|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
10th December 2011, 05:51 PM | #6121 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo VIII
To this Mozina responds in post 6111 by selecting out a few key words of his own to rationalize his selective interpretation of the paper. Herein I will refute Mozina's sloppy attempt to refute me. The following are the three paragraphs that make up the full test of section 5 ("Toy Model for Vacuum Reconnection"), pages 17-19 in the paper Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection; E.R. Priest & C.J. Schrijver; Solar Physics 190(1/2): 1-24, December 1999. I reproduce the test only, but the paper (PDF) including the referenced figures, as well as the CD-ROM contents (99.2 MBytes zip archive) can be accessed from the paper's webpage at Solar Physics ( http://www.springerlink.com/content/.../fulltext.html ). All emphasis (e.g., italics) is found in the original, except the bold face paragraph title, which is mine. This is the paragraph that sets the stage, so to speak. See the very first sentence: "We have constructed a toy model for vacuum reconnection driven by the motion of photospheric sources ..." This should be clear enough for anybody, but evidently not Mozina. What is there to say but this: vacuum reconnection is reconnection that takes place, strangely enough, in a vacuum. Indeed, look at the title for the section, "Toy Model for Vacuum Reconnection". Could the authors have been more clear? Yet, Mozina continues to stubbornly foist upon us the fairy tale that this is all MHD, all really currents reconnecting in a plasma, despite explicit language from the authors to the contrary. And pay attention to the part about "driven by the motion of photospheric sources". That does not mean that the photosphere is at all involved in this process, it means that the motions of the sources that drive the vacuum reconnection are chosen to match the observed motions of photospheric sources. This is no great surprise, since the eventual goal is to study magnetic reconnection in the solar corona. This is all reinforced by the comment about footpoint motions; same thing, the motions of the sources match the motions observed for real solar footpoints. Nowhere can we find any evidence, any language, any indication at all that the magnetic reconnection takes place anywhere except a vacuum, as explicitly indicated in the text. The only mention of MHD is a plan to create a resistive-MHD model in the future. This is not an unimportant point. As is well known, all forms of magnetic field line reconnection in a plasma are possible only in the realm of resistive MHD. Magnetic field line reconnection in a plasma is not physically possible in the realm of ideal MHD. If the authors are already using MHD, then it must be only resistive MHD, but then why would they say they have not done that yet and plan to do so in the future? This only serves to reinforce the obvious point: in this study the magnetic field line reconnection all happens in a vacuum, just like the authors said it did. Magnetic field line reconnection in a vacuum is easy, just solve Maxwell's equations, no plasma complications required. But it is also boring because it does not do anything remotely interesting, except perhaps allow cute animations. However, magnetic field line reconnection in a plasma can get really exciting. So what the authors have done here is model magnetic field line reconnection in a vacuum (which is what they said they were doing, and I assume the authors actually do know what they did), as a preliminary exercise, just to see how the field lines behave, as a benchmark for later, resistive MHD studies of magnetic field line reconnection in a plasma. In the absence of seriously complicating issues, the reconnection of magnetic field lines in a plasma should look similar to reconnection in a vacuum Having set the stage in the first paragraph, here we find the description of what is really happening. Notice the comments, "The way in which the field lines reconnect by changing from being open to closed and back to open can be seen clearly"; "a rapid counter-flipping of the field lines"; "The flipping occurs as they reconnect and move close to the separatrix surface." In all cases field lines do the reconnecting. Not "field aligned currents", just "field lines". Now I think it is safe to assume that Priest & Schrijver both know what a field line is, what a field aligned current is, and how to tell the difference between them, especially in their own simulation. Furthermore, as already established above, we have magnetic field lines reconnecting in a vacuum. The simulation was introduced in the first paragraph and described in the second. Now, in the third paragraph, the authors discuss the implications and ramifications of the study. Notice again in this paragraph that the authors are explicit about the reconnection of magnetic field lines specifically. References to the corona are not associated with the simulation, but rather with the discussion of its implications. In the case, for instance, of magnetic reconnection in the solar corona, one would expect the field lines to move with a speed & pattern similar to that revealed by the vacuum reconnection study. In particular, see the remark, "The simulations suggest that most of the time field lines move through the coronal volume in response to source motions with speeds comparable in magnitude to that of the footpoints themselves." Here the specific reference is to the coronal volume, not to the corona itself, and the difference is important. Later on there are specific references to simulations of the quiet corona, but those are of course independent from the vacuum study done here. My conclusion is simple enough. Mozina does not know how to read a science paper. There certainly is a great deal of evidence already in hand that he cannot read or understand the equations found in plasma physics & electromagnetism. This is evidence that he cannot read the English either. Remember, technical & scientific research papers are not directed towards a general readership. Rather, they are the means by which professionals communicate with other professionals; sometimes in the form of a general review intended to inform non-specialists, sometimes in detailed studies intended for specialists (the Priest & Schrijver paper is one of the general review type). Aside from a liberal dose of usually unspectacular mathematics (meaning it's pretty basic stuff even if it looks extreme to outsiders), there is also a fairly dense & precise language (exclusively English now in all of the "major" journals). In order to follow the papers one must be able to read both the mathematics and the English, and both occur in the form of jargon, language as precise as possible to cut down on confusion (for the intended readership, not for the outsider or neophyte). I see nothing confusing about the language here, and I don't fancy supplementing my math & science lessons to Mozina with English-101 to boot. What we see is Mozina "cherry picking" his favorite disembodied words and trying to rationalize an irrational interpretation of a paper that he otherwise cannot read. No language works that way. No language allows you to pick out key words, without context, and know thereby, everything you need to know. And "context' does not mean the two or three words nearby. It means the whole sentence, the whole paragraph, or more (what does this sentence mean: "Flying planes can be dangerous."). The truth is that Priest & Schrijver are explicit and clear about two major points: (1) The reconnection is being done by magnetic field lines and not by field aligned currents, and (2) the reconnection of magnetic field lines does happen in a vacuum. Mozina has been reduced to clutching desperate linguistic straws to avoid these conclusions and so has found a way to rationalize and pretend that the authors are actually saying things they are not saying. Really, he is trying to do the same thing to Priest & Schrijver that he has already done to Dungey. To this Mozina responded ... It's the same desperate clutching at the same desperate straws. Dungey said "lines of force", but we can trust Mozina that Dungey didn't really mean it. Well, you sure have a funny way of showing it. You insist that Dungey can't tell the difference between a "line of force" and an electrical current; you insist that Priest & Schrijver really mean "plasma" when they say "vacuum", and you insist that all of the experimenters (e.g., Gekelman, Lawrence, Yamada, Ji & etc.; Comments on magnetic reconnection, 13 Feb 2009; Comments on magnetic reconnection III, 9 Mar 2010) cannot understand their own experiments, foolishly assigning the reconnection to magnetic field lines instead of filed aligned currents. Priest & Forbes are explicit with hundreds of pages of detailed description of the topological reconnection of magnetic field lines (Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications, Eric Priest & Terry Forbes; Cambridge University Press, 2000). Likewise, Paul Bellan spends a whole chapter on the reconnection of magnetic field lines (not field aligned currents; Fundamentals of Plasma Physics, Paul M. Bellan; Cambridge University Press, 2006). And many more. But you insist that all of them, each, and every one of them, is dead wrong. You do in fact explicitly insist that you know more about plasma physics and electromagnetism than they do, and your insistence is laced with accusations of deceit & fraud against anyone who dares to agree with them. So, when you say, "I don't know more than they do", how is anyone supposed to believe you say that with a straight face? Why would anyone believe this is a truthful self-portrait, when you fall all over yourself insisting to the contrary, every single day? If you really believe that Dungey knows more than you do, about plasma physics, then why don't you believe Dungey when he says that lines of force reconnect? |
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
11th December 2011, 05:36 PM | #6122 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Everyone here (except you) know that Somov's experiment does not exist because he does not have an experiment. He has an example of MR in a vacuum.
Of course no one doubts that currents exist in Somov's example. We can read English. We can read where he states that there are two parallel electric currents in his example. Of course no one doubts that CURRENTS can connect. Every one knows what happens when you connect two wires together . Only an idiot would say that current connect or reconenct in Somov's example because he states that they are 2 parallel electric currents. Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VI |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
11th December 2011, 05:46 PM | #6123 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
That is correct - it is not a sink or a monopole since it has an equal number of field lines entering and exiting it.
Thus it is obvious that this situation obeys Gauss's law for magnetism - draw any closed curve and the flux through that curve must be zero (equal number of field lines entering and exiting the curve). |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
12th December 2011, 04:57 PM | #6125 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Mr. Mozina is enjoying the restful and rejuvenating benefits of a *suspension* from the JREF forum.
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
12th December 2011, 07:01 PM | #6126 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Suspended for 2 months on 9 December, last Friday. I wondered what might fuel an uncharacteristic silence. Can't say I am surprised. That means he won't be back until February.
|
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
13th December 2011, 12:03 AM | #6127 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
13th December 2011, 02:39 AM | #6128 |
Botanical Jedi
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,121
|
I'm actually amazed he's lasted this long.
|
__________________
www.sq1gaming.com |
|
13th December 2011, 02:30 PM | #6129 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Happy Birthday Birkeland
I note in passing that today marks the 144th birthday of Kristian Birkeland. Despite being somewhat misunderstood by Mozina, he was nevertheless a figure of significance in the history of space physics & geomagnetism. He was, as far as I know, the first to propose the true nature of the aurora borealis, and the first to propose the flow of electric current from the sun to Earth.
|
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
13th December 2011, 03:34 PM | #6130 |
Masterblazer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 6,843
|
|
__________________
Almo! My Music Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia |
|
16th December 2011, 01:56 PM | #6131 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
There are many reasons why MM's posts, and the underlying approach he seems to be taking to the subject, are not science (or at least physics) as we know it today.
Several folk who've posted here - and in other threads on the topic in this forum - have explained, described, analyzed, etc one aspect or another of the gap between MM's apparent basic approach and the foundations of contemporary physics. However, I think one feature of MM's approach has received little discussion or examination; namely, his contention that it is possible to discuss 'how the universe works' (to create a shorthand) without mathematics. There are many, many examples of MM taking this stance; one that springs immediately to mind is his (apparently to him) observation that putting a 9v battery on one's tongue and feeling the tingling is an iron-clad proof of the existence of electromagnetism*. Now the extreme disconnect is not that one cannot demonstrate that the tingling feeling is a consequence - at some level - of electromagnetism (it may, or may not, be easy to provide such an explanation); rather it is that MM does not realize that no demonstration of this kind exists without 'the math'! Put another way: there is no way to show that there is, in nature/the universe, something we can call 'electromagnetism' without the use of math^. And, in physics at least, it has been like this since the time of Galileo and Newton. Note that is more fundamental than saying that mathematics is the language of physics; it is saying that none - let me repeat that NONE - of the core concepts used in physics today have meaning if you remove the math completely. FWIW, I'd guess that a great many (but certainly not all) EU proponents have a similar world-view to MM's (whether they are fully aware of it or not), in thinking that the core concepts they hold so dear can be accepted without any math, at any stage, whatsoever. To be clear: math, in some form or in some way, is necessary in order to be able to hold a meaningful discussion of any aspect of modern physics. This does NOT mean that it's math, wholly math, nothing but math, (so help me Gauss)! Think necessary, but not sufficient. * I really don't care to search for his several (many?) posts on this; if I have grossly mis-remembered, I'd appreciate being corrected ^ I'd love to see a concrete, self-consistent counter-example! |
17th December 2011, 05:52 PM | #6132 |
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
|
As I have said before math is simply a language, though more structured and rigorous than most others. I think a lot of these ‘no math’ types turn to natural langue instead because it is comfortable and just feels more intuitive without perhaps understanding the lack of needed structure and rigor that is inherent (though perhaps in some cases some actually count on that lack of structure and rigor). We can see this exemplified in Michael Mozina’s attempts to redefine magnetic reconnection as some kind of sudden release of energy (discharge as he puts it) that involves plasma. Basically because in all the papers he tries to read (not understanding the language of math) that’s what they talk about seemingly in the natural language he can try to make some semblance of sense from.
As you note, DeiRenDopa, it is more fundamental than just that language aspect, physics is a science and science is (among other things) quantitative. Remove the math and you have removed that quantitative aspect and thus a very fundamental part of science, as a result you would end up squarely in the realm of just pseudo-science. |
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ |
|
17th December 2011, 09:57 PM | #6133 | ||
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
I think the above two posts are right on target.
|
||
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|||
24th January 2012, 01:45 PM | #6134 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Magnetic Field Lines and Flux Tubes Defined
Preface
In anticipation of the eventual re-awakening of this thread (it seems that "Mozina vs The World" is its sole reason for existence) I would like to address one of the key problems I see: There is a great deal of discussion that hinges on semantics and the sloppy use of language, rather than a properly precise discussion of the scientific aspects. Science requires a precise use of language. We have to understand that colloquial language has to give way to precise scientific language when the circumstances require it. So, here I want to present proper, authoritative scientific definitions for key elements of the discussion. In this case I want to make sure that, before we proceed, we have proper definitions in hand for "field lines" and "flux tubes", the key elements of the magnetic fields involved in plasma physics. I have highlighted what I think are the key points, but I have tried to cite enough language to provide proper context, as well as to avoid insufficiently brief descriptions. Any other emphasis besides the highlight is carried over from the original text. I encourage the reader to pay attention to the full text of the quotes, and to refer directly to the original sources, which I have linked to as best I can, wherever possible. Lines of Force Defined From 26 January 2010 From 20 November 2011 This definition from Lorrain & Corson is quite the same as Maxwell's and is the standard definition for field lines in general; not just electric and magnetic fields, but for any classical field, that is how "field lines" are defined. For example, we find this definition in another, older, standard textbook:
Originally Posted by Smythe, 1950
This definition comes from Static and Dynamic Electricity, William R. Smythe, McGraw-Hill 1950, 2nd edition (1st 1939), section 1.08 "Lines of Force" on page 7. As before, note that this definition is general despite the specific reference to an electric field. Just replace electric field with magnetic field and the definition is precisely the same, and is in fact so for any classical field. Flux Tubes defined
Originally Posted by Deiter Biskamp, 1993
The definition quote above is from the book Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics by Deiter Biskamp (Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics); Cambridge University Press 1993. His reference to equation 2.11 is just Faraday's Law after replacing E with vxB: Biskamp Equation 2.11: Comments All magnetic fields are originally generated by electric currents. However, while the current flows in a confined volume, the consequent magnetic field will fill a vastly larger volume than the current. Hence it is possible to measure an active and time variable magnetic field in a vacuum far removed from the current that generated it. This is a point which seems to be overlooked to me so I want to make sure the point is made explicitly somewhere. Furthermore, magnetic fields and plasmas commonly couple together, so that the plasma will carry the "frozen in" magnetic field with it. So a plasma can be magnetized by a magnetic field that is not generated by that plasma, but by another completely independent plasma far away. As an example, the solar wind carries the solar magnetic field along with it. The magnetic field was originally generated in the sun, but is carried to the outermost reaches of the solar system by the solar wind, which can deform that magnetic field, but has nothing to do with the generation of that magnetic field. Likewise, magnetic fields generated deep inside the sun will pass through the photosphere of the sun and couple with it, despite not being formed in the photosphere by the plasma it is coupled to. So it is important to understand that we can have a magnetic field in a plasma, but not assign the task of generating that magnetic field to that particular plasma. Also note that, as defined, both field lines and flux tubes are strictly mathematical objects, not physical objects. There are, of course, physical manifestations that go along with the mathematical theory. The mathematics becomes in essence a second language, far more efficient than our own human languages, used to describe the physics. The language of mathematics is far more precise than any human language, and it is truly universal across humanity; everyone has the same understanding of an equation, regardless of the human language they use to discuss that equation. In my short preface I spoke of the "semantics and the sloppy use of language". This thread is replete with attempts to replace mathematical and physical rigor with colloquial English and that is a serious mistake, which we should make an effort to repudiate in the future, for this or any other thread. |
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
24th January 2012, 02:57 PM | #6135 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Magnetic Reconnection Defined and Described
Preface
As a preamble to an understanding of magnetic reconnection, I defined field lines & flux tubes in my previous post. Here I present several definitions and descriptions of magnetic reconnection as a physical process. Once again, I have tried to stick to unimpeachably authoritative & reliable sources. I present several, rather then just one, because the process is complicated and there are different ways to describe it. Hopefully everyone will find at least one explanation that resonates with their understanding. I have highlighted what I think are the key points, but I have tried to cite enough language to provide proper context, as well as to avoid insufficiently brief descriptions. Any other emphasis besides the highlight is carried over from the original text. I encourage the reader to pay attention to the full text of the quotes, and to refer directly to the original sources, which I have linked to as best I can, wherever possible. Magnetic Reconnection Defined and Described Magnetic Reconnection Masaaki Yamada, Russell Kulsrud and Hantao Ji; Center for Magnetic Self-Organization in Laboratory and Astrophysical Plasmas, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University Reviews of Modern Physics 82(1): 603-664, January 2010.
Originally Posted by Yamada, Kulsrud & Ji, 2010, first two paragraphs of introduction
And ...
Originally Posted by Yamada, Kulsrud & Ji, 2010, Third and fourth paragraphs of Appendix A: "The Nature of Reconnection"
Magnetic Reconnection in Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas Ellen G. Zweibel and Masaaki Yamada Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 47: 291-332 (2009)
Originally Posted by Zweibel & Yamada, 2009, abstract
Fundamentals of Plasma Physics Paul M. Bellan, Bellan Plasma Group, California Institute of Technology; Cambridge University Press 2006
Originally Posted by Bellan 2006, page 410, 2nd paragraph of chapter 12, "Magnetic reconnection"
Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications Eric Priest & Terry Forbes; Cambridge University Press, 2000
Originally Posted by Priest & Forbes, 2000, from the Preface
Originally Posted by Priest & Forbes, 2000, from the Introduction, page 1
Review of controlled laboratory experiments on physics of magnetic reconnection Masaaki Yamada Journal of Geophysical Research, Space Physics, 104(A7): 14529-14542, July 1999
Originally Posted by Yamada, 1999, First two paragraphs of the Introduction
Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics Deiter Biskamp (Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics); Cambridge University Press 1993
Originally Posted by Biskamp, 193, Page 127, first paragraph of chapter 6, "Magnetic Reconnection"
Note his comment "thin flux tubes, properly speaking". Flux tubes are defined in section 2.2, "Conservation laws in ideal MHD", specifically on pages 13-14. I have used that as the definition for flux tubes in my previous post. Relaxation and magnetic reconnection in plasmas J.B. Taylor Culham Laboratory, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England Reviews of Modern Physics 58(3): 741-763, July 1986
Originally Posted by Taylor, 1986, First two paragraphs of Introduction
Comments As we already know, magnetic field lines are mathematical objects not physical objects. Therefore, the reconnection of magnetic field lines is, strictly speaking, a mathematical process not a physical process. This is a distinction that I have made before, on 19 November 2011 ... I think my opinion then is justified by the definitions & descriptions I have posted here. The twin themes of a change on topology and a transition from a higher to a lower energy state are consistent in the definitions provided by multiple reliable sources. The change in topology is a mathematical process, the transition from higher to lower energy is a physical process. This is where the intimate relationship between mathematics and physics is well illustrated. We can pretend that the lines of force are physical, rather than mathematical, and we can likewise pretend that the reconnection of field lines is a truly physical process. If we do that, and make predictions regarding anticipated physical observations, our predictions are verified. And so one might ask, while there is a difference between the mathematics and the physics in principle, what is the real, practical difference, if the two are literally interchangeable, if the mathematical objects can be treated as if they were physical objects? The fact remains, as demonstrated here, that magnetic reconnection is well defined, both as a physical process and a mathematical process. |
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
25th January 2012, 01:05 AM | #6136 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Plasma Physics: "E orientation" or "B orientation"?
Unfortunately for Mozina, despite his extreme self-confidence, his understanding of physics in general is woefully inadequate to the task of carrying on a meaningful conversation on the topic in the presence of people who actually do know what they are talking about. His mistakes don't happen at the tricky cutting-edge of active research, they happen at the foundation of knowledge. His mistakes are fundamental and broadly conceptual, not necessarily mistakes in handling this or that detail. One of his favorite complaints, repeated constantly for years, is the idea of the "E orientation" versus the "B orientation", or the "electric" versus the "magnetic" orientation for understanding plasma physics. Here are a couple of representative remarks, highlighted emphasis added by me.
From 2 December 2011 ... From 11 August 2011 ... This preference for the "electric" over the "magnetic" is a major and fundamental failure by Mozina, which by itself is probably sufficient to permanently cripple any ability to understand what's really happening throughout the discipline of plasma physics. It is certainly the major stumbling block to his ever appreciating what magnetic reconnection really is or really does. I addressed this failure some time ago, but with little effect. Again, I have added highlighting emphasis for this occasion. From 30 December 2009 ... In the highlighted portion we see that Priest & Forbes, who surely know far more about plasma physics than does Mozina, directly contradict the claim that the "E orientation" should be favored. But they really don't explain why, at least not here. Here I will add another complementary set of comments from Eugene Parker, one of the foremost living plasma astrophysicists, where he makes the same point, but also explains why the "E orientation" is inferior, or in his words, "a curious notion". From the book Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos by Eugene N. Parker, Princeton University Press 2007, chapter 3 "Magnetic Fields", section 3.1 "Basic Considerations", pages 25-26.
Originally Posted by Eugene Parker, 2007
So when we inform ourselves on real plasma physics, the true nature of Mozina's failure is exposed. The "E orientation" gets the physics backwards, and in many cases, it is not even a solvable, or "tractable" system. It is in fact Mozina who is working hard to dumb-down, to borrow his words, his own understanding of plasma physics by substituting his own ill-informed notions of amateur level plasma physics for real plasma physics, as it is practiced by real plasma physicists. It must be clearly understood that in astrophysical plasmas, in nearly all cases, the "B orientation" is absolutely correct, is the orientation that actually gets the physics right, and in many cases is the only way to understand the physics of the plasma at all. And be mindful of my earlier comment: The sentence I have highlighted here illustrates the basic idea that is described in physical detail by Priest & Forbes and by Parker. Mozina seems to think that the local magnetic field must always be generated by the very same local plasma that it threads through, but this is certainly not the case in almost all astrophysical circumstances. The motion of the local magnetic field necessarily generates a time variable magnetic field, ∂B/∂t, which is the local source of the local energy that drives the currents in the local plasma. Mozina's preference for the "E orientation" is wrong and is a major stumbling block for him. As long as he holds to it, he prevents himself from ever understanding plasma physics & magnetic reconnection. |
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
27th January 2012, 08:01 AM | #6137 |
Masterblazer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 6,843
|
Woa. That's a lot of physics. Looks right to me. Now we just have to wait for Michael to come back and say it's all baloney.
|
__________________
Almo! My Music Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia |
|
1st February 2012, 08:10 PM | #6138 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Plasma Physics: "E orientation" or "B orientation"? II
In my previous post, Plasma Physics: "E Orientation" or "B Orientation"?, I presented the basic justification for the superiority of the "B" (magnetic field) orientation over the "E" (electric field) orientation when dealing with astrophysical plasmas. I want to complete that task in this post by presenting in more detail the physics involved. In this way we can go beyond any sense of relying solely on the assertion of individuals, even if their expertise is unquestioned, and have in place for ourselves an understanding for why the assertion is valid, based on sound physical principles. In that previous post I include a passage from the book Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos by Eugene Parker, one of the foremost living plasma astrophysicists. In that comment he says, "As already noted, the difficulty is that there are no tractable dynamical equations for E and j". His "As already noted" refers to the passage I now quote first below. As before, any hilight emphasis is mine, but all other emphasis is carried over from the original.
Originally Posted by Eugene Parker, "Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos", Introduction, page 2
Here Parker makes a point that we have not emphasized in this thread, but will now. A plasma is a collection of charged particles and those particles have mass as well as charge, so they are not only affected by electric & magnetic fields as by Maxwell's equations, but they also have momentum and kinetic energy as by Newton's equations, and we have to respect all of the physics that counts, not just the parts we like. There is no overlap between the E, j paradigm and classical Newtonian mechanics; Newton's equations do not include either E or j. However, there is an overlap between the B, v paradigm and classical Newtonian mechanics; the velocity, v, of the particles shows up in both, which immediately connects the Newtonian energy & momentum to Maxwell's equations. Hence the obvious preference for the B, v paradigm: It makes the difference between tractable and intractable physics. Parker says above that "we will come back to specific aspects of the misunderstanding ... ". I want to do that now so we can see exactly what is happening.
Originally Posted by Eugene Parker, "Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos", chapter 7 "Moving Reference Frames", pages 69-70
In this passage above the notation "O(v2/c2)" means "on the oder of v2/c2" and shows an approximate order of magnitude. Also note that the papers by Vasyliunas (retired director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research) are particularly interesting and reinforce what Parker tells us quite nicely. Parker's reference to equation 1.8 is this: E'/B = c/4πσl = (10-4/l)(104/T)3/2 which equates the electric field in the moving reference frame of the plasma (E') and the magnetic field (B) (σ is the electrical conductivity). This is all found in Parker's Conversations on page 8. The upshot is that E'/B is likely never greater then 10-9, and since the stresses induced by the fields are proportional to (E'/B)2, the stress induced on the plasma by E' must be ~ 10-18 compared to the stress induced by B. Parker's reference to equation 7.2 is this: E(r, t) = [-v(r, t) X B(r, t)] / c This is the electric field E(r, t) in the laboratory frame of reference when the electric field in the plasma frame of reference (E') is zero. It is found in Parker's Conversations at the bottom of page 68. What it all boils down to is this: One cannot construct physically meaningful equations to describe the dynamics of a plasma in the "electric" paradigm favored by Mozina. One can do so only in the "magnetic" paradigm, increasingly favored by plasma physicists. This post and my previous post detail the physical reasoning behind this choice of "B" over "E". It is not as simple as Mozina claims, it's not simply a prejudice for one over the other, and it certainly is not "putting the magnetic cart before the electric horse", as Mozina has said it. The physical horse is in fact the magnetic field in almost all astrophysical cases. It is important to note the distinction that astrophysical plasmas and laboratory plasmas, despite both being plasmas, are not the same; astrophysical spatial scales cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, and that is significant. The relationship between electric and magnetic fields in the two plasmas are not the same, as a direct result of the difference in spatial scales, and that affects plasma dynamics. One should not blindly apply the paradigm of one unto the other. As is often the case in physics, each situation is like a position in a chess game: While there are general principles one can apply, each must be considered carefully on its own merits for its own proper solution. |
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
11th February 2012, 10:28 AM | #6139 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
FYI, it's going to take awhile for me to respond to all of your posts, but I suppose I'll start here. Let's clear up your first misconception Tim. It's not me vs. the world of physics since folks like Mann and Onel, Somov, Alfven, Peratt and many others are fully capable of embracing the E orientation of plasma physics and treating magnetic ropes as "Bennett Pinches" of current carrying plasmas that act as part of a "circuit" of energy.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
11th February 2012, 11:46 AM | #6140 |
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
|
Wait, so in your opinion “there's no BEST way” and even if your opinion was wrong and there were a best way you would still “lean toward the E” despite your own subsequently stated opinion that it “falls short in "some" (not all) scenarios"?
Remember “Those however that resist one orientation or another (E or B) have a hard time "not hating" one particular orientation.” Looks like you’ve found the only “hater” you need to address, perhaps you should take another month or so alone with him to straighten him out (at least in your opinion). |
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ |
|
11th February 2012, 11:50 AM | #6141 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
How many years is this now, and still not a single post from MM with any math in it?
If a child had been born when MM started here, I bet that child would learn algebra before MM posted any. |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
11th February 2012, 11:57 AM | #6142 |
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
|
Well its hard to post math Ziggurat when all one has are their opinions, particularly and evidently opinions they don’t even agree with.
|
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ |
|
11th February 2012, 12:16 PM | #6143 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
So what? Since when did any mathematical theory rise and fall on the math skills of a single poster on the internet? That particular self defense mechanism is bizarre and rather pathetic IMO. It's akin to a creationist *INSISTING* that some specific individual they meet on the internet personally create life in a test tube BEFORE they will even consider studying the works of others of the same topic.
What was wrong with the maths presented by Mann and Onel? Let me guess, you can't handle it, so you attack the messenger randomly? |
11th February 2012, 12:19 PM | #6144 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
What difference did it make when I presented the *EXACT FORMULA* where Priest turned moving charged particle kinetic energy into magnetically quantized mathematical units? You all ignored that math too. Math's are ultimately irrelevant to you. All you do is use the concept to attack individuals. Yawn.
|
11th February 2012, 12:29 PM | #6145 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
That really hasn't been my experience Tim. I had no trouble pointing out to you the exact equations where Priest turned his electric, kinetic energy plasma/water into magnetic wine. You however simply don't CARE how that mathematical "trickery" actually works apparently.
Quote:
Quote:
Until and unless I see you pick out an actual flaw in Alfven's work on coronal loops, or better yet, Mann and Onel's mathematical presentations of coronal loops, you're just wallowing in your own personal math prejudices from my perspective. |
11th February 2012, 12:50 PM | #6146 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
12th February 2012, 10:43 AM | #6147 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Emphasis mine. I think that highlights the chasm that needs to be crossed in order for you to "see the light" Tim. It's not one *OR* the other. Maxwell's equations solve in both directions from the standpoint of mathematics as Onel and Mann (and Alfven and many others) have demonstrated.
There is no single "superior" was of viewing events in plasmas. Sometimes the E field is driving the parade. Sometimes the B field releases LOTS of stored energy. It's irrational IMO to be stuck on one side of that mathematical fence! Until you can embrace *BOTH* sides of the debate, it's going to remain difficult to communicate. I'll tackle your "authority" figures/quotes one quote at a time. Note the Alfven is just as much of an "expert" on the topic of plasma physics and yet he utterly REJECTED MR theory. He was the flip side of you.
Originally Posted by Parker
His claim about the "control" of the large scale dynamics is an EXCELLENT example of one such false assumption. Gravity is *NOT* the "be all end all" of forces as it relates to solar wind, and Magnetism isn't the be all end all either. Birkeland achieved consistent solar wind with CHARGE SEPARATION, not magnetism Tim. In terms of PHYSICS, the mainstream often tries to get the tail to wag the dog. That's also why Alfven rejected a B orientation as it relates to "reconnection" events. |
12th February 2012, 12:05 PM | #6148 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
|
12th February 2012, 12:38 PM | #6149 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
This is, to me, one of the most astonishing things about this (Electric Sun) idea.
Proponents of it (the Electric Sun idea) have been all over internet fora, for many years, screaming, yelling, whining, spamming, posting links to youtube videos, posting long and wordy comments, etc, etc, etc (i.e. not just MM, not just in this forum). And yet, among those tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of posts, and millions of words, not even once has anyone posted anything remotely resembling mathematical (and that includes just plain quantitative) support for the core concept (i.e. that the Sun is - predominantly - powered by giant, interstellar (or intergalactic) Birkeland currents)! Of course, this hasn't stopped the principals - Thornhill, Scott, Talbott, Tresman, and maybe one or two others - from making promises (of varying degrees of specificity) that exactly such support is being (furiously) worked on, and its publication is just around the corner (as in, a month or so). In one sense this is quite remarkable: how have the principals been able to so successfully keep the con going for so long? |
12th February 2012, 12:44 PM | #6150 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
Maybe it's because their target market seems to be mostly each other and a tiny handful of other gullible rubes. No legitimate scientist seems to have taken any of their nonsense seriously. And without ever taking the time to do any math, the electric Sun adherents have plenty of time to jabber on the net. |
12th February 2012, 04:07 PM | #6151 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Let's clear up your first misconception MM.
That is just your continued misinterpretation of the authors. This has continued enough and been corrected enough to make the statement into a blatant lie.
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VIYour post also documents your usual ignorance
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
12th February 2012, 09:16 PM | #6152 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
IMO the "con" is the part highlighted in yellow, and comes from your side of the aisle, the "haters" of electric sun (electric anything in space) theories. I don't personally know of any "electric sun" proponents that actually believe that the sun does NOT have an INTERNAL power source. You guys seem to have latched on to ONE MAN'S (can even recall his name of the top of my head but maybe Jergens?) concept of an "electric sun" and you refuse to acknowledge any OTHER concepts. When did Alfven claim the sun was EXTERNALLY powered? Birkeland? These are the two primary proponents of "electric sun" theories by the way, and both of them suggested that the sun was *INTERNALLY*, not externally powered.
|
12th February 2012, 09:22 PM | #6153 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...2ca922c9c11568
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813 Alfven provided the mathematical support, as have Onel and Mann. Your denial of historical fact is the only lie. |
12th February 2012, 09:26 PM | #6154 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Well, you're right about one thing, it's not "random". I guess the rationalization in play is that if you can't find a flaw in the actual maths provided, such as the math's found in those last two papers in the previous post to GM, just attack the messenger and pretend that behavior is a rational excuse to ignore the materials actually being presented. Your derogatory label (crackpot) is just like a creationist labeling me "evil" for providing them with scientific evidence that refutes their beliefs, and that derogatory label somehow allows them to "filter" out the truth. How sad. The E orientation isn't something you can simply "filter out". You've been caught by your own math since Maxwell's equations don't solve for ONLY B or ONLY E.
|
12th February 2012, 10:01 PM | #6155 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
The continued incivility in dishonestly referring to people as "haters" for simply pointing out the lack of legitimate science in any electric Sun conjecture is noted. The failure to to scientifically address any of the relevant scientific concerns others have brought in is also noted. Repeating the misunderstandings, misinterpretations, cherry picking words and phrases, dishonestly deflecting the burden of proof, and arguing from incredulity have also failed to support the conjectures. Rather than persist with those methods which seem certain to result in more failure, maybe a better approach would be to quantitatively, mathematically, and objectively demonstrate that the conjectures have some validity. Also, those of us who have read Birkeland's writings understand he used a hollow brass ball to model the magnetic properties of the Earth. He occasionally used it to play with some notions he had about Saturn and the Sun. The "little Earth" was mounted on a pole with wires running to an electromagnet inside. The power came in through those wires from the outside. That is, by definition, with or without the shouting, "EXTERNALLY powered". So once again, attempting to use Birkeland as a source of support while demonstrating ignorance of what he actually did in his research is noted. |
12th February 2012, 11:05 PM | #6156 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Plasma Physics: "E orientation" or "B orientation"? III
Actually, yes there is. Furthermore, I have already explained exactly why. And in even further furthermore, you have yourself quoted the explanation, which either went over your head, or was deliberately ignored. Here is the very same passage you quoted, with my emphasis added:
Originally Posted by Parker
Now, when you put this quote into your post, you chose to highlight the phrase "the tail does not wag the dog". Compare that to the phrases I have highlighted here, which include the words "inability", "not possible" and "unphysical". You chose to ignore them altogether, to your own detriment, because they are the heart of the argument. Nothing you have said in response even deserves to be called marginally relevant, because you choose to ignore the physics on virtually all occasions, this one included. The letters MHD stand for the word magnetohydrodynamics. The "hydrodynamics" part brings with itself an absolute requirement to include the dynamics of the plasma as a fluid flow. All objects that have a non-zero rest mass are required to adhere to the laws of Newtonian mechanics, or special relativity if the objects are traveling close to the speed of light. Since most space plasmas are non-relativistic, we can under normal circumstances ignore Einstein and satisfy ourselves with Newton. This must be true, and absolutely is always true, even in the presence of electromagnetic fields and the application of Maxwell's equations. The tail end of your post is an outstanding example of your complete failure to understand the argument and the physics behind it. Most of what you say here is just plain obviously wrong. To start with, gravity is irrelevant to the argument presented by Parker; it would be exactly the same in the total absence of all gravity, and just as valid, which you would have realized immediately had you understood the physics to the extent which you claim you do. Charged particles accelerated by electromagnetic fields in the complete absence of all gravity still face an absolute requirement to obey the Newtonian laws of motion. The E,j paradigm does not make them "harder" to calculate (with or without quotation marks); Rather, the E,j paradigm makes it impossible to calculate the particle dynamics, just as Parker explicitly said, and you explicitly ignored. This is a fatal flaw in the E,j paradigm, as a consequence of which one must compensate by assuming the existence of electric fields (which in reality do not exist at all) with unphysical properties, meaning properties which are not consistent with the physics of what is really happening, which explains why the "fantasy" fields do not exist in reality, but only in a model of the plasma. But let's return to gravity. Indeed, it is not the "end all and be all" of anything. However, it is there and it is part of the mix. But in any case, including that of no-gravity, the only correct way to formulate the physics of a plasma is to simultaneously combine Maxwell's equations, required by the presence of electromagnetic fields, and the equations of Newtonian mechanics, usually in the form of the Navier-Stokes equations, because you cannot express mass and mass conservation, momentum, kinetic energy & etc. using Maxwell's equations alone. This is readily done in the B,v paradigm because the velocity is a dynamical variable shared across the board by both Maxwell's equations and the Navier-Stokes equations. This cannot be done at all in the E,j paradigm because there are no dynamical variables common to both Maxwell's equations and the Navier-Stokes equations in that paradigm. For these reasons I can confidently claim that the E,j paradigm you favor is in fact inferior to the B,v paradigm because the E,j paradigm makes a correct and proper evaluation of the physics of the plasma impossible. |
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
12th February 2012, 11:14 PM | #6157 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
I found fatal flaws in your personal theories years ago. You could have used math to address those flaws, but you never did. Why not? You don't like me insinuating that you're a crackpot, but you could have fixed that, years ago. You chose not to do so. I can only conclude that you mind being called a crackpot less than you mind actually doing any math to test your theories. I think you actually like playing the martyr so much that you'll refuse to subject your own ideas to scrutiny just so you can suffer.
And your protestations about E orientation are nonsense. You can't point to a single mainstream physics article which actually gets Maxwell's equations wrong, can you? No, of course you can't. You can only blab about "orientation", you can't show that any of the solutions are wrong. Because that would require math, and you can't do math. You've been caught by the filter. You could have escaped the filter years ago, but you don't want to. You can't actually bring yourself to do that, because if you tried, you might discover that you're wrong. And you'd rather be wrong and not know it than have to change your mind. You're too emotionally invested in nonsense to let it go, ever. You will eventually die thinking that your ideas were suppressed by some grand conspiracy, but that revelation was just around the corner, and then we'll all be sorry. It's sad, actually. |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
13th February 2012, 08:55 AM | #6158 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
There's nothing uncivil about noting that there are less than a dozen hard core EU "pseudo-skeptics" that spend their time in cyberspace bashing EU concepts. Just as creationists simply DENY the existence of "evidence" that they simply can't deal with, EU "critics" act exactly the same as your next sentence demonstrates:
Quote:
It doesn't matter how much of Mann's maths or Onel's maths or Alfven's maths I put before a "hater". They simply refuse to drink. |
13th February 2012, 09:14 AM | #6159 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
No there isn't Tim. You simply made another of your many HANDWAVES about why you personally (or some authority figure you personally WORSHIP) thinks one orientation has merit over another IN SOME circumstances. So what?
I can easily cite quotes from Alfven that are already posted in this very thread that take the EXACT OPPOSITE position, including his famous 'nails in the coffin' speech at the conference where he presented his Double Layer paper. It's just hero worship Tim, nothing more. I got over my hero worship of Alfven. I suggest you take Parker off that soapbox before you hurt yourself. There's no point in choosing one when you can have BOTH any time you want BOTH. Let's take a look at the part of his quote you're so worried about:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The rest of your post looks to be rehash because you're stuck in a fallacy rut. It's not an "either or" proposition Tim. That's a false dichotomy fallacy you're trying to stuff down my throat. It's not going to work. Unlike you, I'm not emotionally attached to ONE or the other. |
13th February 2012, 09:25 AM | #6160 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
No you didn't. You ALLEGED many things based on STANDARD solar theory concepts, nothing more.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I can't make you read those maths Zig. I can't make you DEAL WITH THEM ON THEIR OWN MERIT. No amount of bashing my personal math skills will change the historical fact that those maths exist for you to read and address anytime you feel like doing so. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|