Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

Ziggurat said:
EPIC fail here, Zeuzzz. Simply epic.
Click to expand...
It is an epic fail from Zeuzzz in terms of the science.
But ...
I cannot see that these papers can be confused with papers on actual plasma by anyone with any intellegence. IMO this means that either
  • Zeuzzz's obsession with PC/EU ideas has corroded his intellegence to an extreme point or
  • Zeuzzz knows that these papers have nothing to do with the thread and is waiting our time.
If the latter then: Epic success there, Zeuzzz.
And now we can safely ignore any papers that you cite because we know that you are just wasting our time!
 
tusenfem said:
Originally Posted by brantc
Originally Posted by tusenfem
[commenting on X and gamma rays comment by MM]
Yes, discharges maybe, but not reconnection. But as reconnection is not a discharge, that is no problem at all.
Click to expand...

That is an important point. With a single filament(lightning or any spark or arc) you have the pinch effect responsible for the constriction of a single stroke. This produces the high energy photons and particles.
Click to expand...
In a discharge the size of the "filament" is determined by the size of the break down channel and when the discharge takes place a pinch effect will keep the current confined. I don't know a bout high energy photons, usually it is only visible light where most of the energy goes (if I am not mistaken), the 'high energy particles" are created by the potential drop that is "released" through the discharge and has nothing to do with the pinch.
Click to expand...

High energy photons are created in the steps of the leader at least for terrestrial lightning. UV, x-rays and gamma rays.

Originally Posted by brantc
With a reconnection, it takes place between 2 filaments and you have a change in direction of current flow momentarily across filaments changing the magnetic field topology. As this is happening there is a moment where a strong double layer is formed and this accelerates the particles producing the jets observed.
Click to expand...
Yes, reconnection can happen between two filaments, it can also just happen in the Earth's magnetotail, which I would hardly call a filament.
Click to expand...

The magnetotail has flux tubes in it. This is where the reconnections take place.
When I say flux tubes and we are talking about the magnetosphere I automatically assume that they are a twisted pair. Insert picture here.

What strong double layer?
Click to expand...

The area between the 2 filaments as they current flow is changing direction. This should be a greater potential than the temperature of the tubes.

Do you actually know what a double layer is? Not every electric field that may appear in a plasma is immediately a double layer. Yes, there may be electric fields, created by induction, no there are no double layers which depend on charge separation.
Click to expand...

If the tubes are of opposite polarities then you could have double layers between them. Especially if they were separating. There would be one instant where the separation distance would make the perfect double layer.

And then it is unclear what jets you mean here. Do you mean the bulk acceleration of the plasma perpendicular to the magnetic field in the reconnection exhaust?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Then double layers can impossibly do that, do you mean the field aligned currents along the separatrices (like in the paper I just linked to) then again double layers cannot produce them, because they are not created near the reconnection site, although the may occur further away along the separatrix under special conditions.
Click to expand...

2 parallel layers of opposite charge.

Originally Posted by brantc
You have a current flow that builds up some magnetic field(Curl?) along the filament pair.
The reconnection happens which cuts the filament pair off from the rest of the filament. This filament piece is now a plasmoid because it is formed from the 2 pieces of the cut off filament joined.
Click to expand...
You really have to get clearer here. What filament pair are you talking about. Most of the reconnection does not happen in just filament pairs, but that as an aside.
"Which cuts the filament pair off from the rest of the filament" what is that supposed to mean? And then it is suddenly a plasmoid? I think you are reading too many papers without understanding the basics, why not start reading up on reconnection in a simple text book instead of diving into rather complicate papers?
Click to expand...

A FTE is a situation where the flow in the flux tube stops. This is caused by a reconnection. If the current flow stops that is because the flux tubes are no longer connected.
When the flow starts its because the flux tubes have reconnected. And I dont mean the magnetic field lines are reconnecting.

I mean the plasma flows in the flux tube are reforming(reconnecting) and causing a current to flow again, which causes the magnetic field to reform into a "flux tube", giving the appearance of reconnected magnetic field lines..

Originally Posted by brantc
This filament piece has a a curl? field and as it loses energy, it injects that as a current into the flux tube along the parallel field. This causes the field aligned current that helps reform the flux tube for the next cycle. The energy for this comes from the electric field at the end of the flux tube(rope).
Click to expand...
"The filament piece has a curl?" I am glad it has at least a "?"
You really do not understand what "curl" is do you?
Click to expand...

The question is because I'm not 100% sure all flux tubes have a curl component in their lifetime.
You have direction and magnitude(rate). Right hand rule.
Rotation in vector notation. That rhymes....

"it injects that as a current" I assume "that" refers to the "curl" but curl(B) IS a current.
Click to expand...
Curl B>0 describes the magnetic field that is "wrapped around" the flux tube. When the current flow stops the magnetic field begins to collapse like an inductor. This causes the particles still in the tube to move(current).

And the "filament piece" is that the "plasmoid" that you were talking about earlier or is it the "left over" piece that did not get to be a plasmoid or what?
Click to expand...

In order to answer that question better I need to do some more reading.

What I'm thinking is going on is that after a reconnection the plasmoid is a leftover piece of the flux tube that got pinched off.
If you have a section of the flux tube that is a twisted pair, then you pinch off a section that is free from the main tube, this could turn into a plasmoid.

"The electric field at the end of the flux tube" does not make any sense at all.
Click to expand...

The electric field(potential) at the end of a wire that causes the current to flow.
i.e. That which causes electrons to move from one end of a wire to the other.
 
Reality Check said:
It is an epic fail from Zeuzzz in terms of the science.
But ...
I cannot see that these papers can be confused with papers on actual plasma by anyone with any intellegence. IMO this means that either
  • Zeuzzz's obsession with PC/EU ideas has corroded his intellegence to an extreme point or
  • Zeuzzz knows that these papers have nothing to do with the thread and is waiting our time.
If the latter then: Epic success there, Zeuzzz.
And now we can safely ignore any papers that you cite because we know that you are just wasting our time!
Click to expand...


No I was trying BAC tactics for a change to see if they worked.

Err...

Nope.

So what compelling case can you put forward now in support of the theory of 'magnetic reconnection' that will sway me.
 
It seems as though a strong core field encircled by spiraling magnetic field lines is the way flux ropes are built.

Plasmoids only take place at the end of a flux rope. In other words one that is trailing the magnetosphere.
Because this is where they can pinch off with one reconnection and not be connected to anything on the other end. This raises the question of what the end of the rope looks like when it is steady state.

The other thing that I found is that the flux ropes actually go through the magnetosphere to the earth.

From THEMIS science nuggets....

Conclusions

The THEMIS observations on May 20, 2007 offered a remarkable opportunity to simultaneously observe a flux rope from multiple vantage points inside, outside, and at the magnetopause. They decisively demonstrate that the rope exhibited a strong core field encircled by spiraling magnetic field lines. Observations like these are common throughout the course of the coast phase of the mission, and offer innumerable opportunities to understand the response of the magnetosphere to varying solar wind conditions and instabilities at the magnetopause boundary. The observations validate the output from numerical simulations, thereby paving the way towards a comprehensive understanding of the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction.
Click to expand...


Sibeck believes this is happening twice as often as previously thought. "I think there are two varieties of FTEs: active and passive." Active FTEs are magnetic cylinders that allow particles to flow through rather easily; they are important conduits of energy for Earth's magnetosphere. Passive FTEs are magnetic cylinders that offer more resistance; their internal structure does not admit such an easy flow of particles and fields. (For experts: Active FTEs form at equatorial latitudes when the IMF tips south; passive FTEs form at higher latitudes when the IMF tips north.) Sibeck has calculated the properties of passive FTEs and he is encouraging his colleagues to hunt for signs of them in data from THEMIS and Cluster. "Passive FTEs may not be very important, but until we know more about them we can't be sure."
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm?list179029
Click to expand...
These twisted magnetic flux tubes, technically known as flux transfer events, form open windows in the planet's magnetic shield through which the solar wind may enter and directly impact Mercury's surface."
<snip>
The solar wind moves quickly, usually around 250 to 370 miles per second (about 400 to 600 kilometers/second); fast enough to blast atoms off the surface of Mercury. Through a process called "sputtering," solar wind particles that crash into Mercury’s surface transfer sufficient energy to launch some atoms into ballistic trajectories high above the surface and replenish Mercury's atmosphere, according to Slavin.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2009/06/090602112255-large.jpg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090602112255.htm
Click to expand...

That drawing of Mercury looks just like Earths magnetosphere.
So reconnection happens in flux ropes(tubes).
 
Zeuzzz said:
...

So what compelling case can you put forward now in support of the theory of 'magnetic reconnection' that will sway me.
Click to expand...

MY outsider/lurker bet would be hugely on NFL.*

Care to guess why?:D




* Much more than you, MM, somewhat less than you, brantc, based on relative objectivity and willingness to learn.:)



Abandon Hope All ye...




Cheers,

Dave

ETA:
No I was trying BAC tactics for a change to see if they worked.
Click to expand...

What/who is "BAC", pray tell?
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
So what compelling case can you put forward now in support of the theory of 'magnetic reconnection' that will sway me.
Click to expand...
Why do you need a compelling case for the theory of magnetic reconnection?
Why do you think that I want to "sway you"?

That theory of magnetic reconnection is called Maxwell's equations. It works.
The theory that is used for modeling the observed magnetic reconenction events is called magnetohydorodynamics. It works (mostly).
If you want more details than I suggest you read this thread or better yet a textbook.
 
You'll have to get Z to tell you what he meant by 'BAC tactics'.

You can, of course, search on that handle/user names, and you'll find lots of posts by this JREF member. Reading a random selection might give you an idea of what Z may have meant.

For me, BAC provided an opportunity to have a discussion on the quantitative nature of Arp's claims concerning the improbability of alignment of quasars wrt galaxies*. Of course, this was BAC's own understanding, not Arp's, but at least he was willing to engage in a rational, quantitative, evidence-based discussion of this topic/question; in my experience this is exceedingly rare in internet discussion fora (not just about this particular thing, but non-standard aspects of contemporary astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology in general^). The result was, well, you get no prize for guessing correctly.

* if you're interested, I could give you a link to the thread.
^ the subset to do with fiercely defending or advocating such, not merely asking questions about; the latter are common, and almost always quite enjoyable
 
Snore. Evidently none of you are going to touch this question eh? Please demonstrate where "magnetic reconnection" has been empirically linked here on Earth to any of the following solar processes:

A) The temperatures associated with these events.
B) The speed of propagation of the event which Bruce demonstrated in the 50's.
C) The "looping nature" of the discharges themselves as Birkeland actually *predicted* (real empirical predictions too, not your fudge factor, after the fact stuff) over 100 years ago.
D) produce x-rays galore
E) produce gamma rays "naturally" in our own atmosphere.
 
Reality Check said:
Why do you need a compelling case for the theory of magnetic reconnection?
Click to expand...

Because skeptics generally expect to see a compelling case before we believe in anything.

Why do you think that I want to "sway you"?
Click to expand...

Er, maybe due to your whole attitude?

That theory of magnetic reconnection is called Maxwell's equations. It works.
Click to expand...

Please demonstrate that it works *PHYSICALLY* the way you claim it does, and please show me the empirical link to anything on my A-E list.

A "textbook" isn't going to demonstrate your claim in an empirical manner. You'll need to provide a physical link between the solar processes we observe and what we can empirically duplicate here on Earth. I showed you a "discharge" process that A) generates million degree plasmas, "pinches" neutrons from plasma and does exactly what we observe in solar atmospheric events. Care to demonstrate a similar empirical demonstration of "magnetic reconnection" doing that?
 
The constant avoidance of my question about the empirical connection between "magnetic reconnection" and the key solar observations I listed speaks volumes. You don't want to admit there isn't any way to make that connection in lab and it was never done. The rest is just a big tap dance around that basic fact and that basic weakness in your argument.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The constant avoidance of my question about the empirical connection between "magnetic reconnection" and the key solar observations I listed speaks volumes. You don't want to admit there isn't any way to make that connection in lab and it was never done. The rest is just a big tap dance around that basic fact and that basic weakness in your argument.
Click to expand...

The lab is not the Sun.

Be very careful on this point, very careful.

That doesnt invalidate lab experiments, and that doesnt mean that you cant ask for verification here on the Earth, but the lab cannot replicate fully conditions in the Sun.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Snore. Evidently none of you are going to touch this question eh? Please demonstrate where "magnetic reconnection" has been empirically linked here on Earth to any of the following solar processes:

A) The temperatures associated with these events.
B) The speed of propagation of the event which Bruce demonstrated in the 50's.
C) The "looping nature" of the discharges themselves as Birkeland actually *predicted* (real empirical predictions too, not your fudge factor, after the fact stuff) over 100 years ago.
D) produce x-rays galore
E) produce gamma rays "naturally" in our own atmosphere.
Click to expand...


And again you're lying about Birkeland's research in order to avoid taking responsibility for your very own crackpot ideas, but what the heck, it is amusing watching you twitch and flinch when someone asks, so here goes again. Show exactly where Birkeland predicted that electrical discharges were the cause of coronal loops. Quote the exact comments. Show the math. None of your silly looks-like-a-bunny science allowed.
 
Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

Michael Mozina said:
Because skeptics generally expect to see a compelling case before we believe in anything.
Click to expand...
For a start that post was a reply to a question from Zueuzz not you.
There is a compelling case for magnetic reconnection. It is allowed by theory. It is seen every day in labs and the real world.

Michael Mozina said:
Er, maybe due to your whole attitude?
Click to expand...
Er, No.

Michael Mozina said:
Please demonstrate that it works *PHYSICALLY* the way you claim it does, and please show me the empirical link to anything on my A-E list.
Click to expand...
Please demonstrate that you can read by looking at the links to *PHYSICAL* demostration of magnetic reconnection in this thread.
Your A-E list has been answered. I have nothing to add.

On the other hand, you have outstanding questions about citations for your assertions. These should be easy to answer. All you need to do is look them up in your large collection of physics textbooks (is it 2 or 3 that you have now :rolleyes:?)
  1. Alfven and Perratt have stated that "these activities" = electrical discharges
    First asked 2 March 2010
  2. Cosmic Plasma citation: twisted magnetic rope = discharge filament
    First asked 4 March 2010
  3. Cosmic Plasma citation: All plasmas are "dusty".
    First asked 4 March 2010
  4. Citation for electrical discharges can happen in plasmas (any textbook or scientific paper at all).
    Not Bruce's physically impossible idea that was published in a house journal.
    First asked 4 March 2010
(I am surprised that you did not nitpick about me getting the month wrong on all these questions!)
 
Michael Mozina said:
The constant avoidance of my question about the empirical connection between "magnetic reconnection" and the key solar observations I listed speaks volumes..
Click to expand...

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not understand the word empirical.
 
tusenfem said:
Could you be any more vague? I guess you mean the temperature of the plasma in the solar loop, which mainly comes from the current in the loop, as I have already stated and as can be read in many a mainstream paper. This had NOTHING to do with reconnection.
Click to expand...

Evidently RC thinks this passes for a response, so I guess I should address this nonsense. So let me get this straight, the million degree temperatures are due to current flow and resistance to that current flow in plasma?

The speed of propagation of what. The only speed that is in the Bruce "paper" is that of electrons, as far as I could see (searching for the word speed), so this is bunk
Click to expand...

That response is "bunk". Bruce makes a direct speed connection between lightening leader processes on Earth and the propagation speed of discharge processes in the solar atmosphere.

Birkeland did not model the sun with the loops you are so fond of, but the Kronian rings.
Click to expand...

birkelandyohkohmini.jpg


Solar loops are NOT discharges,
Click to expand...

Bzzt.

but evidently you don't understand how discharges work.
Click to expand...

Unlike MR theory, "discharges" work in a real lab in real empirical tests of concept and produce all the things on this list.

The X-ray galore is produced at the footpoints of the loops where accelerated electrons are creating them by bremsstrahlung. Accelerated electrons can be created by reconnection.
Click to expand...

Boloney. Show me. Show me one physical demonstration where MR produced x-rays in a lab.

So, question MM, when are we going to get your circuit description of magnetic reconnectin (or discharge or induction or particle or whatever name you want to give it). I guess we are NEVER going to get that, because you don't have such a model. You can easily admit you don't have it, as it is impossible to do anyway, you don't have to be ashamed.
Click to expand...

The only one that should be ashamed here is you. I already provided you with empirical evidence from Los Alamose that discharges in plasma do all the things on that list, including heating plasma to millions of degrees. The only one that should be ashamed is you for believing that any scientific theory rises or falls on the math skills of yours truly. You're a head trip and a half and you're in pure denial now.

This thread has gone nowhere while I've been preoccupied at work. I'm sure it won't go anywhere in the next three weeks either. This whole thing is one big denial game at this point. You folks simply deny the need to physically demonstrate your case. You deny all empirical demonstrations of concept of discharges in plasmas unless I personally do the math for you on command. You aren't even acting rationally anymore, so the vacation might actually help. Who knows?
 
Tubbythin said:
You have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not understand the word empirical.
Click to expand...

You're just being difficult because you can't demonstrate your case in a real science experiment. When did "magnetic reconnection' ever heat plasma to a million degrees in a controlled experiments. Since you won't answer the question directly, let me do it for you. The correct answer is 'NEVER'. It's never been demonstrated.

Likewise you skipped that step of empirically linking (cause/effect) "magnetic reconnection' and x-ray emissions. You can't demonstrate that wild claim either.
 
GeeMack said:
And again you're lying
Click to expand...

You are the single least ethical individual I've ever met GR. You're nothing but a two bit verbal abuser with no desire at all to find 'truth". All you care about is playing the roll of personal (verbal) attack troll.

crackpot
Click to expand...

I don't think you even make a post about me (even when I'm not part of discussion in fact) without using that term. You're like a parrot at this point.

but what the heck, it is amusing watching you twitch and flinch when someone asks, so here goes again.
Click to expand...

You mean you you twitched and flinched and never admitted that discharges are empirically linked to million degree plasmas?

Show exactly where Birkeland predicted that electrical discharges were the cause of coronal loops. Quote the exact comments. Show the math. None of your silly looks-like-a-bunny science allowed.
Click to expand...

You have empirical physics standing on it's head. Birkeland *EMPIRICALLY* predicted the arrangement, location, and pattern of these loops and explain the controlling factors for the different configurations that came from his experiments.

I'm damn tired of your "looks-like-an-invisible-math-bunny" brand of "virtual/pseudo science". It want to see your claims demonstrated in lab like Los Alamos demonstrated that discharges can heat plasma to millions of degrees. None of your silly "looks like a pretty math formula science" is going to cut it. Show me.

You're just going to ignore that whole list. You're going to ignore that I demonstrated that discharges heat plasma to millions of degrees and you're going to post more personal attack nonsense.

You never did answer me about where that attitude of yours has gotten you in life, whether you were a petty tyrannical dictator in a dysfunctional organization, or whether you're perpetually unemployed? I tend to believe it's the latter.
 
Last edited:
Michael...

tusenfem said:
Birkeland did not model the sun with the loops you are so fond of, but the Kronian rings.
Solar loops are NOT discharges, but evidently you don't understand how discharges work.
Click to expand...


Again, Birkeland did not predict that the coronal loops of the Sun were electrical discharges. And even if he had, as you continue to insist, that would mean he was completely, totally, 100%, and without any doubt in the mind of every professional physicist on the planet, WRONG.
 
Let's go through the list and look at the facts:

A) The temperatures associated with these events.
B) The speed of propagation of the event which Bruce demonstrated in the 50's.
C) The "looping nature" of the discharges themselves as Birkeland actually *predicted* (real empirical predictions too, not your fudge factor, after the fact stuff) over 100 years ago.
D) produce x-rays galore
E) produce gamma rays "naturally" in our own atmosphere.

Nothing on this list of key solar atmospheric observations has ever been produced, nor will it ever be produced in a real lab on Earth via "magnetic reconnection". Even the physical claims of producing "magnetic reconnection' in the lab require the presence of "current flow" as two different "circuits". The whole process is completely dependent upon "current flow" through plasma. No current flow, no "magnetic reconnection".

Nothing, not one thing on this list can be empirically linked to 'magnetic reconnection', whereas every single item on that list has been empirically linked (cause/effect) to "electrical discharges".

That's the ugly fact that none of you want to face.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You're just being difficult because you can't demonstrate your case in a real science experiment. When did "magnetic reconnection' ever heat plasma to a million degrees in a controlled experiments. Since you won't answer the question directly, let me do it for you. The correct answer is 'NEVER'. It's never been demonstrated.
Click to expand...
How would you know? You have no idea what a controlled experiment is. You said the dark matter detectors, some of the most finely controlled experiments in history, had no control mechanisms.

Likewise you skipped that step of empirically linking (cause/effect) "magnetic reconnection' and x-ray emissions. You can't demonstrate that wild claim either.
Click to expand...
You can't demonstrate you understand what the word "empirical" means.
 
Tubbythin said:
How would you know? You have no idea what a controlled experiment is. You said the dark matter detectors, some of the most finely controlled experiments in history, had no control mechanisms.
Click to expand...

In neutrino experiments, not only could we tinker with shielding processes and removing false hits, we could turn on and off a known/theorized source of neutrinos to verify that the detection rate changed accordingly. How did you intend to do that with 'dark matter'? How did you intend to turn on and off a known/theorized" quantity of "dark matter" to verify that your detections are actually due to "dark matter' or something else? Without any control mechanisms, how can we ever be sure if the detection "hit" was related to "dark matter" or something else? Without a control mechanism, how is your whole experiment not a "argument of the gaps" circular feedback loop?

You can't demonstrate you understand what the word "empirical" means.
Click to expand...

You're just whiny because you can't demonstrate your case with real control mechanisms.
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
The ugly fact that you do not want to face is that the lab bares little resemblance to the Sun. Get over it.
Click to expand...

You just don't want to face the ugly fact that we can an do create situations in the lab that do occur in the sun's atmosphere. The whole point of fusion research on Earth is to harness a solar process.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You are the single least ethical individual I've ever met GR. You're nothing but a two bit verbal abuser with no desire at all to find 'truth". All you care about is playing the roll of personal (verbal) attack troll.
Click to expand...


Yeah, yeah, yeah. I predicted a tantrum. You threw one. Again. You do that when you can't answer the question. You've been doing it for years. Now how about you finally admit Birkeland didn't predict that coronal loops are electrical discharges.

I don't think you even make a post about me (even when I'm not part of discussion in fact) without using that term. You're like a parrot at this point.
Click to expand...


Your notions are crackpot notions.

You mean you you twitched and flinched and never admitted that discharges are empirically linked to million degree plasmas?
Click to expand...


No, I mean when asked to explain, quite nicely, as you said you could, how the "circuit/resistor" approach explains heating a coronal loop to millions of degrees, you bitched and threw a tantrum. You flinched and twitched. You pointed to some material that has nothing to do with coronal loop heating. You're a liar. You have never explained it. You can't.

You have empirical physics standing on it's head. Birkeland *EMPIRICALLY* predicted the arrangement, location, and pattern of these loops and explain the controlling factors for the different configurations that came from his experiments.
Click to expand...


No, he did not. And not one single professional physicist on Earth agrees with you. You are wrong.

I'm damn tired of your "looks-like-an-invisible-math-bunny" brand of "virtual/pseudo science".
Click to expand...


Michael, everyone is damned tired of your looks-like-a-bunny science. It's the stuff of grade school children. This is the real world where real physicists talk physics in the language of science, that being real numbers, quantitative explanations, supported by math.

It want to see your claims demonstrated in lab like Los Alamos demonstrated that discharges can heat plasma to millions of degrees. None of your silly "looks like a pretty math formula science" is going to cut it. Show me.

You're just going to ignore that whole list. You're going to ignore that I demonstrated that discharges heat plasma to millions of degrees and you're going to post more personal attack nonsense.
Click to expand...


You're lying. You have never once demonstrated your claim that electrical discharges heat coronal loops to millions of degrees.

Oh, and get off the persecution kick, will you? I'm attacking your whacked out crackpot ideas. You just happen to be the container they reside in. Unlucky you.

You never did answer me about where that attitude of yours has gotten you in life, whether you were a petty tyrannical dictator in a dysfunctional organization, or whether you're perpetually unemployed? I tend to believe it's the latter.
Click to expand...


And one more time, instead of taking the opportunity to explain your crackpot conjectures in real terms like a real scientist, you go off on a tear about being asked to support your crazy claims, and attack me personally. But I'm sure you feel better now that you've gotten all that hollering and whining out of your system. :D

And here's a thought. Instead of you continuing your off topic rants and tantrums about those crackpot solar conjectures (this is the magnetic reconnection thread, after all), how about you start a separate thread on that solid surface Sun crap? You can babble about it all you want and people can ridicule your crazy ideas there without derailing this thread for that purpose?
 
Do you understand that Birkeland's Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings

Michael Mozina said:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg
Click to expand...
Yet again with the pretty picture that reveals your inability to understand Birkeland's book as already pointed out to you for 8 months now in another thread (Is Saturn the Sun?).
This deserves to be a formal question in this thread too to make it easier to reply to this obsession with this picture

First asked 14 July 2009 (expanded on 9 March 2010)
Michael Mozina,
Do you understand that Birkeland's Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings?


Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun.
  • The first image is Birkeland's attempt for an analogy of Saturn (fig. 247a). It is in visible light.
  • The second image is a soft X-ray (not visible light) image of the Sun.
Birkeland obviously confuses Michael Mozina by starting section 128 (page 661) with a discussion of Saturn's rings so that Birkeland can then speculate about the Sun having the same ring-like structures.
We have already several times had occasion to give various particulars regarding the manner in \\ ch these experiments were carried out. It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe trt the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and di'uptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 2473 (which happens to be a unipolar di'harge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe
[Figures 247a and b]
be -educed (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly Hi; 247 b). It has been possible for the ring to develope in such a manner that it could easily be deincstrated by radiation on the most distant wall of my large vacuum-tube (see fig. 217). The correspondin; ring would then have a diameter of 70 cm., while the diameter of the globe was 8 cm.
It is a corresponding primary ring of radiant matter about the sun that in my opinion can give an efficient explanation of the various zodiacal light-phenomena. In the above-mentioned experiments, it seen how the rays from the polar regions bend down in a simple curve about the equatorial plane of ic globe, to continue their course outwards from the globe in the vicinity of this plane. An aureole is ^reby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly resnbling pictures of the sun's corona.
Click to expand...


The absense of evidence for such a ring is one of the failed predictions in Birkeland's book. The fact that Saturn's rings have nothing at all to do with his experiments is another failed prediction. Basically the things Birkeland got right in his book were
  • His theory for the Earth's aurora.
  • His expectation that the solar wind would be electrons and ions.
  • Observations about electrical discharges from metallic spheres in various magnetic fields created from electromagnets inside the spheres.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Boloney. Show me. Show me one physical demonstration where MR produced x-rays in a lab.
Click to expand...
Ooo I can answer this!
There is a little thng called Google Michael Mozina. A few minutes gives this paper from the Department of Energy:
Observation of Suprathermal Electrons during Magnetic Reconection at the Sawtooth Instability in DIII-D Tokamak
The paper is about the association of bursts of x-rays with suprathermal electrons generated during reconnection of magnetic fields.

Of course your answer will be something like: It is not MR because MR cannot produce x-rays because MR does not exist because Michael Mozina says so.

ETA
Just for fun: Million degree plasma (almost) from magnetic reconnection!
D Reconnection and Flow Dynamics in the Ssx Experiment
Several new experimental results are reported from plasma merging studies at the Swarthmore Spheromak Experiment (SSX) with relevance to collisionless three-dimensional magnetic reconnection in laboratory and space plasmas. First, recent high-resolution velocity measurements of impurity ions using ion Doppler spectroscopy (IDS) show bi-directional outflow jets at 40 km/s (nearly the Alfven speed). The SSX IDS instrument measures with 1 μs or better time resolution the width and Doppler shift of the CIII impurity (H plasma) 229.7 nm line to determine the temperature and line-averaged flow velocity during spheromak merging events. High flow speeds are corroborated using an in situ Mach probe. Second, ion heating to nearly 106 K is observed after reconnection events in a low-density kinetic regime.
...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
You'll have to get Z to tell you what he meant by 'BAC tactics'.
Click to expand...
If s/he would chime in, it might prove interesting.

Thank you for answering in the mean time.

You can, of course, search on that handle/user names, and you'll find lots of posts by this JREF member. Reading a random selection might give you an idea of what Z may have meant.
Click to expand...
I have yet to have more than marginal luck with the forum search feature. Even looking for threads I posted in, I often get "No Matches" back.

Maybe I don't hold my mouth quite right.:D

For me, BAC provided an opportunity to have a discussion on the quantitative nature of Arp's claims concerning the improbability of alignment of quasars wrt galaxies*. Of course, this was BAC's own understanding, not Arp's, but at least he was willing to engage in a rational, quantitative, evidence-based discussion of this topic/question; in my experience this is exceedingly rare in internet discussion fora (not just about this particular thing, but non-standard aspects of contemporary astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology in general^). The result was, well, you get no prize for guessing correctly.
Click to expand...
So, s/he was not spring-loaded to the "aggressively stupid" position like some I have observed.;)

* if you're interested, I could give you a link to the thread.
Click to expand...
Please do.

^ the subset to do with fiercely defending or advocating such, not merely asking questions about; the latter are common, and almost always quite enjoyable
Click to expand...
:D

Cheers'

Dave
 
Michael Mozina said:
In neutrino experiments, not only could we tinker with shielding processes and removing false hits, we could turn on and off a known/theorized source of neutrinos to verify that the detection rate changed accordingly. How did you intend to do that with 'dark matter'?
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about with respect to neutrinos... but "I" have no intention to turn on or off my source of dark matter. As I've explained before, control mechanisms take a number of forms. They include ways of removing or accounting for spurious counts in the data from signals that could potentially mimic those that you're trying to find. This is where dark matter searches are some of the most advanced in the world.

How did you intend to turn on and off a known/theorized" quantity of "dark matter" to verify that your detections are actually due to "dark matter' or something else?
Click to expand...
I don't. Its not necessarily necessary.

Without any control mechanisms, how can we ever be sure if the detection "hit" was related to "dark matter" or something else?
Click to expand...
We don't. That's why its a good job they are some of the most stringently controlled experiments in the world.

Without a control mechanism, how is your whole experiment not a "argument of the gaps" circular feedback loop?
Click to expand...
There are loads of control mechanisms (some of which are pretty extreme). How many times do I have to repeat this? You are just highlighting time and again that you do not understand what a control mechanism is.

You're just whiny because you can't demonstrate your case with real control mechanisms.
Click to expand...
This is hilarious. In this post I am responding to you have demonstrated that you do not understand what a control mechanism is. Multiple times.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You just don't want to face the ugly fact that we can an do create situations in the lab that do occur in the sun's atmosphere. The whole point of fusion research on Earth is to harness a solar process.
Click to expand...

What an excellent illustration of how flawed your argument is. Fusion on Earth is (in almost all cases) trying to fuse deuterium and tritium in a single step to make helium-4 plus a neutron.
Fusion in the Sun is based around the p-p chain, a multi-step process that converts four protons to a helium-4 nucleus. Now, helium four has two-protons and two neutrons. So unlike fusion on Earth this requires conversion of protons to neutrons. Two protons fuse to make deuterium (one proton, one neutron). This means it is a weak process. This means the cross section is absolutely tiny. Many orders of magnitude smaller than d-t reactions. Its known as the deuterium bottleneck because its this really small reaction rate which governs the time scale of the p-p chain. We will never be able to reproduce the p-p chain on Earth to produce energy.
So what does this tell us? Well it tells us what we can do in the lab bears little resemblance to what happens in the Sun.
 
Grand Archive of Flare and CME Cartoons

Here we go......... The state of solar flare model. Can somebody figure out which one is right???

Grand Archive of Flare and CME Cartoons
Why an archive? Why a cartoon?
Cartoons play an important role in discussions of how solar flares and CMEs work. These discussion may take place in august forums, or in pubs at any point around the solar world (see bar bets ). In place of a self-consistent theory, a cartoon is often the only way to guess how different features of an event might be related. At the bottom of this page we have a random selection from each of three categories of cartoons. To scroll through the Archive randomly, simply use the "refresh" button on the browser. To view it systematically, click on the names below or look at the (chronological) overview or the matrix-style displays of thumbnail images. These are large pages and require broadband access to load properly. Each cartoon page has some (often loose) information about its origin and a link to the published paper. Here are links to the gaudiest cartoon and to my favorite.

http://solarmuri.ssl.berkeley.edu/~hhudson/cartoons/
Click to expand...
 
brantc said:
Here we go......... The state of solar flare model. Can somebody figure out which one is right???
Click to expand...
Easy - they are cartoons so they are all right as far as pretty pictures go, usless as science and nothing to do with the state of the solar flare model.
 
Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III

Michael Mozina said:
Please demonstrate where "magnetic reconnection" has been empirically linked here on Earth to any of the following solar processes:
A) The temperatures associated with these events.
Click to expand...
What "events"?
Michael Mozina said:
So let me get this straight, the million degree temperatures are due to current flow and resistance to that current flow in plasma?
Click to expand...
Do you mean "A) Million degree temperatures"? If that's what you meant, why isn't it what you said?

Mass-Dependent Ion Heating during Magnetic Reconnection in a Laboratory Plasma
Noncollisional ion heating in laboratory and astrophysical plasmas and the mechanism of conversion of magnetic energy to ion thermal energy are not well understood. In the Madison Symmetric Torus reversed-field pinch experiment, ions are heated rapidly during impulsive reconnection, attaining temperatures exceeding hundreds of eV, often well in excess of the electron temperature. The energy budget of the ion heating and its mass scaling in hydrogen, deuterium, and helium plasmas were determined by measuring the fraction of the released magnetic energy converted to ion thermal energy. The fraction ranges from about 10%–30% and increases approximately as the square root of the ion mass. A simple model based on stochastic ion heating is proposed that is consistent with the experimental data.
​
One electron Volt (eV) of energy translates into 11,605 Kelvins of temperature. Obviously, 100 eV is therefore 1,160,500 Kelvins. So, when the abstract says "hundreds of eV" that translates into "millions of degrees" (Kelvin). See also 3D Reconnection and Flow Dynamics in the Ssx Experiment, as pointed out by Reality Check, which also specifies million degree plasma resulting from magnetic reconnection in a laboratory experiment. And see Energetic particle studies in a laboratory plasma experiment, which specifies maximum energy in excess of 200 eV (that's in excess of 2 million Kelvins).

Michael Mozina said:
D) produce x-rays galore
Click to expand...
What's "galore"? What's not "galore"? Since any accelerated charged particle will emit X-rays (unless you are ready to simply deny the validity of physics altogether), then all of the experiments I have already cited obviously produced X-rays (maybe even "galore"), whether the abstract specifically says so or not. But see Partial and complete spheromak merging at SSX: 3D studies of reconnection and FRC formation, which specifically references soft X-rays correlated with magnetic reconnection.

Michael Mozina said:
B) The speed of propagation of the event which Bruce demonstrated in the 50's.
C) The "looping nature" of the discharges themselves as Birkeland actually *predicted* (real empirical predictions too, not your fudge factor, after the fact stuff) over 100 years ago.
E) produce gamma rays "naturally" in our own atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Nobody claims that magnetic reconnection has anything to do with any of these, so what's the point in asking?

Michael Mozina said:
Unlike MR theory, "discharges" work in a real lab in real empirical tests of concept and produce all the things on this list.
Click to expand...
The fact that discharges produce everything on your list is not relevant. The comment about "unlike MR theory ..." is, on the other hand, blatantly stupid. I already pointed out to you, over a year ago, that magnetic reconnection had long since been copiously verified in real, controlled, laboratory experiments (Comments on Magnetic Reconnection). You never once even looked at any of the experiments, but immediately dismissed them as "circuit reconnection". I predict you will do the same now, immediately deny that any of these experiments are actually measuring magnetic reconnection, and then you will once again insist that nobody has ever demonstrated magnetic reconnection in a laboratory. You won't actually think about it, nor will you ever actually look at any of the experiments.
 
Reality Check said:
Easy - they are cartoons so they are all right as far as pretty pictures go, usless as science and nothing to do with the state of the solar flare model.
Click to expand...

So those pictures dont represent the models that are put forth by these authors?

Liu-Alexander, 2009
McKenzie-Savage, 2009
Tsiklauri, 2009
Tsurutani, 2009
Tovmassian, 2009
Schrijver, 2009
Chollet, 2009
Van Ballegooijen & Cranmer, 2009

And why would they include these pictures in their papers if it is "usless as science"?
McKenzie-Savage, 2009 ; for instance http://solar.physics.montana.edu/mckenzie/Pubs/SolarBproceedings.pdf

Is 2009 current enough for the state of solar flare models?
Are you saying any cartoon is "usless as science"?

How else would you show somebody the physical layout of a flare besides a photograph? Or pass on a concept without a page full of text?
Text doesnt make it any more scientific.

The equations are just as wrong as the picture, if they are not the correct model.

Its how you perform the science, not the notes you take or the diagrams you draw.
My lab notebook is full of drawings.
Do you think my boss says " Hey, thats not science?" No.
Those drawings are required when we apply for a patent or publish a paper.
My notebook is admissible in court.

So then which of these authors has the most correct flare model?
 
brantc, Please provide a list of the solar flare models that you want to discuss

brantc said:
And why would they include these pictures in their papers if it is "usless as science"?
Click to expand...
The pictures are illustrations. They can be derived from the actual science, but are not the science. They are useless as science. They are useful as a tool for discussing the science and in education (ETA and as inspiration for further research). The language of science is mathematics not pretty pictures.

http://solarmuri.ssl.berkeley.edu/~hhudson/cartoons/
Grand Archive of Flare and CME Cartoons
Why an archive? Why a cartoon?
Cartoons play an important role in discussions of how solar flares and CMEs work. These discussion may take place in august forums, or in pubs at any point around the solar world (see bar bets ). In place of a self-consistent theory, a cartoon is often the only way to guess how different features of an event might be related. At the bottom of this page we have a random selection from each of three categories of cartoons. To scroll through the Archive randomly, simply use the "refresh" button on the browser. To view it systematically, click on the names below or look at the (chronological) overview or the matrix-style displays of thumbnail images. These are large pages and require broadband access to load properly. Each cartoon page has some (often loose) information about its origin and a link to the published paper. Here are links to the gaudiest cartoon and to my favorite.
Click to expand...

Of course the real idiocy in your post is that this is an archive of the various cartoons used in any papers about solar flares. You seem to have the idea that each cartoon is a different solar flare model. In reality there are a small number of solar flare models (I do not know the exact number). So ...
First asked 11 March 2010
brantc, you seem to want to discuss the various solar flare models.
Please provide a list of the solar flare models that you want to discuss.

ETA

On second thoughts the number of models depends on what your definition of a solar flare model is.
  • You could count any tiny difference between models as a different model. In that case there are are 1000's of them (one per published paper?).
  • You could count any model of a specific solar flare as a different model. In that case there are as many models as studied solar flares.
  • You could count a coronal loop + magnetic reconnection as one model with hundreds of papers on it. Another model would be a pair of twisted coronal loops + magnetic reconnection, etc.
 
Last edited:
brantc said:
Here we go......... The state of solar flare model. Can somebody figure out which one is right???
Click to expand...
Another point I missed in your original post about cartoons used to illustrate papers about features of solar flares.
  • Why do you think that there is one correct solar flare model?
This implies that every solar flare is identical and can be described by the same model. This is obviously not the case. They differ structually. Each structure meeds a different model.
 
Reality Check said:
Another point I missed in your original post about cartoons used to illustrate papers about features of solar flares.
  • Why do you think that there is one correct solar flare model?
This implies that every solar flare is identical and can be described by the same model. This is obviously not the case. They differ structually. Each structure meeds a different model.
Click to expand...

All dogs/humans/chickens look different but they are born the same way. Well maybe not chickens....

Same with flares.
They may look different but the process to birth them is the same.

Electric fields at the footprints drive the flare.
Everything else should come from this basic assumption.

They have several different flux tube configurations.
The helical magnetic field comes from the right hand rule. Current.
They all may have reconnection.
Some have high energy photons up to gammas.
Reconnection is responsible for the high energy impulsive events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom