Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Magnetic Reconnection Redux VI

Reality Check said:
The second paper is about an alternative model for specific flares (in fact only 2 are mentioned). That alternative model is magnetic reconnection between twisted magentic flux ropes. It does not *RULE OUT* the signature "Y" release of energy associated with magnetic reconnection in other (most) solar flares.
Click to expand...
To which Mozina replied ...
Michael Mozina said:
They clearly do "rule out" your pseudoscientific magnetic reconnection model in these two flares!
Click to expand...
The paper in question is Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare. Now let us view two sample quotes from the paper, specifically from page 18. First ...
"Reconnection went on after the impulsive phase, because the magnetic fields at the top of the cusp-like structure became nearly antiparallel due to the stretch of the ropes. However, the reconnection rate declined because the electric currents in the ropes also became antiparallel and repelled each other".​
And slightly later on the same page 18 ...
"The motion of the mutually wrapped dual-rope ejection through the waist must be accompanied by reconnection of the magnetic field lines of the ejection with those of, or near to, the separatrix surface."​
First, let me simply point out that this is strange language indeed for a paper which "rules out" magnetic reconnection. Indeed, one need only actually read the paper to see that the authors make copious use of magnetic reconnection throughout the evolution of the flux ropes.

Note the point made about antiparallel currents in the first quoted passage. Clearly the authors do not treat the flux ropes as simple un-adorned current, as Mozina would have us believe. Rather, there is a specific appeal to reconnection of the magnetic field lines that make up the rope.

In numerous other posts, Mozina has called magnetic reconnection a misinterpretation of "circuit reconnection", as he chooses to call it. I have argued (and Mozina has never responded) that "circuit reconnection" violates the law of conservation of energy, since the energy involved in the currents is considerably smaller than the energy released in reconnection events. However, here in the first quoted passage above, the authors point out that the currents repel each other, since they are after all made of electrons, and like charges repel. Clearly that does explicitly rule out "circuit reconnection" as an alternate explanation for magnetic reconnection; like charged currents which repel each other don't "reconnect", and while opposite charge currents do attract each other, they will simply neutralize each other, not generate energy that way a reconnection event will.

So, what do we have here? Evidently, Michael Mozina does not even read the papers he talks about. He says the paper "rules out" magnetic reconnection, while in fact the paper relies heavily on magnetic reconnection. And it argues against "circuit reconnection" just as a bonus. Very cool.
 
Tubbythin said:
Michael Mozina said:
Your elemental abundance numbers are meaningless because they are all based upon the assumption of little or no mass separation. You seem to think Iron and Nickel are going to stay mixed together with wispy light Hydrogen and Helium. Hell, the moon can't even hang on the hydrogen that blows by it every day and it has *tons* of iron in it.
Click to expand...
A bit behind the times I know, but what on Earth are you trying to say here?:confused:
Click to expand...
(bold added)

I've another question for MM ...

... where are the papers reporting mass separation in ~6000 K plasmas (comprised of H, He, Fe, ...) in the lab? Oh, and *lab* plasmas which have densities comparable to that of the Sun's photosphere ...
 
Michael Mozina said:
Bull. If our sun electrically interacts with the heliosphere, then all suns probably do the same. It certainly has *enormous* implications for cosmology.
Click to expand...
Bull.
Our sun does electrically interact with the heliosphere (e.g. the heliospheric current sheet has a current of about 10−10 A/m²) . It is probable that all stars have magnetic fields and the equivalent of the heliosphere.
It certainly has no implication at all for cosmology which is about scales enormously bigger then stars or even galaxies.
 
MM: Citation for the crust in Birkeland's solar model

Michael Mozina said:
This is yet another false statement. There are two major components to Birkeland's solar model, the crust being one of them, the electrical discharge being the other critical "prediction" of his model.
Click to expand...
First asked 5 January 2009
Michael Mozina,
Please give a citation where Birkeland states his solar model involves a "crust"?
 
MM: Citation for the detection of Birkeland's predicted electrical discharges

Michael Mozina said:
This is yet another false statement. There are two major components to Birkeland's solar model, the crust being one of them, the electrical discharge being the other critical "prediction" of his model.
Click to expand...
And another question evoked from the same sentence!
First asked 5 January 2009
Michael Mozina,
Please give a citation to the sources where the electrical discharges within Birkeland's solar model are actually detected as predicted?

You need to state:
  • What his predictions actually were, e.g. the charge dissipated from the electrical discharges on the Sun.
  • The controllable empirical experiment that showed that these electrical discharges
    1. happen on the Sun and
    2. the measurements match the numbers from Birkeland.
Anyone reading this thread knows that this critical "prediction" of his model has never been observed.

Anyone reading this other thread knows that you are lying about the crust part of Birkeland's solar model. He never states that the Sun has a crust. He would have not been so silly since he should have known that the Sun was too hot for a crust. Its temperature was known when he wrote his book (Chronology of Discoveries about the Sun)
1894: William E. Wilson and P. L. Gray (Ireland) are the first to measure with reasonable accuracy the effective temperature of the Sun's photosphere: 11,200°F (6,200°C), about 800°F (400°C) too high.
Click to expand...
If someone were silly enough to treat Birkeland's terrella experiments as actual representations of the Sun (other than analogies as Birkeland states) then they would come to the deluded conclusion that the Sun has a solid iron surface or crust.
 
Tim Thompson said:
To which Mozina replied ...

The paper in question is Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare. Now let us view two sample quotes from the paper, specifically from page 18. First ...
"Reconnection went on after the impulsive phase, because the magnetic fields at the top of the cusp-like structure became nearly antiparallel due to the stretch of the ropes. However, the reconnection rate declined because the electric currents in the ropes also became antiparallel and repelled each other".​
Click to expand...

Er, did you simply miss or dismiss that statement "electric currents *IN THE ROPES* part Tim? If you have electric currents running through "magnetic flux ropes", then your argument translates directly back to "circuits" as Alfven and Carlqvist use in their papers. There is no fundamental difference in what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" and what Alfven calls a "short circuit" in two flowing plasma filaments. I clearly cited Alfven's explanation of a "magnetic rope" which he describes as a "Bennett Pinch" in a plasma filament. What fundamental difference at the level of physics is there between what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" and a simple short circuit in plasma with induction when the circuit is interrupted?
 
Tim Thompson said:
that "circuit reconnection" violates the law of conservation of energy, since the energy involved in the currents is considerably smaller than the energy released in reconnection events.
Click to expand...

The energy of the whole circuit is available to the reconnection event.

Just like when you dump a capacitor into a coil and watch it blow up. The energy of the source is what does the work. 'Not' the momentary current measured by means of the local magnetic field(ammeter) at the wire attached to the coil.
 
Tim Thompson said:
the energy involved in the currents is considerably smaller than the energy released in reconnection events.
Click to expand...

Eureka! I may have made a breakthrough. Enough of a breakthrough that it's worth dipping back into this thread for one post after which it all goes straight back on ignore.

After a bit of reading, I have a GUESS at what MM has meant (or what Alfven presumably meant that MM is now incanting) by "circuit energy". The term "circuit energy" seems to be used (very rarely in physics, perhaps more commonly in EE?) to refer to the sum of the self-inductances and all pairs of mutual-inductances of electric currents in an array of circuits. For physicists, it's the energy in section 5.17 of Jackson. It allows you to calculate the energy if you know the currents in a set of circuits, and the inductances of and between all circuits (!) but don't want to calculate the magnetic field explicitly (!?!).

And Jackson section 5.17 is devoted to proving that this inductive energy is exactly the same as the energy you found (in section 5.16) by integrating 1/(2mu0) B^2 over space.

So: it's rather silly that MM has been promoting "circuit energy" as the a matter of central importance to plasma physics, then crying foul/error/balk when anyone invokes "energy stored in a B field". Dude, it's the same thing. And---under what circumstances do you know any mutual inductances without having calculated the fields already? Certainly not the circumstances in a solar flare where the geometry is changing.

In turn, of course, the rest of us have been pooh-poohing "circuit energy". I had a guess earlier that perhaps this is what it meant, but I rejected that guess because MM's invokations always contradicted this meaning---you always connected it to electric fields, which are completely irrelevant. I asked him directly to define it and he ignored it. But yeah, no, it turns out that "circuit energy" is not small---rather, it is what the rest of us have been talking about the whole time. It's a weird name for 1/(2mu)B^2.

It's not at all a standard term in physics, which is why no one has heard of it. Google turns it up in EE, but search for "circuit energy" +plasma and what comes up? After some mishits, it's: Alfven's book, then some 1972 paper, then MM himself on this forum. No wonder no one can understand him. Anyway, now that I understand him (if indeed I do) I can speak more clearly: MM, this circuit energy thing is exactly the same problem as the problem tusenfem has described repeatedly. If you state the magnetic field distribution---which is what solar flare modelers do---then you instantly know both the energy of this configuration (integrate B^2) and the current density that makes it (curl B). If you state the current density instead, there's a hideous, labor-intensive calculation that gives you the B fields (Biot-Savart) and an even more hideous calculation that gives you the "circuit energy" as a sum of 1/2 LI^2 terms, and even that requires an extra discretization. That's why modern physicists---the ones who need to work with actual numbers---invariably do the former and have done for decades.

Every time you state that the B-field-version is "wrong", you're stating that the circuit energy version is wrong. They're the same thing. Every time you state that B fields don't store and release energy, you're saying the same thing about "circuit energy" (assuming my definition) because they're the same thing.

All clear now? OK, bye.
 
brantc said:
The energy of the whole circuit is available to the reconnection event.

Just like when you dump a capacitor into a coil and watch it blow up. The energy of the source is what does the work. 'Not' the momentary current measured by means of the local magnetic field(ammeter) at the wire attached to the coil.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly what I mean by the EU/PC position not making sense. Brantc has posted a EE-style statement about capacitor circuits. It's getting mixed up with a statement about "the energy of the whole circuit" in a way that completely obliterates any sense that "circuit energy" might have made if used as a weird hobby-horse proxy for magnetic energy.
 
Bump
DeiRenDopa said:
Pseudo-science looks like science, but it is not science.

(bold added)

As far as I can tell:

* Robinson does not apply any scientific method, period

* BeAChooser applies some aspects, occasionally, and inconsistently

* MM has his own - highly idiosyncratic, logically inconsistent - methodology ... which he applies inconsistently

* Thornhill is an academic fraud; aside from this, his methodology is opaque, and in particular much of it is not independently verifiable

* Scott's methodology includes the acceptance of gross inconsistencies - logical, mathematical, etc

* Zeuzzz (who I inadvertently omitted)? He too seems to have his own, idiosyncratic, methodology, which he applies inconsistently.

But none of this is directly relevant to what I actually wrote ... you see, the criteria I explicitly stated concern physics and its applications (astrophysics, space physics, cosmology), and are about being quantitative (data and analyses) and consistent.

Of the above, only Scott has any significant record re being quantitative, and all fail - badly - wrt consistency (internal, and re all relevant observational/experimental results).

Care to say a few words about brantc?
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Since this post of mine MM has provided several good examples of his idiosyncratic, logically inconsistent methodology ... and applied it inconsistently to boot!

I think we - the readers of this thread - have also had an example of brantc's methodology in action; specifically the complete absence of any hypotheses, potentially testable or not.

So, brantc, would you care to say a few words about what you consider to be the methodology you use wrt understanding the universe as a whole (i.e. cosmology)?

And, given that this thread is supposed to be about "plasma cosmology", how "plasma" factors in to your approach to cosmology?

Finally, what's the link between your own take on plasma cosmology and those of Alfvén, Peratt, and Lerner?
 
ben m said:
Eureka! I may have made a breakthrough. Enough of a breakthrough that it's worth dipping back into this thread for one post after which it all goes straight back on ignore.

After a bit of reading, I have a GUESS at what MM has meant (or what Alfven presumably meant that MM is now incanting) by "circuit energy". The term "circuit energy" seems to be used (very rarely in physics, perhaps more commonly in EE?) to refer to the sum of the self-inductances and all pairs of mutual-inductances of electric currents in an array of circuits. For physicists, it's the energy in section 5.17 of Jackson. It allows you to calculate the energy if you know the currents in a set of circuits, and the inductances of and between all circuits (!) but don't want to calculate the magnetic field explicitly (!?!).

And Jackson section 5.17 is devoted to proving that this inductive energy is exactly the same as the energy you found (in section 5.16) by integrating 1/(2mu0) B^2 over space.

So: it's rather silly that MM has been promoting "circuit energy" as the a matter of central importance to plasma physics, then crying foul/error/balk when anyone invokes "energy stored in a B field". Dude, it's the same thing. And---under what circumstances do you know any mutual inductances without having calculated the fields already? Certainly not the circumstances in a solar flare where the geometry is changing.

In turn, of course, the rest of us have been pooh-poohing "circuit energy". I had a guess earlier that perhaps this is what it meant, but I rejected that guess because MM's invokations always contradicted this meaning---you always connected it to electric fields, which are completely irrelevant. I asked him directly to define it and he ignored it. But yeah, no, it turns out that "circuit energy" is not small---rather, it is what the rest of us have been talking about the whole time. It's a weird name for 1/(2mu)B^2.

It's not at all a standard term in physics, which is why no one has heard of it. Google turns it up in EE, but search for "circuit energy" +plasma and what comes up? After some mishits, it's: Alfven's book, then some 1972 paper, then MM himself on this forum. No wonder no one can understand him. Anyway, now that I understand him (if indeed I do) I can speak more clearly: MM, this circuit energy thing is exactly the same problem as the problem tusenfem has described repeatedly. If you state the magnetic field distribution---which is what solar flare modelers do---then you instantly know both the energy of this configuration (integrate B^2) and the current density that makes it (curl B). If you state the current density instead, there's a hideous, labor-intensive calculation that gives you the B fields (Biot-Savart) and an even more hideous calculation that gives you the "circuit energy" as a sum of 1/2 LI^2 terms, and even that requires an extra discretization. That's why modern physicists---the ones who need to work with actual numbers---invariably do the former and have done for decades.

Every time you state that the B-field-version is "wrong", you're stating that the circuit energy version is wrong. They're the same thing. Every time you state that B fields don't store and release energy, you're saying the same thing about "circuit energy" (assuming my definition) because they're the same thing.

All clear now? OK, bye.
Click to expand...
I think several of us have had similar eureka moments, wrt MM's approach.

Mine, for example, came with his 'empirical demonstration of known forces of nature' (or similar), using a plasma ball (the toy) to 'prove' (or similar) the existence of gravity and electromagnetism as known forces of nature^.

One aspect I find particularly curious: if MM is, indeed, successful in his application of computer programming to business problems, why is he apparently so blind to the fundamental necessity of making clear definitions of key terms (and of applying those definitions consistently)?

^ in a nutshell, MM seemed completely blind to the theory-based nature of physics, and even of the use of induction in science
 
Reality Check said:
Michael Mozina said:
Bull. If our sun electrically interacts with the heliosphere, then all suns probably do the same. It certainly has *enormous* implications for cosmology.
Click to expand...
Bull.
Our sun does electrically interact with the heliosphere (e.g. the heliospheric current sheet has a current of about 10−10 A/m²) . It is probable that all stars have magnetic fields and the equivalent of the heliosphere.
It certainly has no implication at all for cosmology which is about scales enormously bigger then stars or even galaxies.
Click to expand...
Another example of MM's approach to cosmology ...

... what are those implications, MM?

And would you care to have a go at *quantifying* those implications?

Oh, and:

* What does "electrically interacts with" mean? For starters, do you have a clear definition of this? And can you show how this definition relates to the sorts of things one finds in standard textbooks (or even in papers by Alfvén)?

* What physical parameters do you (or would you) use to characterise this kind of interaction?

* How would you go about designing a research project to estimate the values of those key parameters (and their uncertainties)?
 
Did you simply miss or dismiss that statement "Reconnection..."

Michael Mozina said:
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
To which Mozina replied ...

The paper in question is Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare. Now let us view two sample quotes from the paper, specifically from page 18. First ...
"Reconnection went on after the impulsive phase, because the magnetic fields at the top of the cusp-like structure became nearly antiparallel due to the stretch of the ropes. However, the reconnection rate declined because the electric currents in the ropes also became antiparallel and repelled each other".
​
Click to expand...
Er, did you simply miss or dismiss that statement "electric currents *IN THE ROPES* part Tim? If you have electric currents running through "magnetic flux ropes", then your argument translates directly back to "circuits" as Alfven and Carlqvist use in their papers. There is no fundamental difference in what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" and what Alfven calls a "short circuit" in two flowing plasma filaments. I clearly cited Alfven's explanation of a "magnetic rope" which he describes as a "Bennett Pinch" in a plasma filament. What fundamental difference at the level of physics is there between what you are calling "magnetic reconnection" and a simple short circuit in plasma with induction when the circuit is interrupted?
Click to expand...
I doubt that Tim missed the phrase "the electric currents in the ropes".
I think I know what the phrase is about (Tim may confirm).

It seems really simple:
  • Magnetic fields act on electric charges.
  • A plasma is an ionized gas, i.e. it contains electrons and ions.
  • A magentic flux rope in a plasma will create currents in the plasma.
  • It is these currents that are referenced in the quote.
The currents are a consequence of the magnetic flux ropes. They do not cause the magnetic flux ropes.

And:
Er, did you simply miss or dismiss that statement "Reconnection went on after the impulsive phase" part Michael Mozina?
 
ben m said:
And this is exactly what I mean by the EU/PC position not making sense. Brantc has posted a EE-style statement about capacitor circuits. It's getting mixed up with a statement about "the energy of the whole circuit" in a way that completely obliterates any sense that "circuit energy" might have made if used as a weird hobby-horse proxy for magnetic energy.
Click to expand...


The point I was trying to make is the measuring the current at one point in the circuit while at steady state does not tell you the energy available to do the work of reconnection.

When the reconnection happens then the current(energy) that is available becomes apparent at the measuring device.. The capacitor is an analogy for the power source.

"Circuit energy" is not a proxy for magnetic energy. It is the source of magnetic energy.
 
Reality Check said:
I doubt that Tim missed the phrase "the electric currents in the ropes".
I think I know what the phrase is about (Tim may confirm).

It seems really simple:
  • Magnetic fields act on electric charges.
  • A plasma is an ionized gas, i.e. it contains electrons and ions.
  • A magentic flux rope in a plasma will create currents in the plasma.
  • It is these currents that are referenced in the quote.
The currents are a consequence of the magnetic flux ropes. They do not cause the magnetic flux ropes.
Click to expand...


So you are saying the the magnetic tube forms that drives plasma through. How does that magnetic tube form???

What laws show a tube forming strictly from magnetism?
 
brantc said:
So you are saying the the magnetic tube forms that drives plasma through. How does that magnetic tube form???
Click to expand...
Coronal loops form from the sun's magnetic field.
Coronal loops form the basic structure of the lower corona and transition region of the Sun. These highly structured and elegant loops are a direct consequence of the twisted solar magnetic flux within the solar body. The population of coronal loops can be directly linked with the solar cycle, it is for this reason coronal loops are often found with sunspots at their footpoints. The upwelling magnetic flux pushes through the photosphere, exposing the cooler plasma below. The contrast between the photosphere and solar interior gives the impression of dark spots, or sunspots.
Click to expand...

brantc said:
What laws show a tube forming strictly from magnetism?
Click to expand...
No "laws show a tube forming strictly from magnetism".
Observations show that coronal loops are loops of magnetc flux.
 
wow this threads sprung back to life :)

I still haven't posted what I consider the "complete model" of PC yet, from older versions or modern observations.

As the bar for winning this debate was set pretty low back when edd said:

edd said:
There's nothing wrong straight off with continuing to refine a model indefinitely however.

There's no rule like "if you've adjusted your theory 100 times it's clearly wrong".
Click to expand...


Well, if thats the tactic being employed by rival theories I'll take my time. Unless this statement wants to be refined.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Bump(bold added)

I think we - the readers of this thread - have also had an example of brantc's methodology in action; specifically the complete absence of any hypotheses, potentially testable or not.
Click to expand...

I thought my description of reconnection was based entirely on experimental evidence.

I have lotsa hypotheses. Some untestable with present technology. Thats why I dont say anything. It would just degenerate into my being called names. If we want to go on that journey...... My view departs significantly from the EU Standard view. Figuring out how to test the rest.

So, brantc, would you care to say a few words about what you consider to be the methodology you use wrt understanding the universe as a whole (i.e. cosmology)?
Click to expand...

In a perfect world? Take the money and politics out of science.
Have parallel development efforts.

There is no reason why money cant go to studying plasma in a cosmological context using a purely electrical theory at the same time the Big Bang is being studied.
I vote for my tax dollars to go into a plasma telescope for studying Flux Tubes.

There is no reason to call people crackpots or any other name for advancing what they consider to be their observations.
"Untrained" people can apply the scientific method well, as well as trained people applying it poorly(it really helps to have training(understanding), degree or not).
Not everybody has the same input through life, which means different conclusions(interpretations).

Have tiered peer review. First level any theory can get published as long as it is basically a good paper. It doesnt have to be perfect or the theory(hypotheses) even be correct.. Second level should be better(should have some observations or results). Prestige should be the best(~easily replicable, no question breakthrough results or super good paper). But you should be able to publish Aether as well as Big Bang in a "reviewed" journal.
With open names(but not attached to the review) and have plasma people, electrical engineers whatever, mix it up..

I dont believe science by consensus is a good thing. I think that understanding what somebody says is a good thing but just accepting it because the authority says so is a bad thing.

It is the current(scientific) culture that is impeding understanding the universe as a whole. No one group of people have all the answers.

And, given that this thread is supposed to be about "plasma cosmology", how "plasma" factors in to your approach to cosmology?
Click to expand...

I believe that causality is important. From my point of view, which is an electrical one, when you see a magnetic field you think electric current. This is why I am looking for the power source and why I believe the electric fields are more basic then magnetic fields. I'm a steady state, electrical redshift infinite always been here universe kinda guy.

I think that electric fields cause more ionization than gravity does. Dont get me wrong I'm a firm believer in the effects of gravity, maybe it just needs to be modified a little.

Finally, what's the link between your own take on plasma cosmology and those of Alfvén, Peratt, and Lerner?
Click to expand...

Every scientist formulates a view based on their life's knowledge. This knowledge is a valuable addition to the pool of human knowledge. Even if you think its garbage, it still has value. It tells you the other path. These people have degrees and went to some of the same colleges we did, yet their interpretation is not "good" knowledge.

I like their hypotheses better than the Big Bang. It fits better with my life experience. I grew up with the Big Bang, reading all the science magazines, becoming an electronics tech.. As I started to push more towards R&D science(job) I became more engineer like and more rigorous.
The Big Bang did not fit as well as electrical explanations in plasma.

I found the standard EU to be lacking also, so I went even beyond that with current physics not an issue.
What I found as my model is outlandish and absolutely not familiar.
But its the application of as pure a science as I could get, even if it meant changing what our(my) current understanding of physics is(there are definite indications this is necessary).
I have no vested interests in any sort of "quo"..

Whether I'm right or not is a different story.
Actually I have no doubt I am wrong, as I am sure my model and every other model will be superseded with time.
But the ride and conversation is fun.
 
brantc said:
I thought my description of reconnection was based entirely on experimental evidence.
Click to expand...
Can you cite the experimental evidence that your description of magnetic reconnection was based on?

brantc said:
I have lotsa hypotheses. Some untestable with present technology. Thats why I dont say anything. It would just degenerate into my being called names. If we want to go on that journey...... My view departs significantly from the EU Standard view. Figuring out how to test the rest.
Click to expand...

Since your view departs significantly from the EU "standard view" (what ever that is) and so has nothing to do with EU or this thread, I suggest that you start another thread stating:
  • What your hypotheses are.
  • What existing observations do your hypotheses explain.

    For example how do they explain.
    • Olbers' paradox.
    • The termperature of the CMB.
    • The perfect black body spectrum of the CMB.
    • The CMB power spectrum.
    • Hubble's law.
    • The flatness of the universe.
brantc said:
There is no reason why money cant go to studying plasma in a cosmological context using a purely electrical theory at the same time the Big Bang is being studied.
I vote for my tax dollars to go into a plasma telescope for studying Flux Tubes.
Click to expand...
The reason is that the EU ideas are all ridiculous and easily shown to be false. We may as well fund projects on the Flat Earth theory!

There is no such thing as a "plasma telescope". Flux Tubes have been studied for decades.

brantc said:
There is no reason to call people crackpots or any other name for advancing what they consider to be their observations.
"Untrained" people can apply the scientific method well, as well as trained people applying it poorly(it really helps to have training(understanding), degree or not).
Not everybody has the same input through life, which means different conclusions(interpretations).
Click to expand...
The point is not their personal beliefs. That is not what science is about. The point is that their theories do not describe the real universe.
They are called crackpots or cranks because they are crackpots or cranks:
"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted truth as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task.
Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and, in the USA, kook. A crank differs from a fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a "fringe" belief. Similarly, the word quack is reserved for someone who promotes a medical remedy or practice that is widely considered to be ineffective. Crank may also refer to an ill-tempered individual or one who is in a bad mood, but that usage is not the subject of this article.
Although a crank's beliefs seem ridiculous to experts in the field, cranks are sometimes very successful in convincing non-experts of their views. A famous example is the Indiana Pi Bill where a state legislature nearly wrote into law a crank result in geometry.
Click to expand...

brantc said:
I dont believe science by consensus is a good thing. I think that understanding what somebody says is a good thing but just accepting it because the authority says so is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Every one will agree with you - science by consensus is a bad thing.
Isn't lucky that science is not done by consensus?

brantc said:
It is the current(scientific) culture that is impeding understanding the universe as a whole. No one group of people have all the answers.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
It is the current scientific community that is extending our understanding the universe as a whole. It is formed of many different groups of people. None of them have all of the answers. Finding the answers is what science is about.

brantc said:
I believe that causality is important. From my point of view, which is an electrical one, when you see a magnetic field you think electric current. This is why I am looking for the power source and why I believe the electric fields are more basic then magnetic fields. I'm a steady state, electrical redshift infinite always been here universe kinda guy.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
That is your personal point of view formed from your employment and background.
Scientists do not start by stating what the universe must be and go looking for evidence that the universe is that way.
The evidence is that
  • The universe was once in a hot dense state, i.e. it is not steady state.
  • Redshift is a consequence of the expansion of the universe.
  • The universe may be infinite.
  • The universe may or may not have always been there.
brantc said:
I think that electric fields cause more ionization than gravity does. Dont get me wrong I'm a firm believer in the effects of gravity, maybe it just needs to be modified a little.
Click to expand...
That is obvious. Gravity causes no ionization so of course electric fields cause more!

brantc said:
...snip...
What I found as my model is outlandish and absolutely not familiar.
...snip...quote]

I suggest that you start another thread stating:
  • What your model is.
  • What existing observations does your model explain.

    For example how do they explain.
    • Olbers' paradox.
    • The termperature of the CMB.
    • The perfect black body spectrum of the CMB.
    • The CMB power spectrum.
    • Hubble's law.
    • The flatness of the universe.
Click to expand...
 
Just had an earthquake. Felt in Sacramento.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/40.42.-126.-124.php

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...2010+January+10+00:27:38+UTC)&t=h&z=6&iwloc=A



Reality Check said:
Can you cite the experimental evidence that your description of magnetic reconnection was based on?
Click to expand...

Go back and look at that post.

Since your view departs significantly from the EU "standard view" (what ever that is) and so has nothing to do with EU or this thread, I suggest that you start another thread stating:
  • What your hypotheses are.
  • What existing observations do your hypotheses explain.

    For example how do they explain.
    • Olbers' paradox.
    • The termperature of the CMB.
    • The perfect black body spectrum of the CMB.
    • The CMB power spectrum.
    • Hubble's law.
    • The flatness of the universe.
Click to expand...

It is built on parts of the EU Hypotheses. So that what I am talking about in this thread. EU.
It was DDR who asked my opinion.

The reason is that the EU ideas are all ridiculous and easily shown to be false. We may as well fund projects on the Flat Earth theory!
Click to expand...

Or Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Or the God particle or AGW.
They sound good in theory(mathematically computer model speaking) but I predict they will ALL go down in flames.

There is no such thing as a "plasma telescope". Flux Tubes have been studied for decades.
Click to expand...

No Kidding!!!!!

The point is not their personal beliefs. That is not what science is about. The point is that their theories do not describe the real universe.
They are called crackpots or cranks because they are crackpots or cranks:
Click to expand...

I was trying to be a little congenial. You are still being derogatory.

Every one will agree with you - science by consensus is a bad thing.
Isn't lucky that science is not done by consensus?
Click to expand...

Coulda fooled me.

Wrong.
It is the current scientific community that is extending our understanding the universe as a whole. It is formed of many different groups of people. None of them have all of the answers. Finding the answers is what science is about.
Click to expand...

It is formed by many groups of people... with a common viewpoint, a consensus that falls within certain bounds.

Wrong.
That is your personal point of view formed from your employment and background.
Scientists do not start by stating what the universe must be and go looking for evidence that the universe is that way.
The evidence is that
  • The universe was once in a hot dense state, i.e. it is not steady state.
  • Redshift is a consequence of the expansion of the universe.
  • The universe may be infinite.
  • The universe may or may not have always been there.
Click to expand...

No it is not my viewpoint. It is my training in electronics. Electricity is the cause of magnetic fields. Once again thats how you find out what is going in a circuit.

You have decided that universe was once in a dense

Flux tubes are the result of the right hand rule.
There is no mechanical process that "twists" the "flux lines" into a tube and then the plasma says "Hey look!! Theres a hole to go through!"
Thats total baloney.

That is obvious. Gravity causes no ionization so of course electric fields cause more!
Click to expand...

Oh, I thought that gravity pulls the "gas" down onto the surface of the neutron star(black hole or whatever) hard enough to heat it to high enough temperature to cause emission....... Or is it the UV emission from the hot gas pulled down to the surface of the said heavy object that causes the xray emission.....

brantc said:
...snip...
What I found as my model is outlandish and absolutely not familiar.
...snip...quote]

I suggest that you start another thread stating:
  • What your model is.
  • What existing observations does your model explain.

    For example how do they explain.
    • Olbers' paradox.
    • The termperature of the CMB.
    • The perfect black body spectrum of the CMB.
    • The CMB power spectrum.
    • Hubble's law.
    • The flatness of the universe.
Click to expand...

Why? Are you really interested in my model or just interested in trashing me....
 
brantc said:
J
Or Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Or the God particle or AGW.
They sound good in theory(mathematically computer model speaking) but I predict they will ALL go down in flames.
Click to expand...

You mean "they precisely account for all of our observations, but I predict that a future observation will disagree with them".

a) That's guesswork, not science.
b) The PC/EU business already disagrees with observations and doesn't sound good in theory. It's already gone down in flames, the flames burned out, the debris rusted away and washed out to sea.

No it is not my viewpoint. It is my training in electronics. Electricity is the cause of magnetic fields. Once again thats how you find out what is going in a circuit.
Click to expand...

I know a number of electrical engineers with terrible misconceptions about the physics of electricity. I used to know a guy who thought that the electrons in a wire moved at the same speed as the electric field. There's a guy named Ivor Catt who thinks that electrons don't move at all and all electric currents are some sort of misinterpretation of Poynting flux. Etc. etc.

It's a good thing you don't work with superconducting inductors then, eh? Once you put a current in them and close the persistent switch, it keeps going. Now there's a magnetic field and a current, but no EMF, no "power source." What maintains the magnetic field? The current, yes, but what "maintains the current"? The magnetic field maintains the current. You can describe the whole thing without any EMFs at all, and if you're clever you can describe it entirely as a bundle of energy-storing B fields, and let the currents follow along wherever the B-field physics tells them to go. Space plasmas are much more like this and very, very little like your (resistive, capacitive, EMF-powered, minimal inductance) benchtop circuits.
 
brantc said:
Go back and look at that post.
Click to expand...
I did and you cite no experimental evidence.

brantc said:
It is built on parts of the EU Hypotheses. So that what I am talking about in this thread. EU.
It was DDR who asked my opinion.
Click to expand...
That means that it is wrong since the EU hypothesis is wrong.

brantc said:
Or Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Or the God particle or AGW.
They sound good in theory(mathematically computer model speaking) but I predict they will ALL go down in flames.
Click to expand...
Obviously you know nothing about these:
Dark Matter is an set of observations. The theory is about the composition of dark matter.
Dark Energy is an set of observations. The theory is about the composition of dark energy.
There is no such thing as the God particle. There is the Higgs boson that is predicted by the Standard Model.
AGW is a theory based on evidence that explains the measured global warming.

brantc said:
No Kidding!!!!!
Click to expand...
No Kidding!!!!!
There is no such thing as a "plasma telescope". Flux Tubes have been studied for decades.

brantc said:
I was trying to be a little congenial. You are still being derogatory.
Click to expand...
I am calling people what they are.

brantc said:
Coulda fooled me.
Click to expand...
I am not surprised. If you are fooled by EU then you are easily fooled.
Part of the problem is may be that you have not been involved in the scientific community.
There is consensus within the scientific community but it is not what you think it is. You seem to be saying that scientists have agreed to restrict research to certain theories and ignore all others. That is obviously false as reading the literature will tell you.

brantc said:
It is formed by many groups of people... with a common viewpoint, a consensus that falls within certain bounds.
Click to expand...
The common viewpoint is that the scientific method works. There are no bounds except that a scientific theory has to be supported by evidence.

brantc said:
No it is not my viewpoint. It is my training in electronics. Electricity is the cause of magnetic fields. Once again thats how you find out what is going in a circuit.
Click to expand...
The universe is not a circuit.
Stars are not a circuit.
That is your problem - you are trying to apply your knowledge in one field to other fields without understanding the differences.

Electric currents are not always the cause of magnetic fields (ferromagnetic). Coronal loops are in a sense caused by "electric currents" - the

brantc said:
You have decided that universe was once in a dense
Click to expand...
I have not. The physical evidence id that the universe was once in a hot dense state. e.g. the CMB.

brantc said:
Flux tubes are the result of the right hand rule.
There is no mechanical process that "twists" the "flux lines" into a tube and then the plasma says "Hey look!! Theres a hole to go through!"
Thats total baloney.
Click to expand...
Thats total baloney: Coronal loop
Coronal loops form the basic structure of the lower corona and transition region of the Sun. These highly structured and elegant loops are a direct consequence of the twisted solar magnetic flux within the solar body. The population of coronal loops can be directly linked with the solar cycle, it is for this reason coronal loops are often found with sunspots at their footpoints. The upwelling magnetic flux pushes through the photosphere, exposing the cooler plasma below. The contrast between the photosphere and solar interior gives the impression of dark spots, or sunspots.
Click to expand...
There is a mechanical process that ""twists" the "flux lines" into a tube" - the differential rotation of the Sun.

brantc said:
Oh, I thought that gravity pulls the "gas" down onto the surface of the neutron star(black hole or whatever) hard enough to heat it to high enough temperature to cause emission....... Or is it the UV emission from the hot gas pulled down to the surface of the said heavy object that causes the xray emission.....
Click to expand...
Gravity does that in those non-cosmological situations. The increased velocity of the gas causes the atoms to collide. The collisions strip electrons and we have ionization.

Black holes do not have surfaces and do not emit radiation. You are thinking about the X-ray emission from their accrual disks (caused by the gravitational heating of the gas).

But your assertion in rely to "And, given that this thread is supposed to be about "plasma cosmology", how "plasma" factors in to your approach to cosmology?" was that
I think that electric fields cause more ionization than gravity does. Dont get me wrong I'm a firm believer in the effects of gravity, maybe it just needs to be modified a little.
Click to expand...
You are half right.
Gravity does not cause ionization on cosmological scales. But then neither do electrical fields.

brantc said:
Why? Are you really interested in my model or just interested in trashing me....
Click to expand...
I am interested whether you have a model or are just parroting the usual nonsense we see from EU proponenents. So far all I have seen is the usual vague assertions that we see from them.

If your model is rubbish then of course it will be trashed :D !
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Well, if thats the tactic being employed by rival theories I'll take my time. ...snip...
Unless this statement wants to be refined.
Click to expand...
It does not need to be refined since it is fairly dumb.
Science is the process of continuing to refine scientific theories (ever hear of a guy called Albert Einstein?)
 
brantc said:
Or Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Or the God particle or AGW.
They sound good in theory(mathematically computer model speaking) but I predict they will ALL go down in flames.
Click to expand...

No. We have God knows how many years of incontravertible evidence telling us the world is not flat. In complete contrast we have a hell of a lot of evidence for DM, the Higgs and AGW and a fair bit for DE. If you can't tell the difference between these two types of hypothesis from a scientific perspective, can I politely suggest it may be worth investing in some lessons in the foundations of science?
 
Zeuzzz said:
wow this threads sprung back to life :)

I still haven't posted what I consider the "complete model" of PC yet, from older versions or modern observations.
Click to expand...
Nor have you yet even started to answer the dozens (>100?) direct, pertinent questions asked of what you have presented ... despite promising (?) many months ago that you would at least begin to do so*.

As the bar for winning this debate was set pretty low back when edd said:
There's nothing wrong straight off with continuing to refine a model indefinitely however.

There's no rule like "if you've adjusted your theory 100 times it's clearly wrong".
Click to expand...
Well, if thats the tactic being employed by rival theories I'll take my time. Unless this statement wants to be refined.
Click to expand...
You seem to have forgotten that, in the case of the many variants of PC that you've presented in this thread, the most compelling reason to not debate them is because they are, by definition, scientific woo.

To recap: after an insanely large number of posts, you finally presented a definition of PC that you seemed prepared to hang your hat on (Lerner's, remember?) ... and it became obvious that PC is scientific woo.

So here's yet another direct question: do you accept that PC, as defined by Lerner, is woo? Do you understand why it is woo?

* do you need me to remind you of that promise?
 
Thanks for responding, brantc.
brantc said:
DeiRenDopa said:
I think we - the readers of this thread - have also had an example of brantc's methodology in action; specifically the complete absence of any hypotheses, potentially testable or not.
Click to expand...
I thought my description of reconnection was based entirely on experimental evidence.
Click to expand...
We seem to have a breakdown in communication ... to me, your "description" was not a "hypothesis".

Would you be so kind as to say a few words on what you think a hypothesis is, in physics? Perhaps you could illustrate your understanding by showing the correspondence between the key features of "hypothesis" and your description.

I have lotsa hypotheses. Some untestable with present technology. Thats why I dont say anything. It would just degenerate into my being called names. If we want to go on that journey...... My view departs significantly from the EU Standard view. Figuring out how to test the rest.
Click to expand...
OK, fair enough.

So, brantc, would you care to say a few words about what you consider to be the methodology you use wrt understanding the universe as a whole (i.e. cosmology)?
Click to expand...
In a perfect world? Take the money and politics out of science.
Have parallel development efforts.

There is no reason why money cant go to studying plasma in a cosmological context using a purely electrical theory at the same time the Big Bang is being studied.
Click to expand...
OK, but how would you - assuming you had the power - decide to allocate resources across the many (dozen? hundred? thousand??) alternatives (plasma cosmology is certainly not the only alternative!)?

And if you feel the decision should not be in the hands of just one person, how should resource allocation decisions be made?

I vote for my tax dollars to go into a plasma telescope for studying Flux Tubes.

There is no reason to call people crackpots or any other name for advancing what they consider to be their observations.
Click to expand...
Fair enough ... but how should "their observations" be evaluated?

Specifically, how would you go about deciding which are scientific and which are not?

"Untrained" people can apply the scientific method well, as well as trained people applying it poorly(it really helps to have training(understanding), degree or not).
Not everybody has the same input through life, which means different conclusions(interpretations).

Have tiered peer review. First level any theory can get published as long as it is basically a good paper. It doesnt have to be perfect or the theory(hypotheses) even be correct..
Click to expand...
Imagine you are the editor of a journal which aims to publish just such papers ... how do you go about deciding whether a particular submission is "basically a good paper" (or not)?

Second level should be better(should have some observations or results). Prestige should be the best(~easily replicable, no question breakthrough results or super good paper). But you should be able to publish Aether as well as Big Bang in a "reviewed" journal.
With open names(but not attached to the review) and have plasma people, electrical engineers whatever, mix it up..

I dont believe science by consensus is a good thing. I think that understanding what somebody says is a good thing but just accepting it because the authority says so is a bad thing.

It is the current(scientific) culture that is impeding understanding the universe as a whole. No one group of people have all the answers.
And, given that this thread is supposed to be about "plasma cosmology", how "plasma" factors in to your approach to cosmology?
Click to expand...
I believe that causality is important. From my point of view, which is an electrical one, when you see a magnetic field you think electric current. This is why I am looking for the power source and why I believe the electric fields are more basic then magnetic fields. I'm a steady state, electrical redshift infinite always been here universe kinda guy.

I think that electric fields cause more ionization than gravity does. Dont get me wrong I'm a firm believer in the effects of gravity, maybe it just needs to be modified a little.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks.

In terms of cosmology - studying the universe on the grandest of scales - how do you go about determining whether what you see is a magnetic field or not? And, having decided it is, how to go about characterising it (strength, direction, etc)?

Once you've characterised a magnetic field that you see, how do you go about determining what the corresponding electric currents are?

From what you know, what are the most extensive magnetic fields which have been seen (by astronomers)?

How should a serious scientist go about modifying (the effects of) gravity a little, in terms of doing cosmology?

Finally, what's the link between your own take on plasma cosmology and those of Alfvén, Peratt, and Lerner?
Click to expand...
Every scientist formulates a view based on their life's knowledge. This knowledge is a valuable addition to the pool of human knowledge. Even if you think its garbage, it still has value. It tells you the other path. These people have degrees and went to some of the same colleges we did, yet their interpretation is not "good" knowledge.

I like their hypotheses better than the Big Bang. It fits better with my life experience. I grew up with the Big Bang, reading all the science magazines, becoming an electronics tech.. As I started to push more towards R&D science(job) I became more engineer like and more rigorous.
The Big Bang did not fit as well as electrical explanations in plasma.
Click to expand...
What were your criteria for deciding the degree of fit, of each?

I found the standard EU to be lacking also, so I went even beyond that with current physics not an issue.
What I found as my model is outlandish and absolutely not familiar.
But its the application of as pure a science as I could get, even if it meant changing what our(my) current understanding of physics is(there are definite indications this is necessary).
I have no vested interests in any sort of "quo"..

Whether I'm right or not is a different story.
Actually I have no doubt I am wrong, as I am sure my model and every other model will be superseded with time.
But the ride and conversation is fun.
Click to expand...
That's good to know, thanks.

Do you have any idea when your own ideas might be ready to be shared (not necessarily published)?
 
Michael Mozina said:
That's an *ELECTRO*magnetic field from start to finish RC! OMG. Even when I hand you folks gobs of new papers about the return current in those magnetic ropes/circuits, you ignore each and every one of them. How pathetic!
Click to expand...
That's an *ELECTRO*magnetic field from start to finish MM! OMG.

Even when MM hands us folks gobs of new papers about the return current in those magnetic ropes/circuits, we read the papers and understand them. How pathetic that MM does not.
 
ben m said:
It's a good thing you don't work with superconducting inductors then, eh? Once you put a current in them and close the persistent switch, it keeps going. Now there's a magnetic field and a current, but no EMF, no "power source." What maintains the magnetic field? The current, yes, but what "maintains the current"? The magnetic field maintains the current. You can describe the whole thing without any EMFs at all, and if you're clever you can describe it entirely as a bundle of energy-storing B fields, and let the currents follow along wherever the B-field physics tells them to go. Space plasmas are much more like this and very, very little like your (resistive, capacitive, EMF-powered, minimal inductance) benchtop circuits.
Click to expand...

Plasma has some resistance. Superconductors have no resistance.
You can idealize to superconductor but it does not really represent plasma. There still has to be energy input.
I dont know of any plasma experiments where they turn off the power and it still keeps going. That would be amazing!!!!!!!!

Are superconductors a perpetual motion machine? No. I just think our science does not describe them fully yet.
 
Reality Check said:
I did and you cite no experimental evidence.
Click to expand...

You are right. I thought I included this gallery from The Large Plasma Device at UCLA.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/pages/gallery.html

Look through the galley. Pay attention to this image here.

Merging of current channels(reconnection).

"The three dimensional merging of electrical currents in a plasma".
merge_b.jpg




"Isosurfaces of field aligned current from a shear Alfven wave launched using a specialized antenna allowing for arbitrary polarization of the wave. The blue and red surfaces represent current densities of jz=0.5 A/cm^2. The currents rotate in a left handed sense around the background field. The "blue" current moves to the left, the "red" current moves to the right. The wave magnetic field in several planes is shown as arrows. The data was acquired in a volume 8 meters long parallel to the background magnetic field (B = 1 kG) and 40 cm across."

3d_currents-muri.jpg
 
brantc said:
You are right. I thought I included this gallery from The Large Plasma Device at UCLA.

Merging of current channels(reconnection).
Click to expand...
Totally wrong.


You need to actually read stuff.
There are some nice pictures of the currents induced by magnetic reconnection in colliding plasmas. For example the first caption contains
"The "sparkles" are the incduced electric field calculated from -dA/dt. Note that the incuced field is largest in the reconnection region at the center of the image." - note the electric fields are "incduced" (induced).

First asked 11 January 2010

brantc:
  1. What is your complete description of magnetic reconnection?
    It seems to be something like electric currents create the magnetic fields that then reconnect. That is really vague.
  2. Where is the experimental evidence for your description?
    Cite the published papers not pretty pictures that seem to disprove your description.
ETA:
Three-dimensional current systems generated by plasmas colliding in a background magnetoplasma.
Results are presented from an experiment in which two plasmas, initially far denser than a background magnetoplasma, collide as they move across the magnetic field. The dense plasmas are formed when laser beams, nearly orthogonal to the background magnetic field, strike two targets. The merging plasmas are observed to carry large diamagnetic currents. A reconnection event is triggered by the collision and the electric field induced in this event generates a field-aligned current, which is the first step in the development of a fully three-dimensional current system. After several ion gyroperiods, the current systems become those of shear Alfvén waves. As local currents move, small reconnection “flares” occur at many locations throughout the volume, but they do not seem to affect the overall system dynamics. The data clearly show that the induced electric field is carried though the system by shear Alfvén waves. The wave electric fields as well as local magnetic helicity are discussed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Totally wrong.


You need to actually read stuff.
  • The first image is of the three dimensional merging of electrical currents in a plasma. No reconnection of magnetic fields is mentioned.
Click to expand...

Yep. Look at those currents and draw the resulting magnetic field lines. There's no null point, no separatrix, and no reconnection.

Do the same thing with parallel instead of antiparallel currents and you will find reconnection as the source currents merge.
 
Reality Check said:
Totally wrong.
You need to actually read stuff.
There are some nice pictures of the currents induced by magnetic reconnection in colliding plasmas. For example the first caption contains
"The "sparkles" are the incduced electric field calculated from -dA/dt. Note that the incuced field is largest in the reconnection region at the center of the image." - note the electric fields are "incduced" (induced).

First asked 11 January 2010

brantc:
  1. What is your complete description of magnetic reconnection?
    It seems to be something like electric currents create the magnetic fields that then reconnect. That is really vague.
  2. Where is the experimental evidence for your description?
    Cite the published papers not pretty pictures that seem to disprove your description.
ETA:
Three-dimensional current systems generated by plasmas colliding in a background magnetoplasma.
Click to expand...

Here is a guy that works at LAPD.

"Inside LaPD, at a separation distance of roughly 10cm, are suspended a pair of carbon (graphite) cylinders (2cm x 20cm). During the discharge, the two inside faces are illuminated by the pulse from two 10ns, 1.1J Nd:YAG lasers, at an angle normal to the background field. Two dense (initial n ≈ 1015) plasmas form and propagate across the background field, colliding.

As in previous laser experiments at LaPD, the electron currents generated by the expanding laser plasmas create Alfven waves in the background plasma. The presence of two such current channels in this experiment leads to reconnection phenomena which is the subject of our recent publication in Physics of Plasmas. "
http://alfven.org/science.php

From that paper.

"EXPERIMENTS on the dense laser-produced plasmas (lpp) expanding into a background magnetoplasma trigger a rich variety of phenomena including the formation of magnetic bubbles [1] and the generation of Alfvén waves [2], [3]. The lpp emit streams of field-aligned electrons, which, in turn, generate return currents in the background plasma. Within several microseconds, these become the current systems of shear Alfvén waves. The currents merge and split in space and time and are peppered with regions in which magnetic fields that point in opposite directions are forced together. The data indicate that they are likely the sites of magnetic field-line reconnection."

Here is the complete paper.
Visualizing Three-Dimensional Reconnection in a
Colliding Laser Plasma Experiment.
http://alfven.org/media/POP-colliding-plasmas.pdf

Look at the experimental setup. It is 2 electrodes that generate a stream of electrons(like the experimental setup from the other facility). The electrical current(stream of electrons) creates a pair of flux tubes(as shown by the data) which then merge and are the likely sites of reconnection.

If you took the time to understand the requirements for reconnection you would see that all these experiments use the same methodology.


My reconnection Hypotheses.

The reason for the formation of flux tubes(in the laboratory) is to equalize the potential between two separated regions of charge(sets of electrodes). This means they carry an electric current, or kinetic energy(eV).

When the plasma cannot carry enough current due to its "density", a flux tube forms that allows equalization on a much faster time scale.

This formation usually has the characteristic of being a dual tube helix. Under other situations the number of tubes can expand to some other even number up to an observed 52 filaments.

In the dual filament case the filaments are governed by the Biot-Savart law. This is in turn governed by the gyro-radius of the charges in the plasma filaments.

If a disturbance or a change in the feed current happens this changes the gyro radius of the particles which leads to changes in the magnetic force between the filaments.

Extreme case is when the filaments merge or reconnect. This produces either a z-pinch filament between the 2 filaments or a double layer that accelerates particles producing a jets of electrons in one direction and proton in the other direction.

It already has been tested many times.
 
Last edited:
brantc said:
From that paper.

"EXPERIMENTS on the dense laser-produced plasmas (lpp) expanding into a background magnetoplasma trigger a rich variety of phenomena including the formation of magnetic bubbles [1] and the generation of Alfvén waves [2], [3]. The lpp emit streams of field-aligned electrons, which, in turn, generate return currents in the background plasma. Within several microseconds, these become the current systems of shear Alfvén waves. The currents merge and split in space and time and are peppered with regions in which magnetic fields that point in opposite directions are forced together. The data indicate that they are likely the sites of magnetic field-line reconnection."
Click to expand...

You have the wrong paper. The quote seems to come from "Visualizing Three-Dimensional Reconnection in a Colliding Laser Plasma Experiment" which I do not have access to and you do not give a link to.

However the authors do not state that electric currents create the sites of magnetic field-line reconnection. They state that the streams of field-aligned electrons create return currents (of ions). These return currents contain regions that are likely to be sources os magnetic field-line reconnection.

That sound like the minor area of magnetic reconnection that appears in
Three-dimensional current systems generated by plasmas colliding in a background magnetoplasma.

brantc said:
Here is the complete paper.
Visualizing Three-Dimensional Reconnection in a
Colliding Laser Plasma Experiment.
http://alfven.org/media/POP-colliding-plasmas.pdf
Click to expand...
I already cited this the paper and quoted the abstract.

A reconnection event is triggered by the collision and the electric field induced in this event generates a field-aligned current, which is the first step in the development of a fully three-dimensional current system. After several ion gyroperiods, the current systems become those of shear Alfvén waves. As local currents move, small reconnection “flares” occur at many locations throughout the volume, but they do not seem to
Click to expand...

affect the overall system dynamics.
​
​
​
​
​
Click to expand...

The sequence of events is:​
  1. A magnetic reconnection event without any need for currents.​
  2. An induced electric field that generates a field-aligned current system.​
  3. Small reconnection "flares" within the current system.​
brantc said:
If you took the time to understand the requirements for reconnection you would see that all these experiments use the same methodology.
Click to expand...
I understand the requirements for magnetic reconnection.
The only thing that the experimenats share is the use of the same facuility. The methodology changes depending on the experiment.

brantc said:
My reconnection Hypotheses.

The reason for the formation of flux tubes(in the laboratory) is to equalize the potential between two separated regions of charge(sets of electrodes). This means they carry an electric current, or kinetic energy(eV).

When the plasma cannot carry enough current due to its "density", a flux tube forms that allows equalization on a much faster time scale.

This formation usually has the characteristic of being a dual tube helix. Under other situations the number of tubes can expand to some other even number up to an observed 52 filaments.

In the dual filament case the filaments are governed by the Biot-Savart law. This is in turn governed by the gyro-radius of the charges in the plasma filaments.

If a disturbance or a change in the feed current happens this changes the gyro radius of the particles which leads to changes in the magnetic force between the filaments.

Extreme case is when the filaments merge or reconnect. This produces either a z-pinch filament between the 2 filaments or a double layer that accelerates particles producing a jets of electrons in one direction and proton in the other direction.

It already has been tested many times.
Click to expand...
You reconnection hypothesis is valid for a certain type of experiment in the lab.
Other types of experiment do not have your sets of electrodes and do have nagnetic reconnetion.
The Sun definitely does not have your sets of electrodes.

Coronal loops do not occur in pairs.
 
A couple of more points about your "reconnection Hypotheses".
  1. It is not a hypothesis or hypotheses. As stated it is an idea at best.
    A hypothesis includes the ability to compare it with existing data. This means that it produces numbers. Your idea does not.
  2. The implication from what you have stated is that it is impossible to have a magnetic reconnection event without having electric currents.
    That is wrong in theory (magnetic reconnection), experiments (as already cited) and observations. For example coronal loops are measured to be magnetic flux tubes by the MDI instrument on SOHO.
 
Reality Check said:
[*]The implication from what you have stated is that it is impossible to have a magnetic reconnection event without having electric currents.
That is wrong in theory (magnetic reconnection),
Click to expand...

RC, perhaps you have been arguing against this stuff for too long.

Magnetic reconnection involves magnetic fields, and magnetic fields only arise in the presence of currents or displacement currents. Thus, any time you see reconnection, there's a current in the neighborhood somewhere.

The PC/EU/? mistake tends to be:

a) Assuming that the "currents" imply a "current source", or that these current source has some sort of wall-plug-like property of "powering" the things it is plugged into.
b) Assuming that every ropy structure is a "current flow"
c) Assuming that every mass flow is an electric current
d) Assuming that astrophysicists make some unspecified mistake by treating B as the dynamical variable and J as the dependent rather than vice-versa.

or more generally

e) Assuming that astrophysicists have done, or are doing, something vaguely wrong, which would have been done vaguely differently if a PC expert had done it.

But your statement---field line reconnection happens with no current---is not generally true. There's a current there somewhere. The current is not (or need not be) changing connectivity, but it must be in there somewhere or B would be zero.
 
Reality Check said:
You have the wrong paper. The quote seems to come from "Visualizing Three-Dimensional Reconnection in a Colliding Laser Plasma Experiment" which I do not have access to and you do not give a link to.
Click to expand...

Here is the complete paper.
Three-dimensional current systems generated by plasmas colliding
in a background magnetoplasma
http://alfven.org/media/POP-colliding-plasmas.pdf

Visualizing Three-Dimensional Reconnection in a
Colliding Laser Plasma Experiment.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/papers/Gekelman_Recon_IEEE2008.pdf


However the authors do not state that electric currents create the sites of magnetic field-line reconnection. They state that the streams of field-aligned electrons create return currents (of ions). These return currents contain regions that are likely to be sources os magnetic field-line reconnection.


That sound like the minor area of magnetic reconnection that appears in
Three-dimensional current systems generated by plasmas colliding in a background magnetoplasma.


I already cited this the paper and quoted the abstract.

The sequence of events is:​
  1. A magnetic reconnection event without any need for currents.​
  2. An induced electric field that generates a field-aligned current system.​
  3. Small reconnection "flares" within the current system.​

I understand the requirements for magnetic reconnection.
The only thing that the experimenats share is the use of the same facuility. The methodology changes depending on the experiment.


You reconnection hypothesis is valid for a certain type of experiment in the lab.
Other types of experiment do not have your sets of electrodes and do have nagnetic reconnetion.
The Sun definitely does not have your sets of electrodes.

Coronal loops do not occur in pairs.
Click to expand...


Sequence of events. Flux tube - reconnection.

Did you read what a flux tube is? It by its very nature carries current.
I dont care how you generate it.

Did you look at the electron channels leaving the electrodes generated by the laser? There are some movies on that site too.

This image is a slice through the LAPD device as the current channels run down the device. You are looking at the current channels end on. The reconnection point happens between the channels.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/images/gallery/BEz656-t512.jpg

And yes there is an electric field CALCULATED from the magnetic field lines, which we know dont really exist. It is not possible to have the electric field circling the "field lines"!!!
It follows the gradient of the magnetic field and is continuous. The magnetic field induces an electric field in the local plasma but it is not the cause for the flux tubes!!
The gradient described by the vectors follows the right hand rule as you can see by the wrapping of the field lines around the core electron flow which is coming out of the page towards you.

As far as the sun goes its a slightly different setup but still is the same process. Flux tube- reconnection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom