Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

Reality Check said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thats right, they are a tool. Just like math, a tool.
When you graph an equation or data, is that just a pretty picture??
Maybe you can see a complex function in your head but me, I need to see the graph.
Pictures can have a real meaning especially if they are data.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to show the state of flare research. After 50 years they are no closer to a model that works.

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.
Click to expand...

You could categorize them like that, or you could say those are just a particular aspect of a solar flare. Just like plasma behavior. It all comes from ionizing gas with electricity.

You could call each instability or each movement in a plasma a model but it all stems from one cause. Same as flares. Electric fields.

The flare is a current carrying "flux tube". There are different shapes and functions depending on the plasma concentration, local temperature, electric field strength and magnetic field strength.

So you should be able to show all the particular aspects of a solar flare with one model that has a set of the aforementioned parameters that you change.

Not multiple "models" with different starting points.

There again, pure science will allow you to match solar flare properties with known laboratory phenomena, while preconceived notions about the sun will never get you there.
 
brantc said:
You could categorize them like that, or you could say those are just a particular aspect of a solar flare. Just like plasma behavior. It all comes from ionizing gas with electricity.
Click to expand...

No, brantc. The "gas" in the sun is a plasma ([ii]all[/i] of it is plasma, not just flares and coronal loops) because of temperature, not because of electricity. Epic fail.
 
brantc said:
Thats right, they are a tool. Just like math, a tool.
When you graph an equation or data, is that just a pretty picture??
Maybe you can see a complex function in your head but me, I need to see the graph.
Pictures can have a real meaning especially if they are data.
Click to expand...
We almost agree!
The cartoons are useful illustrations of the process. They can give insights into what is going on.
What they are not is a tool just like math.

brantc said:
I'm just trying to show the state of flare research. After 50 years they are no closer to a model that works.
Click to expand...
Then you have failed. A web page of cartoons that have been published in papers does not show the state of flare research.

After 50 years of research they have models that actually work.
You seem to want to have a single model that works perfectly. That is not going to happen. No model fits the real world perfectly, especially not in a complex and volatile environment like a plasma. There is no guarantee that every solar flare will fit a single model.

Of course if you have a model for solar flares that "works" then you are free to present it. Just remember that it will be competing against the existing models that have 50 years of research behind them.
 
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...

I already went through this list, pages ago.
You probably did not like what was written,so you ignored it as usual.

How about your model for the plasma ball, the particle/circuit reconnection?

Question time is over MM, you have to come up with something real.
 
brantc said:
High energy photons are created in the steps of the leader at least for terrestrial lightning. UV, x-rays and gamma rays.
Click to expand...

That's fine with me.

brantc said:
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.
Click to expand...

The magnetotail MAY have flux tube in it, for example the FTEs and plasmoids etc. that are in there. However, just normal regular reconnection in the tail DOES NOT work on flux tubes. It is just the north (earthward) field in the tail and the south (tailward) field in the tail that gets pressed together. There are NO twisted pairs. Read up on the papers by Runov et al. that I quoted a few pages back.

You are obsessed by flux ropes, probably because of the laboratory experiments. That is just ONE way that one can have reconnection, but not at all the only way.

brantc said:
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.
Click to expand...

And why exactly should this create a double layer? There may be a potential difference between the ropes (but probably not as in the lab they both hang between the same anode and cathode). However, as usual with double layer fanatics, any voltage difference will be said to be a double layer with is utter nonsense. A double layer is a very specific plasma phenomenon either in a current carrying plasma (E-field along the current) or between two different plasmas (E-field in the direction of the specific gradient and NO current flowing at all).

The rest is inunderstandable, I have no idea what you are up to here. Although it is true that when the potential drop is larger than the equivalent temperature of the plasma then a double layer is called strong.

brantc said:
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.
Click to expand...

NO NO NO, WHY???????
Do you actually have any idea WHAT a double layer is??????

brantc said:
Yes.

2 parallel layers of opposite charge.
Click to expand...

So you mean bulk plasma acceleration in the exhaust region of a reconnection site. This CANNOT be done with your favourite non-existent magical double layer as electric fields will accelerate ions in one direction and electrons in another, and the velocity of both will be different, which is NOT observed. There is BULK acceleration of both the ions and electrons in the same direction, done by the relaxation of the magnetic tension in the newly reconnected field lines.

And yes, a double layer consists, amongs others, of 2 layers that are oppositely charged.

brantc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gibberish and nonsense. I don't have the time to explain all this. Why not pick up a nice introductory space physics book like Kivelson and Russell "Introduction to space physics?"

And what the frak is the difference between "flux tubes have reconnected" and "field lines are reconnecting"? The former cannot happen without the latter.

brantc said:
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..
Click to expand...

Okay I guess you are going to the circuit reconnection model of MM. Why not ask MM to explain it to you, and then you can explain it to me. I have no idea what you are talking about here.

brantc said:
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....
Click to expand...

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH, you and your curl, you mean TWIST
If there is a current flowing then there is a curl of the magnetic field as demanded by Maxwell's equations.
If there is a flux tube, and it has a current flowing along it, it will get twisted, period, final.

brantc said:
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).
Click to expand...

And what if curl(B)<0, which can also happen?
NO, the field will NOT collapse when the current stops, it will gradually unwind, untwist.
So, your idea is that the current stops (for some reason) the field collapses (for some reason) and then the collaps starts a current, whatever...

brantc said:
In order to answer that question better I need to do some more reading.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do need to read, A LOT, like introductory plasma physics book, introductory space physics books and then maybe you can start to try and understand reconnection.

brantc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Usually the plasmoid is something that is squeezed off from the tail field, a bubble.
The flux tube that is a twisted pair does not make any sense at all how can a flux tube be a pair. Get your writing correct for goodness sake, if you want to get any real answers.
For the rest, get to the library and get some introductory books.

brantc said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you mean potential than say potential and don't say electric field, get your terms correct.

This is an utter useless discussion until you get your basics in order.
 
brantc said:
It seems as though a strong core field encircled by spiraling magnetic field lines is the way flux ropes are built.
Click to expand...

For goodness sake man, read up on the definition of a flux rope. It does not seem, that is what a flux rope is.

brantc said:
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.
Click to expand...

WRONG! plasmoid, e.g. at solar flares DO NOT "take place" (how can a plasmoid take place??? it can be created) at the "end" of a flux rope (which does not exist) but happend right in the middle of the magnetic loop on the sun.

Now, all these EU peeps are always complaining about reconnection of field lines and now you come with "the end" of a flux tube (I guess there the field lines are just hanging, ending in nothing), gimme a break.

brantc said:
The other thing that I found is that the flux ropes actually go through the magnetosphere to the earth.
Click to expand...

Well, DUH, that is why they are called FTEs (Flux Transfer Events) which transfer flux(tubes) from the solar wind to the magnetosphere.

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

Well, look up on Jupiters and Saturns magnetic field, guess what, they also look the same.

Reconnection can happen between flux tubes.

You have not understood anything in this whole discussion, looking at your comments.
 
tusenfem said:
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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.
Click to expand...
If you mean potential than say potential and don't say electric field, get your terms correct.

This is an utter useless discussion until you get your basics in order.
Click to expand...

Electric field between an anode and cathode causes a potential drop. What is the problem????
 
Michael Mozina said:
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?
Click to expand...

Evidently you now want to throw out all physics, even electric circuit physics. Any reason why the plasma would not be heated up by currents? it is a very well demonstrated technique for example in tokamaks to get plasma hot, you drive a current through it.

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

The word "speed" in the Bruce "paper (webpage)" is with respect to electrons, tell me exactly where Bruce discusses another "speed".

Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg[/qimg]

Bzzt.
Click to expand...

Please tell me how a discharge works on the sun. I know how it works on Earth and in the lab, but I don't know how it works on the sun in a highly conducting plasma.

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...

Ehhhhhhh let's see, I have seen discharges in the lab.
I have seen the data from reconnection in the lab, e.g. by Intrator et al. (2009).
So MR works in the lab too.

Michael Mozina said:
Boloney. Show me. Show me one physical demonstration where MR produced x-rays in a lab.
Click to expand...

Apparently your cognitive reading skills have been impaired (as usual when something is presented that you don't like). I told you that the X-rays are created by accelerated electrons in the loop, which penetrate the surface of the sun (no not your iron ball, mikey) and are decelerated and emit bremsstrahlung in the X-rays. There are numerous papers on that. Now, where did I claim that MRx is creating X-rays? NOWHERE

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh I am in denial about lots of things, mikey, the only thing I cannot deny is that you do not have a frakking idea about what model you want to use for your "circuit/particle" reconnection. Naturally discharges can heat stuff (for a short time) but they cannot change the magnetic topology at all and you still have to explain to me how a discharge works in a highly conducting plasma.

Give us your model mikey, don't just point to the Birky tome or the Hanny book, give us your model, explain in detail how you do it, how does a plasma ball work, how does circuit/particle reconnection/discharge work?

Michael Mozina said:
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?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, it's always work, mikey, already for over 5 or more years, it is always "I have no time to give you a real answer, but when I find the time I really will, but in the meantime I will just show you how ignorant I am about basic physical phenomena."

Magnetic reconnection is a well developed theory that explains the change in magnetic topology, the bulk acceleration of plasma (electrons and ions in the same direction). The measurements in e.g. the Earth's magnetotail show very well all the predicted phenomena for magnetic reconnection (i.e. null point, Hall magnetic field, field aligned currents, bulk acceleration, etc.). Reconnection is now well established and measured in laboratory experiments. Seems like a very well empirical science by all off MM's criteria.
 
brantc said:
tusenfem said:
brantc said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you mean potential than say potential and don't say electric field, get your terms correct.

This is an utter useless discussion until you get your basics in order.
Click to expand...
Electric field between an anode and cathode causes a potential drop. What is the problem????
Click to expand...

The problem is that you use terms just at random without paying any attention as to whether they are correct or not, and that makes answering questions or correcting mistakes a big hassle.

A statement like "electric field at the end of a flux tube" (what is the end of a flux tube?) does not make sense, the electric potential at the (let's assume it exists) end of a flux tube does make sense.

Then you can state that the electric field between an anode and cathode creates a potential drop (actually, it is the other way around the potential drop creates the electric field, but that as an aside) but how does that help with your first statement? It doesn't. You need to be clear if you want to discuss a difficult topic as MRx.
 
tusenfem said:
For goodness sake man, read up on the definition of a flux rope. It does not seem, that is what a flux rope is.
Click to expand...
Ya, I know what your definition of a flux rope/tube or whatever is. A nonexistent mathematical entity. A mathematical description of a bundle of field lines in a tube shaped structure that dont exist yet.

There is no physical tube shaped structure in a magnetic field without plasma.

I'm talking about the ones observed by CLUSTER and THEMIS. The ones that are filled with plasma. They have a force free core and a curl B>0 sheath, a sheath like I said before. A flux rope. These are the sames ones that exist throughout the magnetosphere. The ones that extend from the sun go through the magnetopause. When a flux transfer event happens it disconnects this flux rope from the magnetosphere. The flow of plasma stops. This flow is a equalization discharge between the sun and the "earth". When the flow is building up again, the magnetic field builds up again(electromagnetism.).
When the flux rope is fully reformed a "reconnection" can happen again.

Double Star TC-1 observation of the earthward flowing plasmoids in the near magnetotail
http://www.springerlink.com/content/31460t176104qrx3/

Cluster observations of earthward propagating plasmoid and flux ropes in the near-tail during the course of a substorm event.
An interesting question one can ask about magnetotail flux ropes is whether they are force free. Cluster provides a novel way to study this by calculating the current density, and then comparing its orientation with the magnetic field. This was first investigated by [25] who concluded that the flux rope they observed was not force free.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFMSM12A..03E
Ref25
Cluster electric current density measurements within a magnetic flux rope in the plasma sheet.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003GeoRL..30g..14S
Click to expand...

So there are absolutely flux ropes in the magnetotail. They are associated with proton, electron flux(sub storm) and plasmoids. Reconnections can be tied to auroral activity from the time they happen in the flux rope to the time the aurora brightens.

WRONG! plasmoid, e.g. at solar flares DO NOT "take place" (how can a plasmoid take place??? it can be created) at the "end" of a flux rope (which does not exist) but happend right in the middle of the magnetic loop on the sun.
Click to expand...
You just love doing that. WRONG! Like your a child getting the best of someone.

You can use what ever wording you want. It is still pinched off of the end of a flux rope in the magnetotail. Or in/on/around/above/below/inside/next to/obliqueulation a solar flare. Pick what ever word you want.

Think about it for a minute. If you had a flux rope how would you get a plasmoid out of it??

Now, all these EU peeps are always complaining about reconnection of field lines and now you come with "the end" of a flux tube (I guess there the field lines are just hanging, ending in nothing), gimme a break.
Click to expand...
Well apparently it possible for flux ropes to change direction independently of the field lines.
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/magpause/mp24.gif
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/magpause/


You have not understood anything in this whole discussion, looking at your comments.
Click to expand...

No. You have not understood my responses.

My contention is that reconnection happens in flux ropes.
I have not seen anything to the contrary, or nobody has presented anything to the contrary.
A magnetic reconnection is from the activity of the plasma in the flux ropes. The magnetic field shape of the flux rope is because of the plasma flow.
 
tusenfem said:
The problem is that you use terms just at random without paying any attention as to whether they are correct or not, and that makes answering questions or correcting mistakes a big hassle.

A statement like "electric field at the end of a flux tube" (what is the end of a flux tube?) does not make sense, the electric potential at the (let's assume it exists) end of a flux tube does make sense.

Then you can state that the electric field between an anode and cathode creates a potential drop (actually, it is the other way around the potential drop creates the electric field, but that as an aside) but how does that help with your first statement? It doesn't. You need to be clear if you want to discuss a difficult topic as MRx.
Click to expand...

Ok. You are right on that one. A collection of charge is the potential.

All I'm saying is that the potential is different from one end of the flux rope to the other.
This causes the whole thing to happen. The formation of the plasma channel with its subsequent current flow causing the magnetic field according to the right hand rule.

Even though there is already an ionized plasma(solar wind) it is not capable of supporting the current flow required to equalize the potential, hence the flux rope discharge.
Flux ropes are a discharge caused by differing potentials.
 
Dancing David said:
Your questions may be answered here!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90595
Click to expand...
Ah, the memories! :)

One thing I was, again, struck by was BAC's astonishing inconsistency over 'magic'.

On the one hand, he railed most vehemently against magic dark matter, magic dark energy, and magic inflation (to pick just three), pounding again and again on the point that none of these had been shown to exist in any lab experiment (shades of MM?).

On the other hand, he sought to defend magic of exactly the same kind ('intrinsic redshift')! And the sole basis for his defence (as far as I could see) was empirical (crudely, some quasars seem to be in front of, or connected to, low-z galaxies, ergo intrinsic redshift exists) ... which is exactly the same as one strand of the evidence for the existence of dark matter (and dark energy)!

But at least, as I said earlier, he was prepared to enter into some sort of quantitative discussion, which makes him unique (or very nearly so) in my experience ...
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
Arp Objects, QSOs, Statistics

Enjoy! :)
Click to expand...

Dancing David said:
Your questions may be answered here!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90595
Click to expand...

DeiRenDopa said:
Ah, the memories! :)

One thing I was, again, struck by was BAC's astonishing inconsistency over 'magic'.

On the one hand, he railed most vehemently against magic dark matter, magic dark energy, and magic inflation (to pick just three), pounding again and again on the point that none of these had been shown to exist in any lab experiment (shades of MM?).

On the other hand, he sought to defend magic of exactly the same kind ('intrinsic redshift')! And the sole basis for his defence (as far as I could see) was empirical (crudely, some quasars seem to be in front of, or connected to, low-z galaxies, ergo intrinsic redshift exists) ... which is exactly the same as one strand of the evidence for the existence of dark matter (and dark energy)!

But at least, as I said earlier, he was prepared to enter into some sort of quantitative discussion, which makes him unique (or very nearly so) in my experience ...
Click to expand...

Thank you, DRD and DD.

Just the little I have perused so far makes be suspect BAC is just as far out there as MM, but a whole lot more sensible and much more polite and willing to listen; I might change my opinion as I read further.:D

Thanks for the links.

Cheers,

Dave
 
Reality Check said:
Of course if you have a model for solar flares that "works" then you are free to present it. Just remember that it will be competing against the existing models that have 50 years of research behind them.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Lets do it. I was falling asleep for a minute there!! Lets have some fun!!! Maybe we should do a new thread??

So my model is pretty different(woo) for all you skeps out there but dont go calling me names, ask real questions.

An aether powered iron sun is necessary for the activity that we see on the solar surface.

Solar flares are the result of thermionic emission from a solid surface.

The iron sun does not over heat because some of the heat is carried away by the solar wind and CME's(coronal rain). The other part is IR which passes through the photosphere to the earth.

Neutrino emission is from fusion activity on the surface of the sun in the form of blinkers, nano flares and other small flare activity as well as large flares..

The corona is from an electric field.



GO!!!!!!!!!!
 
brantc said:
Yeah. Lets do it. I was falling asleep for a minute there!! Lets have some fun!!! Maybe we should do a new thread??

So my model is pretty different(woo) for all you skeps out there but dont go calling me names, ask real questions.

An aether powered iron sun is necessary for the activity that we see on the solar surface.

Solar flares are the result of thermionic emission from a solid surface.

The iron sun does not over heat because some of the heat is carried away by the solar wind and CME's(coronal rain). The other part is IR which passes through the photosphere to the earth.

Neutrino emission is from fusion activity on the surface of the sun in the form of blinkers, nano flares and other small flare activity as well as large flares..

The corona is from an electric field.

GO!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with magnetic reconnection. Start a new thread. Invite Micheal Mozina in and we will rehash all of the obvious physical facts why this is a really dumb idea.

GO!!!!!!!!!!
 
brantc said:
So my model is pretty different(woo) for all you skeps out there but dont go calling me names, ask real questions.

An aether powered iron sun is necessary for the activity that we see on the solar surface.

Solar flares are the result of thermionic emission from a solid surface.

The iron sun does not over heat because some of the heat is carried away by the solar wind and CME's(coronal rain). The other part is IR which passes through the photosphere to the earth.
Click to expand...

OK, here's a real question.

Melting point of iron: 1811K
Temperature of the surface of the sun (as measured directly from the black-body spectrum it emits): 5777K

How are those consistent with the idea that the surface is solid iron?


By the way, let me head off a few possible answers.

possible answer 1: the solar temperature we measure is from a region above the solid iron surface.

response: if so, it is impossible for us to see the iron surface, because all but a very small fraction of the sunlight we see must be coming from a region with temperature 5777K since it has a nearly perfect blackbody spectrum. So what evidence do you have that the iron surface is there? You'll also have to explain how the sun gets so much colder as you go in, clarify what you mean by "surface" in that case, etc. But start with the basics - how can we see it?

possible answer 2: the solar temperature is of a region below the solid iron one.

response: solid iron is opaque. If it's glowing because it's hot, then that glow is what we're seeing, and if so the temperature must be below 1811K. But it's not, it's 5777K.

possible answer 3: there are a range of temperatures in sunlight.

response: That simply isn't true. Sunlight has a nearly perfect black body spectrum:

http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/~jma/thesis/online/figures/make_figures/blackbody.gif
 
Last edited:
brantc said:
The iron sun does not over heat because some of the heat is carried away by the solar wind and CME's(coronal rain).
Click to expand...

I've been through the calculations before. It doesn't work. Not by many, many, many orders of magnitude.

The other part is IR which passes through the photosphere to the earth.
Click to expand...

Yeah, um... no. We can tell even from looking at the IR part of the spectrum alone that its source is around 6000 K, so even if the photosphere were transparent to IR, that still leaves your iron surface at 6000 K.
 
Magnetic Reconnection Redux XIII

tusenfem said:
... But, of course, MM believes in reconnection, he just wants to give it another name particle/circuit reconnection or induction. ...
Click to expand...
Perhaps better to say that he agrees that the observed results of magnetic reconnection are real (facts so obvious that even the likes of Mozina cannot ignore them). But the name "circuit reconnection" is more than just a semantic problem with language, it implies a serious physical impossibility, which I have argued before, which Mozina has ignored before, which I will argue again now, and Mozina will ignore once again.

Tim Thompson said:
We already know that (a) whether or not something shows up in a lab is not critical to empiricism, as the world outside Mozina understands the word, and (b) your alleged commitment to laboratory results is nothing more than cynical hypocrisy at its "best". You always do and always will ignore any and all laboratory experiments that defy your religious & philosophical prejudice. You are already on record as ignoring in situ laboratory observations of magnetic reconnection. Your hypocrisy is already exposed.
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
Actually Tim, I've always (well, since Space.com) accepted that "circuit reconnection" is real, and works in the lab, I just think your terminology sucks. :) Which one of those lab experiments involved no form of "current flow" prior to "reconnection" Tim?
Click to expand...
The fact that currents are flowing is not a sufficient reason to replace "magnetic reconnection" (which is a physically correct description of what actually happens) with "circuit reconnection" (which is not a physically correct description of what actually happens).

Just consider the basic physics implied by "circuit reconnection". Currents are flowing with a total energy E1. The currents then "reconnect" and now have a total energy E2, where E2 is greater than E1, and commonly very much greater. So one asks the natural question: Where does all that new energy come from? Certainly it is not spontaneously created out of nothing in the currents. One would naturally suspect that the magnetic field is the source, but what is the process? Mozina will tell you it must be magnetic induction, despite the fact that this is known to be impossible (see Magnetic Reconnection Redux VII). In laboratory experiments we see the magnetic field reconfigure first (that's the reconnection of magnetic field lines) and then we see the currents gain energy. These are the controlled ("empirical" according to Mozina's own criteria) laboratory experiments which Mozina chooses to reject because they disagree with his religious preconceptions (see, e.g., Comments on Magnetic Reconnection, Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III and Magnetic Reconnection Redux XI).

The primary lesson to take away from this, and all other threads involving Michael Mozina is that first, Mozina denies the validity of science; he will say that he does not, but he explicitly does. And second, his own "theories" (iron sun, cosmology, electric universe & etc.) are all purely religious conceptions, complete with a pantheon of demigods (Birkeland, Alfven, & etc.) who cannot ever be wrong or questioned on anything.
 
Tim Thompson said:
In laboratory experiments we see the magnetic field reconfigure first (that's the reconnection of magnetic field lines) and then we see the currents gain energy.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what happens in an electrical circuit.

Take a lamp connected to the wall.

If there is a bare spot in the wires halfway down the wire and you drop a spoon across the 2 bare wires(flux tube), what happens?

The current now flows cross wise(magnetic field reconfigure).

The current flow increases(the energy of the whole circuit plus the source is instantly available to power the short), because you now have a zero ohm load(short) as opposed to the lamp.

Even the energy that is in the wire connected to the lamp just after the short, dumps its energy into the short.
 
brantc said:
That is exactly what happens in an electrical circuit.

Take a lamp connected to the wall.

If there is a bare spot in the wires halfway down the wire and you drop a spoon across the 2 bare wires(flux tube), what happens?

The current now flows cross wise(magnetic field reconfigure).

The current flow increases(the energy of the whole circuit plus the source is instantly available to power the short), because you now have a zero ohm load(short) as opposed to the lamp.

Even the energy that is in the wire connected to the lamp just after the short, dumps its energy into the short.
Click to expand...
That is wrong on so many points.
First you ignore that simple fact that a plasma is not a lamp wire :jaw-dropp !
And you ignore that magnetic reconnection has nothing to to with a short circuit in a lamp.

And if we were dumb enough to ignore this:
Take a lamp connected to the wall.

If there is a bare spot in the wires halfway down the wire and you drop a spoon across the 2 bare wires(flux tube), what happens?
  1. The current now flows cross wise
  2. the magnetic field reconfigure at the same time.
The current flow increases (the energy of the whole circuit plus the source is instantly available to power the short), because you now have a zero ohm load(short) as opposed to the lamp.

Even the energy that is in the wire connected to the lamp just after the short, dumps its energy into the short.

If you not have a fuse then all of the energy in the national grid as
 
brantc said:
That is exactly what happens in an electrical circuit.
Click to expand...

No, you cannot use circuit description for magnetic reconnection as one of the main restrictions of a circuit description is that it is only valid in the long wavelength approximation.

So, for the same reason why reconnection cannot happen in ideal MDH (that is where Alfvén was correct), the scales that need to be looked at, where the important processes happen are on the electron scale, which is well outside of both MHD and circuit description.
 
Reality Check said:
That is wrong on so many points.
First you ignore that simple fact that a plasma is not a lamp wire :jaw-dropp !
And you ignore that magnetic reconnection has nothing to to with a short circuit in a lamp.

And if we were dumb enough to ignore this:
Take a lamp connected to the wall.

If there is a bare spot in the wires halfway down the wire and you drop a spoon across the 2 bare wires(flux tube), what happens?

  1. [*]The current now flows cross wise
    [*]the magnetic field reconfigure at the same time.
The current flow increases (the energy of the whole circuit plus the source is instantly available to power the short), because you now have a zero ohm load(short) as opposed to the lamp.

Even the energy that is in the wire connected to the lamp just after the short, dumps its energy into the short.

If you not have a fuse then all of the energy in the national grid as
Click to expand...

My bold. If you measure that lag between the time current flows and the strength of the magnetic field you would see that the magnetic field lags ever so slightly behind current.

A flux tube carries a current. You can tell by the helical magnetic field.
So if you have a spot between the 2 flux tubes that touches then you have a crosswise current flow. The magnetic field reconfigures. The current strength increases. Radiation is emitted...Etc. Just like a wire.
 
tusenfem said:
No, you cannot use circuit description for magnetic reconnection as one of the main restrictions of a circuit description is that it is only valid in the long wavelength approximation.

So, for the same reason why reconnection cannot happen in ideal MDH (that is where Alfvén was correct), the scales that need to be looked at, where the important processes happen are on the electron scale, which is well outside of both MHD and circuit description.
Click to expand...


That would be PIC, wouldnt it. That is what I have been saying all along.

You need to look at the kinetic energy of the electrons(protons) to determine the energetics of the system.
 
brantc said:
My bold. If you measure that lag between the time current flows and the strength of the magnetic field you would see that the magnetic field lags ever so slightly behind current.

A flux tube carries a current. You can tell by the helical magnetic field.
So if you have a spot between the 2 flux tubes that touches then you have a crosswise current flow. The magnetic field reconfigures. The current strength increases. Radiation is emitted...Etc. Just like a wire.
Click to expand...
So what? You just ignored what Tim said.

Read what Tim Thompson said:
Tim Thompson said:
In laboratory experiments we see the magnetic field reconfigure first (that's the reconnection of magnetic field lines) and then we see the currents gain energy. These are the controlled ("empirical" according to Mozina's own criteria) laboratory experiments which Mozina chooses to reject because they disagree with his religious preconceptions (see, e.g., Comments on Magnetic Reconnection, Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III and Magnetic Reconnection Redux XI).
Click to expand...
My bold

The only thing missing from Tim Thompson's post is a citation to a textbook or paper.
But I am sure that you, brantc, with your extensive knowledge of plasma physics can provide us with many citations to show that in magnetic reconnection the currents gain energy first and then the magnetic field reconnect :rolleyes:.

And what I said:
Reality Check said:
That is wrong on so many points.
First you ignore that simple fact that a plasma is not a lamp wire :jaw-dropp !
And you ignore that magnetic reconnection has nothing to to with a short circuit in a lamp.

And if we were dumb enough to ignore this:
...
Click to expand...
(My bold made bolder)


The point is that a plasma is not a wire. Only an truely ignorant person (as I emphasis above) would treat a plasma like a wire.
 
brantc said:
A flux tube carries a current. You can tell by the helical magnetic field.
So if you have a spot between the 2 flux tubes that touches then you have a crosswise current flow. The magnetic field reconfigures. The current strength increases. Radiation is emitted...Etc. Just like a wire.
Click to expand...
And of course you continue to ignore the actual physics of magnetic reconnecton.
So if you have a plasma with where magnetic reconnection happens (I do not think that flux tubes are needed) then you have charges moving to preserve charge neutrality. The magnetic field reconfigures first on a reconnection. The current changes. Radiation is emitted...Etc. Just like magnetic reconnection in a plasma and not at all like a wire.
 
brantc said:
That would be PIC, wouldnt it. That is what I have been saying all along.

You need to look at the kinetic energy of the electrons(protons) to determine the energetics of the system.
Click to expand...

Then WHY, prithee, claim "That is exactly what happens in an electrical circuit." I have the feeling that you don't fully understand things here.

And PIC simulations, sure, I am all for that, for the regions where it is necessary, full pic modelling of a magnetosphere is impossible from logistical reasons.

But in theory we also have to describe things. Plasma physics is not just doing simulations, and thus circuit theory and MHD have to be "thrown out" if we want to discuss reconnection.

And in general, the kinetic energy of the particles is rather negligible with respect to the processes going on in reconnection. Only in the reconnection exhausts is there a significant kinetic energy of the accelerated bulk plasma flow, generated by the tension of the magnetic field. PIC does not mean you look at the kinetic energy of the particles, it just means you look at the particles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom