Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

ben m said:
Anyway, I'm glad you have backed off from the nonsensical view that reconnection somehow violates Maxwell's Equations, which IIRC was your view for a long time because you thought reconnection involved broken field lines.
Click to expand...

It only violates Maxwells equations if you say that magnetism is providing the energy for the "reconnection" process. But since we all know that magnetism requires a current flow(see my previous post), then with this assumption it does not.

Also magnetism is a field effect so there are no lines, right? Only gradients.

And at every point that the field is changing, it is a scalar(change in amplitude at a single point) not a change in a field line.. Then you can associate a vector with 2 scalars to show the direction of gradient. But you already know that.
The field lines trace gradient contours so if you have an instantaneous change at a point in the gradient, then the calculated field line moves to reflect this but there are no physical lines reconnecting. Only magnetic gradients following the flow of current. As the current changes in amplitude the magnetic gradient changes.
 
brantc said:
It only violates Maxwells equations if you say that magnetism is providing the energy for the "reconnection" process. But since we all know that magnetism requires a current flow(see my previous post), then with this assumption it does not.
Click to expand...

No:
a) magnetic fields arise either from current or from dE/dt, remember?
b) Magnetic field energy is indeed magnetic field energy; it's a property of the field, it is NOT a manifestation (as EU people always seem to think) of kinetic energy of the current-carrying particles, or something. Field energy density is proportional to B^2. This is freshman-level stuff; this is why a coiled inductor differs from a straight wire.

Reconnection indeed changes this magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy.

Also magnetism is a field effect so there are no lines, right? Only gradients.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp

This is really funny; it's not simply wrong, it's the blunt opposite of a simple, fundamental, interesting fact which is taught in all undergrad E&M classes. It's the E&M equivalent of saying, "Reptiles have mammary glands, right?", or "Helium is a highly reactive metal, right?" No, the magnetic field is a vector field. It's a vector field with nonzero curl, so it's very specifically NOT a gradient of any scalar potential. ("Magnetic scalar potential" can be defined as a useful mathematical fiction in regions of zero current density---i.e. not in a plasma.)
 
brantc said:
It only violates Maxwells equations if you say that magnetism is providing the energy for the "reconnection" process. But since we all know that magnetism requires a current flow(see my previous post), then with this assumption it does not.
Click to expand...
Magnetism is providing the energy for the reconnection process and it is not a violation of Maxwells equations. To be more exact it is not a violation of the energy conservation principle for electromagnetic fields and charges (Poynting's theorem). This states that the rate of change of the field energy in a region is the negative of the rate at which field energy is flowing out of the region minus the rate that the field is doing work on the charges in that region.

Magnetism does not always require a current flow (as in moving electric charges) e.g. ferromagnetism. In the case of the Sun and stars in general, the convective circulation of the photosphere plasma are the "current flow" creating the solar magnetic field. The solar magnetic field is twisted by differential rotation to form magnetic flux tubes. These rise through the photosphere to cause sunspots, coronal loops and flares.

There are plasma ("current") flows caused by the magnetic flux tubes. These do not create the magnetic flux tubes (they already exist).

What you are forgetting is that this is a process. It starts with energy being stored in the magnetic flux tubes during their creation. It is this energy that is being relased during solar flares.

brantc said:
Also magnetism is a field effect so there are no lines, right? Only gradients.
Click to expand...
That is what everyone knows (except maybe MM!) - magnetic field lines are not physical objects. They are a visualization of the magnetic vector field.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
attempt2
Click to expand...


dunno why I called this an attempt2 as it was actually nothing to do with the first post, and if anything was entirely consistant with it.

Still think that people are flip-flopping about with this 1/r in gravity and EM equations. The fact is that although the simulations you talk about do show filamentary structures they are not of considerable enough mass to be significant and the structure is a transient structure as it has to have a starting point in time where conditions are tentatively assumed.

Cant be bothered to write it again, whats the issue with the following then;

plasmaz.jpg


Atronomy and Astrophysics (1999)
 
ben m said:
Reconnection indeed changes this magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy.

brantc
Also magnetism is a field effect so there are no lines, right? Only gradients.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp

This is really funny; it's not simply wrong, it's the blunt opposite of a simple, fundamental, interesting fact which is taught in all undergrad E&M classes. It's the E&M equivalent of saying, "Reptiles have mammary glands, right?", or "Helium is a highly reactive metal, right?" No, the magnetic field is a vector field. It's a vector field with nonzero curl, so it's very specifically NOT a gradient of any scalar potential. ("Magnetic scalar potential" can be defined as a useful mathematical fiction in regions of zero current density---i.e. not in a plasma.)
Click to expand...

I'm not good at math(just a lowly electronic tech for many hands on years;-) but I do know that a magnetic field around wire using the center of the wire for the origin, drops off in strength as you move outward. If you move outward and pick a point and then rotate around the origin the field does not change.
Any one spot has an amplitude. I made a line between 2 spots pointing outward. So there is a gradient from the center outward.

If there any lines anywhere, my milligauss(http://www.trifield.com/dc_magnetometer.htm) meter and all my magnetic measuring toys dont show that.


Coherent flows of electrons produce a magnetic field(actually an electron has a magnetic field so I wonder whats flowing in it???). The more coherent the group the stronger the magnetic field. At some point because of the differential between to spots (the anode and the cathode)as the current is turned up flux tubes form because the plasma cannot support the required current density. As the flows of electrons are stronger and more coherent a magnetic field forms according the right hand rule(curl- I believe the magnetic field rotates physically around the wire but cant prove it.). In an extreme case the current flow become so strong that a Bennet pinch forms "releasing a burst of radiation".

Thats all I know.

The Large Plasma Device at UCLA.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/pages/gallery.html
 
Zeuzzz said:
dunno why I called this an attempt2 as it was actually nothing to do with the first post, and if anything was entirely consistant with it.

Still think that people are flip-flopping about with this 1/r in gravity and EM equations.
Click to expand...
The fact is that people are not "flip-flopping" about 1/r in gravity and EM equations.
The fact is that any force that varies as 1/r^2 for a point source produces a 1/r force from a infinitely long line of particles.
FYI: both gravity and EM forces vary as 1/r^2 for a point source.

Zeuzzz said:
The fact is that although the simulations you talk about do show filamentary structures they are not of considerable enough mass to be significant and the structure is a transient structure as it has to have a starting point in time where conditions are tentatively assumed.
Click to expand...
The fact is that the simulations we talk about (the Millennium Run) do show filamentary structures using the mass of the entire universe and for the lifetime of the entire universe.
They start with the condition of the universe at its beginning as shown by observations.

If you have a theory that matches the observations of the universe better than the current one then start a new thread and demonstrate that your theory is better.

We already know that plasma cosmology does not actually exist except as a collection of mostly debunked, frequently mutually exclusive theories whose only common denominator is the personal preference of each PC advocate.

Zeuzzz said:
Cant be bothered to write it again, whats the issue with the following then;

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/5555/plasmaz.jpg

Atronomy and Astrophysics (1999)
Click to expand...
What is wrong with it is that it is a image from some paper somewhere.

It looks vaguely like one of Anthony Peratt's papers.
The simple nature of the fatal flaw (his computer simulations do not match reality) puts a great deal of doubt on his expertise in cosmology and even astronomy. Citing one of his debunked papers would be quite silly of you.

Read this thread: Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation.
Reality Check said:
Galactic plasma filaments should be easily detected.
The large electric current through them will cause synchrotron radiation. There is no evidence for this. See the forum posting Cluster-sized diffuse radio waveband synchrotron radiation and its footnote:

IMHO the movement of filaments through the intergalactic medium will cause shock waves and detectable X-rays (see below).

There is also the problem of why the filaments are not seen in studies of the mass distribution of matter within galactic clusters using gravitational lensing.
See this posting in the extremely long Plasma Cosmology - Woo or Not thread.

Galactic plasma filaments are not stable.
The SPLASH simulation started with 2 columns that were 32 grids high and 6 wide (the grids defined the spatial extent of the simulation). The 1983 paper describing the SPLASH simulation does mention that periodic boundary conditions are imposed (this essentially makes the simulated filaments infinite in length). So it is possible that the factor of 10,000 between the filament lengths in the simulation and model is not a factor. However in my (limited) knowledge of plasma physics, long filaments of plasma are inherently unstable.

The big problem comes because galaxies are dynamic – they move. Galactic clusters also move. Galaxies collide. Galactic clusters collide. Galaxies pass each other and cannibalize each other. The filaments considered alone may be stable but I cannot see them maintaining themselves when they get close or even collide. Not only could separate filaments collide and short circuit their electric currents but a filament could even collide with itself!
Click to expand...
The "galactic plasma filaments" are the "galactic dimensioned Birkeland currents" in your image.
 
Last edited:
Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered since the middle of 2008:
The "plasma cosmology" as defined by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

Zeuzzz gave one definition which resulted in "a collection of scientific theories with a common thread" definition. This common thread seems to be that the theory emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe and/or is a steady state cosmological theory. This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection.

He then seemed to retract that definition (despite having contributed several theories to the collection) in favor of another (Lerner's?) definition which is hidden somewhere in the thread. I think that it is this post from 3rd July 2008. It is similar to the first definition, i.e. defines itself as non-science. Science fits theories to the data. Science does not assume that a theory is correct and go looking for data to confirm this (ignoring data that does not match or theories that better match the data).


Contrast this to the definition of the Big Bang theory:
  • General Relativity (Hubble's Law, etc. which lead to an hot dense state of the universe)
  • Dark matter (motion of galaxies in galactic clusters, mass distribution from gravitational lensing, etc.).
  • Dark energy (measured accelerating expansion of the universe)
  • Inflation (large-scale structure of the universe).
This is a consistent set of theories that best match the data.
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
This is dumb. Sure, the anything going on in any plasma (reconnection, or Alfven waves, or shock acceleration, or or the two-stream instability---or, heck, Faraday rotation, cyclotron radiation, dispersion, whatever) is the interaction of charges and field via Maxwell's Equations. In that sense, reconnection is "just" particles responding to Maxwell's Equations, including induction.
Click to expand...

Indeed they are.

It's a particular aspect of these equations, describing a certain behavior under certain initial conditions. This behavior has a name, "reconnection", just as "cyclotron radiation" and "relativistic shock acceleration" and "Alfven waves" have names. Physicists are not so childish as to insist that all of these names be ignored because they're "just Maxwell's Equations".
Click to expand...

In physics (and all branches of science) the specific use of proper terms is critical to being able to communicate, particularly across multiple branches of "science". Physicists are not that childish as a group, but astronomers in particular are indeed exactly that "childish" Ben, they are living in their own terminology world where nothing in the math relates to actual physics.

If the "change in the magnetic field topology" is all that matters, then why not call a "circuit board" a "magnetic reconnection board"? We can see the topology of the magnetic fields changing all over the board while it's in operation. A change in topology of the magnetic field is expressed (by Alfven) as a change in the circuitry. Alfven was an electrical engineer by trade and he fully appreciated the 'subtle terminologies" and inner workings of plasma. He called 'magnetic reconnection" theories of various flavors "pseudoscience" and preferred instead to express these transfers of energy from the "particle" orientation of MHD theory, whereas you are stuck in the "field" perspective of MHD theory.

If you really want to understand how a specific individual "understands" a specific theory, it's important to "go to the horses mouth". When attempting to understand MHD theory, I thought it best to learn it from the person who invented it, so I bought/read his books.

When reading his earlier works, it's clear he expressed MHD theory in terms of the "field" orientation of MHD theory. In his later works and book he explains the "particle" side of MHD theory and ties it back to particle physics theory and electrical engineering branches of science.

You folks are stuck in the first semester and never took the second semester of MHD theory. You got lazy and opted to never grasp the real physics of what goes on inside the plasma. Alfven fully understood these processes, whereas today's astronomers do not, and it's very clear they do not. Most of you if not all of you never even bothered to read Cosmic Plasma which essentially represents his "particle" explanation of MHD theory. If and when you ever get around to reading it you'll find he speaks in terms of "particles" and "circuits" and explains why your magnetic reconnection board is not a "magnetic reconnection" board it's a "circuit board" with "circuit energies" that have to be considered at the point of "reconnection".
 
Last edited:
brantc said:
I'm not good at math(just a lowly electronic tech for many hands on years;-) but I do know that a magnetic field around wire using the center of the wire for the origin, drops off in strength as you move outward. If you move outward and pick a point and then rotate around the origin the field does not change.
Any one spot has an amplitude. I made a line between 2 spots pointing outward. So there is a gradient from the center outward.
Click to expand...

You're thinking of the *magnitude* of the magnetic field, and ignoring the direction. The magnetic field 1cm to the left of a wire is not the same as the magnetic field 1cm to the right---they might be the same magnitude, but they're pointing in opposite directions. Please note that the direction the field is pointing in (tangent to a circle around the wire) is NOT the same as the "gradient" direction in which the field magnitude changes (along radii closer to or further from the wire)

In other words, the magnetic field is a vector quantity. Field lines in a vector field are perfectly well-defined, and are unrelated to (and, often enough, orthogonal to) the lines you'd define by following a gradient in the magnetic field strength.
 
Reality Check said:
Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered since the middle of 2008:
The "plasma cosmology" as defined by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).
Click to expand...

Whereas "dark energies", dead inflation deities and "magnetic reconnection" are pure "woo".
 
brantc said:
It only violates Maxwells equations if you say that magnetism is providing the energy for the "reconnection" process. But since we all know that magnetism requires a current flow(see my previous post), then with this assumption it does not.
Click to expand...

I read a bunch of papers before I was convinced that "magnetic reconnection theory" did not violate Maxwell's equations, and FYI some of them actually did. Birn's paper however (and then Parker's original paper) ultimately convinced me it did not violate the equations, it simply mislabeled (and misunderstood) the process which is why Alfven called it "pseudoscience". It misrepresents the process as a sterile "magnetic" process, when in fact it involves moving electrons (circuit energy), moving protons (more 'current flow'), and probably the transfer of kinetic energy from the magnetic field to other "circuits" (aka induction). They simply don't grasp the actual "physics" that goes on because to them is just a big math formula. They don't understand it because they remain willfully ignorant on this topic and all fancy themselves to know more about MHD theory than the guy that wrote it without even reading his book on the particle side of MHD theory. They are lost in their ego's, ignorant of the physics, and they (collectively) have no clue about the "circuit energy" and it's importance at the point of "reconnection".
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
If the "change in the magnetic field topology" is all that matters, then why not call a "circuit board" a "magnetic reconnection board"?
Click to expand...

Because the "circuits" you draw on most circuit board are current/voltage paths (separated from each other by insulators) whose behavior is dominated by what voltages you apply where. The most straightforward way to think about how a circuit will behave is to think about which wire is at what voltage, and the behavior is determined by those voltages and by Ohms law, by voltage-dependent transistor physics, etc. You have a lot more energy in capacitors than in inductors.

In space plasma, noone is applying voltages. There are no distinct insulating patches and conductive patches. The only currents are those induced by local, changing B-fields. In many cases, no one is "applying" a B-field, either---the only B-field there is the one generated by those local, induced currents. The magnetic field energy density is comparable to the kinetic or thermal energy densities. Under these circumstances, it makes no sense to talk about circuits---(unless, MM, you're still mistakenly thinking that a "magnetic field line" is the same thing as the line of current that generates the field? I forget if it was you or Zeuzzz or BAC who was guilty of that.)---there are no wires, the wires aren't separated by insulators, there are no substantial voltage drops. It makes a lot of sense to talk about EITHER (a) the B field or (b) the induced current density plus the externally-applied B field. It make no sense to talk about voltages or Ohm's Law.

They're dual to one another, you see. If I tell you the B field, you take the curl and instantly you know the current density. If you tell me the current density, I take Ampere's Law and instantly I know part of the B field (if someone else tells be some boundary conditions I can figure out the total B field.) So, in order to competely specify the E&M conditions in a plasma, physicists find it easier to just specify the B field. It's a good degree of freedom.
 
ben m said:
Because the "circuits" you draw on most circuit board are current/voltage paths (separated from each other by insulators)
Click to expand...

And in a plasma this occurs by a filamentation formation process that evacuates the region around the thread. You can see the "circuits" form in an ordinary plasma ball. A "magnetic rope" is simply a much larger and scaled of version of "circuit" of moving energy.

You don't understand the physics Ben. Alfven did understand it and he explained it, but none of you bothered to read it and you can't tell induction from magnetic reconnection.

The filaments in an ordinary plasma ball will move and change over time. The "change in magnetic topology'' does not create enough "magnetic reconnection energy" to drive the physical process you see inside the ball. The "circuit energy" (the stuff you can't see) is driving the process, not the "induction" caused by changes in the magnetic field topologies over time.
 
Michael Mozina said:
And in a plasma this occurs by a filamentation formation process that evacuates the region around the thread. You can see the "circuits" form in an ordinary plasma ball.
Click to expand...

A plasma ball---like the desk toy with glowing fingers of plasma---is a high-voltage device. There's a power supply in the base supplying a large AC voltage. The filaments you see are partially ionized channels in an otherwise-neutral gas; they are indeed circuits, and they're carrying currents driven by that giant power supply; they're held as "ropes" by thermal considerations. This has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetic fields, nor induction, and less still to do with space plasmas---which, as I said, are often highly magnetized, more or less uniformly ionized, and do not have a giant high voltage electrode driving current through them.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yes, and so is the sun which is why it generates those million mile per hour "current flows".
Click to expand...

Mainstream astrophysics has a perfectly good magnetic acceleration mechanism for those particle flows. (They are not electrical currents since they are net charge-neutral.) I'm sorry you don't like it.

We've also been through, repeatedly, why the Sun cannot be electrostatically charged. There's no mechanism for charging it up (EU theories want electric fields to work when *repelling* charge from the Sun, but want to ignore them when bringing charge back.) Once charged, if that were doable, there would be a mechanism (which you just described) for running the charge back to zero.

But we've been through this before and I see no point doing it again.

And even if the sun WERE charged, with a long high-voltage wire feeding it charge from a bank of batteries on Proxima Centauri, its emissions would look nothing like those of a plasma globe; as I said, that filamentation is due to "runaway" heating of conducting channels in a cold neutral gas with no notable magnetic fields. Nothing like the solar corona.
 
ben m said:
Mainstream astrophysics has a perfectly good magnetic acceleration mechanism for those particle flows. (They are not electrical currents since they are net charge-neutral.) I'm sorry you don't like it.
Click to expand...

It's not that I "don't like it", it's that it's "not true". You're essentially mislabeling an "electrical discharge" a "magnetic reconnection" event only because you see a change in the topology of the magnetic field during the discharge process. Rhessi and now Fermi have already demonstrated that discharges release gamma rays here on Earth, including annihilation signatures. We point the same equipment at the solar atmosphere and you claim "magnetic reconnection did it". Boloney.

We've also been through, repeatedly, why the Sun cannot be electrostatically charged.
Click to expand...

More boloney. Birkeland showed that it must be which is why he "predicted" (real prediction via real experiments) high speed solar wind!

There's no mechanism for charging it up
Click to expand...

Any energy source might do.

(EU theories want electric fields to work when *repelling* charge from the Sun, but want to ignore them when bringing charge back.) Once charged, if that were doable, there would be a mechanism (which you just described) for running the charge back to zero.
Click to expand...

You need to read some of Alfven's work and particularly some of Birkeland's work with spheres in a vacuum.

And even if the sun WERE charged, with a long high-voltage wire feeding it charge from a bank of batteries on Proxima Centauri, its emissions would look nothing like those of a plasma globe;
Click to expand...

They'd look just like Birkeland's "experiments" (real ones mind you) and that is exactly that they do look like.

as I said, that filamentation is due to "runaway" heating of conducting channels in a cold neutral gas with no notable magnetic fields.
Click to expand...

Runaway heating from what? Whatever you come up with has to explain a continuous solar wind from a full sphere, 24/7, 365 days a year. Birkeland already did that with "electricity". Let's see you duplicate his with with "runaway heating".


Nothing like the solar corona.
Click to expand...

So is it just coincidence, or ironic that he was able to create, film and "predict" 'coronal loops'? :)

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
It's not that I "don't like it", it's that it's "not true". You're essentially mislabeling an "electrical discharge" a "magnetic reconnection" event only because you see a change in the topology of the magnetic field during the discharge process.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that there is no electrostatic voltage involved; that magnetic field lines reconnect as usual; and that energy is transferred from magnetic field energy density to particle kinetic energies.

Rhessi and now Fermi have already demonstrated that discharges release gamma rays here on Earth, including annihilation signatures.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes: low-energy gamma rays from Earth, the big capacitor with a big insulating atmosphere and a well-known charge-separation mechanism. If there were electrostatic discharges in the Sun they would make gamma rays, but there are not.

Any energy source might do.
Click to expand...

I was asking about charge conservation.

You need to read some of Alfven's work and particularly some of Birkeland's work with spheres in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

Birkeland always attached a high-voltage power supply to his sphere with a wire. No one is surprised that Birkeland's sphere was charged via this wire, that it remained charged (via the wire) even though streamers flowed away from it, and no one disputes that a charged, magnetized sphere undergoes weird discharges. The Sun has no such wire.
 
ben m said:
Mainstream astrophysics has a perfectly good magnetic acceleration mechanism for those particle flows. (They are not electrical currents since they are net charge-neutral.) I'm sorry you don't like it.

We've also been through, repeatedly, why the Sun cannot be electrostatically charged. There's no mechanism for charging it up (EU theories want electric fields to work when *repelling* charge from the Sun, but want to ignore them when bringing charge back.) Once charged, if that were doable, there would be a mechanism (which you just described) for running the charge back to zero.

But we've been through this before and I see no point doing it again.

And even if the sun WERE charged, with a long high-voltage wire feeding it charge from a bank of batteries on Proxima Centauri, its emissions would look nothing like those of a plasma globe; as I said, that filamentation is due to "runaway" heating of conducting channels in a cold neutral gas with no notable magnetic fields. Nothing like the solar corona.
Click to expand...


Honey, I Blew up the Tokamak
"August 31, 2009: Magnetic reconnection could be the Universe’s favorite way to make things explode. It operates anywhere magnetic fields pervade space–which is to say almost everywhere. On the sun magnetic reconnection causes solar flares as powerful as a billion atomic bombs. In Earth’s atmosphere, it fuels magnetic storms and auroras. In laboratories, it can cause big problems in fusion reactors. It’s ubiquitous."

see caption
"The problem is, researchers can’t explain it."
Something very interesting and fundamental is going on that we don’t really understand — not from laboratory experiments or from simulations,” says Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...rossed-magnetic-streams-and-magnetic-portals/
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
More boloney. Birkeland showed that it must be which is why he "predicted" (real prediction via real experiments) high speed solar wind!
Click to expand...
More boloney.
Birkeland speculated that there was a solar wind and was right.
He never produced a solar wind in his experiments.
I have never seen a predication from him of the speed of the solar wind.

First asked 28 December 2009
Michael Mozina,
Can you give a citation for Birkeland's prediction for the high speed solar wind?
We know that he predicted a solar wind. All you need to do is cite where he calculated the speed of the solar wind. Then we can compare it to the actual measured speed of the solar wind.

I have seen a prediction of the speed of his cathode-ray pencils which are not any known solar phenomena and was wrong for speeds of the the solar wind, flare, and CME events.

First asked 28 December 2009
Michael Mozina,
Just what are Birkeland's cathode-ray pencils in modern terms?
They are not the solar wind which is both protons and electrons.
They are not flares which are both protons and electrons.
They are not CME which are both protons and electrons.
Also the maximium speed involbed in these is one CME that got to half the speed of light.

A question first asked on 27 December 2009:
Reality Check said:
I looked up the context of the quote in his book and you are right.
Birkeland is actually talking about "long pencils of cathode-rays" from electrical discharges from his metal globes when a magnetic field is not applied.
These discharges look a bit like sunspots when a magnetic field is applied.

Birkeland states on page 662
If the pressure of the gas is very small during these discharges, there issues (fig. 249, globe not magnetised) from each of the patches
narrow pencil of cathode-rays so intense that the gas is illuminated all along the pencil up to the wall of the tube. This splendid phenomenon
recalls our hypothesis according to which sun-spots sometimes send out into space long pencils of cathode-rays.
Click to expand...

So he is not really talking about what we call solar flares - they are not "long pencils" of particles as Birkeland must have known.

Someone like you who knows such a lot about experimental physics (:rolleyes:) will instantly see the defect in Birkeland's analysis of his experiments. Figs 248 and 249 should give you a clue. You will need to know some basic electromagnetism.

I do not think, however, that Schuster's objections have any serious bearing on my theory, if we consiider the properties which the new sunbeams must be assumed to possess.
I have shown that cathode-rays from the sun, which are to strike down towards the earth in the Aurora polaris zones, must have a transversal mass about m = 1.83 X 10^3 X m . In other words, the longitudinal mass of our particles is 6 milliard times greater than the mass of the particles upon which Schuster calculates in his energy-comments. Thus these cathode-rays will pass the earth, not with a velocity of 9 kilometres, but with a velocity very little short of that of light.
Click to expand...



Birkeland is stating that the cathode-rays (electrons) will pass the Earth with a velocity very little short of the speed of light. He is wrong as we now know that
  1. There are no electrical discharges on the Sun. Sunspots are primarily magnetic phenomena.
  2. The Sun emits protons and electrons.
  3. Their velocity is much less than the speed of light.
As for your link - the speed of particles in solar storms is typically much less than the speed of light.
Solar flare: "Most proton storms take two or more hours from the time of visual detection to reach Earth's orbit. A solar flare on January 20, 2005 released the highest concentration of protons ever directly measured,[3] taking only 15 minutes after observation to reach Earth, indicating a velocity of approximately one-half light speed.".

This was a A New Kind of Solar Storm and not typical of solar storms. It was the only storm of this type to be confirmed in 2005 (a proton storm in February 1956 is suspected to be similiar).
Click to expand...
 
brantc said:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...rossed-magnetic-streams-and-magnetic-portals/
Click to expand...

If you take all of the pop science articles where a scientist is quoted as saying "We don't understand X", then you'd think we know nothing at all. This quote is found in nearly every popular science article ever written.

Find me a research article describing what, specifically, is wrong with the mainstream model of solar flares. I have been very specific about what is wrong with the EU model.
 
brantc said:
"The problem is, researchers can’t explain it."
Something very interesting and fundamental is going on that we don’t really understand — not from laboratory experiments or from simulations,” says Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...rossed-magnetic-streams-and-magnetic-portals/
Click to expand...
First point:
The Geospace Physics Laboratory is involved with the "exploration and study of the heliosphere through the conception and development of missions designed to observe its origins, evolution, and interactions with the Earth, other planets, and the interstellar medium.". Thus Melvyn Goldstein is probably talking about the observed magnetic reconnection events in the heliosphere, espcially those around the Earth.

Second point:
Understanding something that is not really understand is what science is all about.
 
How could you not understand something from experiment and simulations unless your basic physics assumptions are wrong.

"Whenever the attractive force between simulation columns such that the repulsive force starts to become comparable to the attractive force, a burst in radiation occurs. For the parameters used in these simulations, this distance is of the order of several pinch radii." (Biot-Savart Law)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...att86TPS-I.pdf

The burst of radiation is from a "single filament discharge arc" between the filaments leading to a pinch in the discharge causing the burst of radiation.
Or a double layer forms between the filaments when they get close enough and the double layer accelerates protons in one direction and electrons in the other direction forming jets.

Polarization in Gamma-Ray Bursts Produced by Pinch Discharge
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c03905
 
Reality Check said:
More boloney.
Birkeland speculated that there was a solar wind and was right.
He never produced a solar wind in his experiments.
I have never seen a predication from him of the speed of the solar wind.
Click to expand...

I suspect that there was a particle flow from his sphere to the wall of his Terrella.
 
brantc said:
How could you not understand something from experiment and simulations unless your basic physics assumptions are wrong.
Click to expand...

Read the news article that you quoted: It is about the fact that the observed magnetic reconnection events in the Earth's magnetosphere are not really understood. This means that
  • Magnetic reconnection has been detected to occur.
  • What happens in these events does not really agree with the computer simulations and experiments.
  • Thus there are aspects of the real world magnetic reconnects that science does not currently really understand.
It is not that there is no understanding of the magnetic reconnection events. It is that the understanding that we have of these events is incompletse.
We know from measurements that they are magnetic reconnection events. It is just that what is going on is more complex than we expected, i.e. there are factors missing from the computer simulations and experiments.

The "basic physics assumptions" are that Maxwell's equations are right (they allow for magnetic reconnection).
If you have any evidence that Maxwell's equations are wrong then you should publish a paper and win a Nobel Prize!

I will ignore the "Polarization in Gamma-Ray Bursts Produced by Pinch Discharge" in your post since it has nothing to do with magnetic reconnection.
The other link does not work but looks like Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets Anthony Perrat (1986). That is a prime example of the wrong physical assumptions leading to the computer simulations that give results that are fatally flawed.

Just to emphasis the point:
The physical assumptions behind magnetic reconnection are not wrong. Maxwell's equations allow magnetic reconnection. The observations of magnetic reconnection in experiments means that magnetic reconnection can happen in reality. The observation of actual magnetic reconnection means that it happens in reality.
But ... Like many other phenomena that the universe presents us, we do not fully ("really") understand magnetic reconnection, e.g.
A current problem in plasma physics is that observed reconnection happens much faster than predicted by MHD in high Lundquist number plasmas: solar flares, for example, proceed 13-14 orders of magnitude faster than a naive calculation would suggest, and several orders of magnitude faster than current theoretical models that include turbulence and kinetic effects. There are two competing theories to explain the discrepancy. One posits that the electromagnetic turbulence in the boundary layer is sufficiently strong to scatter electrons, raising the plasma's local resistivity. This would allow the magnetic flux to diffuse faster.
A second explanation, from Hall MHD states that the ions decouple from that magnetic field at a distance comparable to the ion skin depth,
0670a941ca16e808fce2c669703a5872.png
. The electrons are then accelerated to very high speeds by Whistler waves. Because the ions can move through a wider "bottleneck" near the current layer and because the electrons are moving much faster in Hall MHD than in standard MHD, reconnection may proceed more quickly.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Whereas dark energy, inflation and magnetic reconnection are pure science.

The dead "iron sun" deity is definitely woo.
Click to expand...

You people *really* have a problem distinguishing between physically real things (like iron) and "make believe" things like "inflation" and "dark energy". An empirical theory can be right or wrong but it can never be "woo". Only invisible stuff that is shy around a lab is "woo".

FYI, Alfven applied his theories to a "gas model" solar theory, so from the standpoint of EU theory it's actually irrelevant what you think of Birkeland's solar model.
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
No, I'm saying that there is no electrostatic voltage involved; that magnetic field lines reconnect as usual;
Click to expand...

Gah! Magnetic fields form as a completely and full continuum. They are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" from any other field line! Only "circuits" "disconnect" and "reconnect".

and that energy is transferred from magnetic field energy density to particle kinetic energies.
Click to expand...

That is called "INDUCTION". It already has a "proper" scientific term!

The thing that is "wrong" with you theory is that it is "psuedoscience" according to the author of MHD theory. Magnetic lines are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other magnetic field lines. Induction is not "magnetic reconnection" and 'induction' is the proper scientific term for what you're describing! Are those criticisms specific enough for you?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Gah! Magnetic fields form as a completely and full continuum. They are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" from any other field line! Only "circuits" "disconnect" and "reconnect".
Click to expand...

No, the "crossover" happens at points where |B|=0, and it is totally fine---nay, necessary, I think---that two lines enter and two lines leave such points. The vector fields are just fine and there is no violation of continuity.

The thing that is "wrong" with you theory is that it is "psuedoscience" according to the author of MHD theory. Magnetic lines are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other magnetic field lines.
Click to expand...

If that is Alfven's claim, Alfven is wrong. (I repeat myself.)
 
Reality Check said:
First point:
The Geospace Physics Laboratory is involved with the "exploration and study of the heliosphere through the conception and development of missions designed to observe its origins, evolution, and interactions with the Earth, other planets, and the interstellar medium.". Thus Melvyn Goldstein is probably talking about the observed magnetic reconnection events in the heliosphere, espcially those around the Earth.

Second point:
Understanding something that is not really understand is what science is all about.
Click to expand...

And Mel is right, there is something we do not know, and what we do not know is what exactly is going on in the electron diffusion region in which the magnetic null is embedded. MMS the mission about which is written, has a separation that should be small enough to have multiple spacecraft inside the electron diffusion region. (for those who do not know what this is, this is the region around the reconnection site where the electrons are no longer bound to the magnetic field) These multiple spacecraft in that region will give the possibility (like Cluster did in the ion diffusion region, which is much bigger) to measure magnetic field gradients, determine associated currents etc. etc.

In the laboratory, only now we are getting to the point that this electron diffusion region can also be measured. Experiments by Intrator et al. are now reaching the point that they can have probes on the electron inertial scale and now start to probe the electron diffusion region.

That is the context in which Mel's comments should be seen.
 
brantc said:
How could you not understand something from experiment and simulations unless your basic physics assumptions are wrong.

"Whenever the attractive force between simulation columns such that the repulsive force starts to become comparable to the attractive force, a burst in radiation occurs. For the parameters used in these simulations, this distance is of the order of several pinch radii." (Biot-Savart Law)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...att86TPS-I.pdf

The burst of radiation is from a "single filament discharge arc" between the filaments leading to a pinch in the discharge causing the burst of radiation.
Or a double layer forms between the filaments when they get close enough and the double layer accelerates protons in one direction and electrons in the other direction forming jets.
Click to expand...

Can you please explain that a little bit better, what you want to do with your magical double layer?
A double layer forms between the filaments - which orientation has this double layer - why would it form between the filaments - what is driving the double layer.

I know that in EU a double layer can do anything (more than I ever wrote in the introduction chapter of my PhD thesis), but this is a bit vague even for me, so please, explain.
 
ben m said:
No, the "crossover" happens at points where |B|=0, and it is totally fine---nay, necessary, I think---that two lines enter and two lines leave such points.
Click to expand...

How much energy is "stored" in a magnetic field where |B|=0?

If that is Alfven's claim, Alfven is wrong. (I repeat myself.)
Click to expand...

It was Alfven's claim and I'd like to see you demonstrate that Alfven was wrong on that point.
 
tusenfem said:
Can you please explain that a little bit better, what you want to do with your magical double layer?
Click to expand...

Double layers are not magical. Even Langmuir understood them better than you folks.

A double layer forms between the filaments - which orientation has this double layer - why would it form between the filaments - what is driving the double layer.
Click to expand...

"Current flow" from one filament to the other. This is also known as a "short circuit" and at any second it can become unstable and "explosive". We may even see a change in the "circuit topology".

I know that in EU a double layer can do anything (more than I ever wrote in the introduction chapter of my PhD thesis), but this is a bit vague even for me, so please, explain.
Click to expand...

Now that you've heard the explanation, let's hear your response.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
More boloney.
Birkeland speculated that there was a solar wind and was right.
He never produced a solar wind in his experiments.
Click to expand...

You know RC, when you say ignorant stuff like this, it's really hard to take you seriously. He most certainly produced it and therefore "predicted" it. Nobody at the time was claiming solar wind traveled at more than a few kilometers/second at the time. Birkeland was the first one to predict that the particle flow was "high speed" and during solar storms could approach even light speed. He didn't 'make it up in his head' like you folks, he build "real physical empirical experiments" and his "predictions" were a direct result of the standard empirical method. When you simply go into pure denial like this it becomes very clear you didn't ever read his material. I have quoted him for Geemack in one of these threads somewhere. The fact you can't even be bothered to keep up with these conversations speaks volumes IMO.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Double layers are not magical. Even Langmuir understood them better than you folks.
Click to expand...

yeah yeah I know we are nitwits


Michael Mozina said:
"Current flow" from one filament to the other. This is also known as a "short circuit" and at any second it can become unstable and "explosive". We may even see a change in the "circuit topology".
Click to expand...

And why exactly is this double layer forming? Just current flow from one filament to the other does not make a double layer.
And why should this be a "short circuit" when both currents are flowing to the same anode from the plasma guns.
Also double layers cannot accelerate plasma perpendicular to the magnetic field like is seen in reconnection, nor can they accelerate ions and electrons in the same direction as is seen in reconnection.
And "at any second they can become unstable and "explosive" gimme a break. I worked on double layers for hours at the Alfvén Laboratory in Stockholm, and none of them ever exploded.
And you still don't understand the change in magnetic topology that is happening at reconnection. You cannot get that with induction, nor with any other name you want to give magnetic reconnection.
Your model is lacking, maybe you should rethink it, and write up specifically what is happening, including figures, equations etc.


Michael Mozina said:
Now that you've heard the explanation, let's hear your response.
Click to expand...

Well, my basic answer is that it is nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom