasted a lot of time on it so far, and accomplished nothing, to my estimation.

Reality Check said:
A "sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology" is a changing magnetic field.
Click to expand...

What can cause such a collapse of the "topology" of a magnetic field? Is this a physical topology or just a mathematical topology? Do magnetic fields have a physical topology? If it's a mathematical topology, how can an abstract topology "collapse" or have any effect on reality?

Reality Check said:
This will exert force on charges. These forces will make the charges move faster, especially electrons. The charges that move faster form a discharge of current.
Click to expand...

Plasmas are conductive and magnetic, they spontaneously self-organize in the presence of electric or magnetic fields. Magnetic fields in a plasma generate electric fields, Electric fields generate magnetic fields. You can't really have one without the other. For example, if you propose a process "magnetic reconnection" you are implying there is some "electric reconnection". In other words you're saying the phenomenon is electrically driven.

I'm arbitrarily choosing electricity as the driving force because we can generate it readily without resorting to fumbling around with magnets and wires. We can do it with magnets and wires, or chemically, photovoltaically, transducing, etcetera. We can't do the same with magnetic fields, those only come from electric fields. What I'm saying is you can divorce magnetic causes from electric fields but you can't divorce electric causes from magnetic fields. Crying "magnetic reconnection, not electricity!" is the fool's game, if you look at it that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom