ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Tags Alfven waves , Birkeland currents , hannes alfven , Kristian Birkeland

Closed Thread
Old 3rd November 2011, 01:33 PM   #4441
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Current is MOBILE and quantized. It can indeed "reconnect" to other "circuits" in plasma. So what?
...delusional rant snipped...
Maybe you will undersdtand what I write if I add smilies.
Currents reconnect! Wow !
Currents split and come together all of the time in plasma. Wow !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 02:00 PM   #4442
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No, it's actually not out of context in any way. FYI, I thought that author sounded very familiar to me, but I didn't recognize the text. I went through my plasma physics books at work and lo and behold, I own his book "Fundamentals of Cosmic Electrodynamics". He talks extensively about current sheets and current sheet acceleration in that book too.
But pray tell me, in what direction are the particles accelerated in the current sheet and in which direction are the particles accelerated in the relaxation of the magnetic tension?

I am sure you will find they are in perpendicular directions.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 02:16 PM   #4443
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
If this has been asked before, I apologize -- I'm not up to the task of reading 112 pages.
Is the debate here about magnetic reconnection confined to plasmas or is there a debate that magnetic reconnection can happen at all?
If so, how can magnetic lines not reconnect in the following situation?
Say I have two bar magnets aligned thus:

[S--------------------N][S-------------------N]

Now from my high school days I can recall the iron filings showing how the magnetic lines are configured and I think everyone here knows what that looks like. So, if I move these bar magnets with my own two hands so that they are sufficiently distant, looking at only one magnet:

[S--------------------N]

we know that the iron filings would show that, as I moved the magnets apart, the lines we had before were severed and they reconnected to accommodate the new shortened magnet.

I know this is a very naive approach and perhaps is far off the mark regarding this debate. Is this magnetic reconnection or not?
Mozina, don't bother answering -- you remain on "ignore." If any of the knowledgeable people here would answer I would appreciate it.
__________________
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 04:52 PM   #4444
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Just out of curiosity - do you imagine that all of Somov's book is available in Google Books?
No, but I do happen to own "Fundamentals of Cosmic Electrodynamics" by the very same author. Chapter 16, page 307 is entitled "Reconnection of Electric Currents". He then proceeds to explain the process from Alfven's perspective. I don't suppose you've read either of Somov's books on plasma physics? Nah, probably not. You prefer to argue from pure ignorance.

Oddly enough I don't see ANYTHING in Somov's book (the one I own) that looks like Clingers equations. His original explanation of the idea on page 36 uses currents. Section 2.4.2 is entitled "Reconnecting current sheets", and he pretty much picks up where page 108 starts in the book you mentioned. Section 2.4.3 is entitled "Acceleration in current sheets". He's quite fluid with both the B and E orientations, I assure you.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 04:58 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 05:13 PM   #4445
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Is the debate here about magnetic reconnection confined to plasmas or is there a debate that magnetic reconnection can happen at all?
Who can tell? The only nay-sayer here is Michael Mozina, and he's been all over the place.

Once upon a time, he denied the possibility of magnetic reconnection under any circumstances, and by repeating the following he appears once again to be denying all magnetic reconnection:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No "reconnection" of "magnetic lines" (B lines) ever actually takes place because B lines have no beginning and no ending and no physical ability to "disconnect from" nor reconnect to, any other magnetic line.

At other times he has said he accepts the reality of magnetic reconnection, but thinks it should have been called "circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection" because he doesn't think it has anything to do with magnetic field lines. He has also expressed the opinion that magnetic reconnection can only take place in plasma, or only when there's a nonzero E field.

And don't forget: He thinks Hannes Alfvén said magnetic reconnection was pseudo-science, so it must be some kind of woo even if it's perfectly real.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Say I have two bar magnets aligned thus:

[S--------------------N][S-------------------N]

Now from my high school days I can recall the iron filings showing how the magnetic lines are configured and I think everyone here knows what that looks like. So, if I move these bar magnets with my own two hands so that they are sufficiently distant, looking at only one magnet:

[S--------------------N]

we know that the iron filings would show that, as I moved the magnets apart, the lines we had before were severed and they reconnected to accommodate the new shortened magnet.

I know this is a very naive approach and perhaps is far off the mark regarding this debate. Is this magnetic reconnection or not?
Yes.

Here are the reasons I'm in the midst of a multipart post on a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection:
  • I'm showing how a simple experiment reproduces a magnetic field with exactly the same topology and reconnection that appears in Dungey (1958), Yamada et al figure 3a, the Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection, and many other papers on magnetic reconnection.
  • The mathematics and magnetostatics are fairly simple, at the freshman level of vector calculus and electromagnetism,
  • so I can give dead-simple proofs that Gauss's law for magnetism holds for the magnetic fields I'm deriving
  • and I can give a simple but rigorous topological proof that magnetic reconnection actually occurs during the experiment I've been recommending to Michael Mozina for most of the past year.
  • The magnetic fields are actually pretty interesting, and provide counterexamples to at least two myths that are often repeated even by people who know something about electromagnetism.

Although I'd like to post part 3 of that derivation tomorrow night, it will probably have to wait until Monday. I know what I'm going to write, and I've done the calculations (again---I first ran the numbers a year ago), but part 3 should show the magnetic fields and field lines in graphical form, and that's the hard part. It's taking me a while to figure out how to convert all of the numbers into comprehensible pixel maps.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 05:35 PM   #4446
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Who can tell? The only nay-sayer here is Michael Mozina, and he's been all over the place.
Not really. I've agreed that "current reconnection" happens in plasma, circuits form in plasma, electrical discharges happen in plasma and induction happens in plasma. I've been rather consistent. It's you that seems to be all over the place in term of what you personally call "reconnection". For instance:

Quote:
Yes.
NO! It's called "attraction/repulsion"! If you actually let them physically touch that is called "solid magnet reconnection".

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/electrom...agneticlines2/

Considering you're slapping that term to anything you see, from inductance processes to attraction/repulsion processes, to "topology changes over time", to solid magnet reconnection, it's impossible to tell what YOU PERSONALLY mean by the term "magnetic reconnection". You handwave a new (and bogus) claim into the conversation pretty much every single day.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 05:40 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 05:38 PM   #4447
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Say I have two bar magnets aligned thus:

[S--------------------N][S-------------------N]

Now from my high school days I can recall the iron filings showing how the magnetic lines are configured and I think everyone here knows what that looks like. So, if I move these bar magnets with my own two hands so that they are sufficiently distant, looking at only one magnet:

[S--------------------N]

we know that the iron filings would show that, as I moved the magnets apart, the lines we had before were severed and they reconnected to accommodate the new shortened magnet.

I know this is a very naive approach and perhaps is far off the mark regarding this debate. Is this magnetic reconnection or not?
Quote:
W.D.Clinger: Yes.
So, it's that simple? What else could the lines in my little example do but "reconnect" in order to have the new arrangement?
This just seems to be too easy! I will probably regret this, but I am going to take Mozina off "ignore" to see if there is any rational explanation as to why the lines do not reconnect. I will do my best to keep an open mind. So, Mr. Mozina, if you care to do so, have at it!
__________________
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 05:38 PM   #4448
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I'm showing how a simple experiment reproduces a magnetic field with exactly the same topology and reconnection that appears in Dungey (1958), Yamada et al figure 3a, the Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection, and many other papers on magnetic reconnection.
Both of their processes took place in PLASMA Clinger, not in a "vacuum" or "air" or "water". You're trying to ride their coattails even though their "experiments" are nothing like your 'experiment'. What a crock.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 05:41 PM   #4449
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I don't suppose you've read either of Somov's books on plasma physics? Nah, probably not. You prefer to argue from pure ignorance.
I prefer to argue from my extensive knowledge of physics and an education that allows me to understand science when it is presented to me (and when gibberish is being spouted by Internet physics cranks).

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Oddly enough I don't see ANYTHING in Somov's book (the one I own) that looks like Clingers equations.
Oddly enough, you are probably wrong
Fundamentals of cosmic electrodynamics
Quote:
Starting from the language of plasma physics, from Maxwell's equations, the author guides the reader into the more specialized concepts of cosmic electrodynamics.
W.D. Clinger's posts so far are
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 1and an erratum,
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 2

and what is Equation 1, MM?
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Equation 1 (Ampère's law with Maxwell's correction)

That's one of the four Maxwell's equations.
(replaced the Latex? with a Wikipedia link)

I would be surprised if a book that starts from Maxwell's equations does not quote them.

The rest of W.D. Clinger's equations (e.g. the derivation of the magnetic field around a current carrying rod) is basic EM and calculus. It is unlikely to be in anything but textbooks on basic EM and calculus. But who knows?

Another question arises - why is a person ignorant of high school science (Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)) reading a book for graduate students?
Fundamentals of cosmic electrodynamics
"It is aimed primarily at beginning graduate students who are assumed to have a knowledge of basic physics"

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd November 2011 at 05:51 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 05:48 PM   #4450
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
This is exactly what I had in mind:
http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/motion04.htm
Clearly the lines break and reconnect!
__________________
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

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 3rd November 2011 at 05:51 PM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 05:50 PM   #4451
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I prefer to argue from my extensive knowledge of physics and an education that allows me to understand science when it is presented to me (and when gibberish is being spouted by Internet physics cranks).
So you haven't read either of Somov's books, one of which I've read, you haven't read Alfven's books, two of which I've read. You haven't read Peratt's book either, and I've read that book too. Somehow, evidently through pure clairvoyance, you've become some sort of resident expert on plasma physics *WITHOUT* reading any of the relevant materials! LOL!


Quote:
I would be surprised if a book that starts from Maxwell's equations does not quote them.
You're probably right, it's in there somewhere. I'm also sure permeability is listed in there there somewhere too. Nothing in Clingers presentations gets any boost from Somov's work thus far since Somov is clear about RECONNECTING CURRENTS!
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 05:54 PM   #4452
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
This is exactly what I had in mind:
http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/motion04.htm
Clearly the lines break and reconnect!
No, the solid magnetic breaks and reconnects again forming two magnets and then one again. That is "solid magnetic reconnection". The problem is that plasma contains no solid magnets for "magnet reconnection" to occur in plasma. It does however contain CURRENTS and currents can definitely "reconnect" in plasma.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 05:56 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:01 PM   #4453
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Let's count and see how many things have been associated with or directly called "magnetic reconnection" now in this thread:

1) Electrical discharges (Dungey - Peratt)
2) Reconnection of Electric Currents (Somov - Chapter 16 - Fundamentals of Cosmic Electrodynamics)
3) Solid magnet reconnection (Clinger)
4) The permeability of a vacuum (measured in inductance per unit length) (Clinger)
5) Ampere's law and circuit theory (everyone)
6) Current sheet acceleration (Somov - Alfven)
7) Double layer transactions (Alfven)

Did I miss any?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 06:06 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:03 PM   #4454
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
So you haven't read either of Somov's books, one of which I've read, you haven't read Alfven's books, two of which I've read. You haven't read Peratt's book either, and I've read that book too.
That is stupid - shall I ask you about all of the books that I have read that you probably have not?

I do not have to read specific books to know that the physics of magnetic reconnection are well understood (except by you of course)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You're probably right, it's in there somewhere. I'm also sure permeability is listed in there there somewhere too.
So am I. I am sure that permeability is listed in throusands of books.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Nothing in Clingers presentations gets any boost from Somov's work thus far since Somov is clear about RECONNECTING CURRENTS!
So am I: RECONNECTING CURRENTS! See - very clear !

That has nothing to do with the fact that Somov in his other book states that magnteic reconnection in vacuum happens.
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
Quote:
Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle of particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.
This sounds like another candidate for one of your delusions
Michael Mozina
Do you have the delusion that Somov thinks that magnetic reconnection in a vacuum is not a real physical process?

ETA:
MAGNETIC RECONNECTION SCENARIO OF THE BASTILLE DAY 2000 FLARE by Boris V. Somov, Takeo Kosugi, Hugh S. Hudson, and Taro Sakao.
(Thanks GeeMack)

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd November 2011 at 06:15 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:09 PM   #4455
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No, the solid magnetic breaks and reconnects again forming two magnets and then one again. That is "solid magnetic reconnection". The problem is that plasma contains no solid magnets for "magnet reconnection" to occur in plasma. It does however contain CURRENTS and currents can definitely "reconnect" in plasma.
I am not following that. Do the magnetic lines break and reconnect or not?
__________________
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:13 PM   #4456
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I am not following that. Do the magnetic lines break and reconnect or not?
No. The solid magnet physically breaks and reconnects. Once you reconnect the solid magnets and it becomes a single solid magnet again, sure it's one "thing" again. Until you physically reconnect the solid magnets, no, it's just ordinary magnetic attraction and repulsion between two magnets that is taught in every single freshman classroom.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:17 PM   #4457
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Let's count and see how many things have been associated with or directly called "magnetic reconnection" now in this thread:

1) Electrical discharges (Dungey - Peratt)
2) Reconnection of Electric Currents (Somov - Chapter 16 - Fundamentals of Cosmic Electrodynamics)
3) Solid magnet reconnection (Clinger)
4) The permeability of a vacuum (measured in inductance) (Clinger)
5) Ampere's law and circuit theory (everyone)
6) Current sheet acceleration (Somov - Alfven)
7) Double layers (Alfven)

Did I miss any?
Your list is wrong (e.g. double layers have nothing to do with MR) and incomplete
  • electrons
  • ions
  • magnetic fileds
  • electric fields
  • plasma
  • Gauss's law
  • Gauss's law for magnetism
  • ideal MHD
  • resisitive MHD
  • Hall effect MHD
  • permeablity
  • permeablity of air
  • permeablity of free space
  • current sheets
  • the small kinetic energy of the plasma particlee (that it is only a tiny part of the total energy though is in another thread)
  • welding in space (Mozina)
  • contour lines
  • circuit models
  • inductance
  • induction
  • magnetic field lines
  • etc.
  • etc.
  • etc.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:29 PM   #4458
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No. The solid magnet physically breaks and reconnects. Once you reconnect the solid magnets and it becomes a single solid magnet again, sure it's one "thing" again. Until you physically reconnect the solid magnets, no, it's just ordinary magnetic attraction and repulsion between two magnets that is taught in every single freshman classroom.
I do not follow what you're saying. When the two magnets are together, the magnetic lines go -- by convention -- from north to south (outside) forming a kind of shell around the connected objects, which act as a single magnet. When they are pulled apart, all the lines no longer wrap around the two objects but end up wrapping around each magnet individually. What happened o these lines? Did they not break and simultaneously reconnect? If not, how did this new configuration of the lines come about?
Mr. Mozina, I am really trying to stay with you on this.
__________________
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:29 PM   #4459
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No. The solid magnet physically breaks and reconnects. Once you reconnect the solid magnets and it becomes a single solid magnet again, sure it's one "thing" again. Until you physically reconnect the solid magnets, no, it's just ordinary magnetic attraction and repulsion between two magnets that is taught in every single freshman classroom.
That is rather insane, MM:
What matters is what happens to the magnetic field lines as you separate 2 magnets, rotate one and put them together again (and repeat).
You can see the field lines breaking and reconnecting.

One way that I have heard this explained is:
When you rotate the magnet the first time (so that ti starts to oppose the other magnetic), neutral (or null) points develop where the magnetic field is zero. There are no magnetic field lines where B = 0. This allows the lines to become undefined (break) as they pass through the neutral point and then defined again (reconnect).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:32 PM   #4460
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
When they are pulled apart, all the lines no longer wrap around the two objects but end up wrapping around each magnet individually.
Sorry: This is where I should have said something about your original two magnets separating scenario - the separation just stretches the filed lines.

The important thing about the animation is the rotation of the magnet.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:57 PM   #4461
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Sorry: This is where I should have said something about your original two magnets separating scenario - the separation just stretches the filed lines.

The important thing about the animation is the rotation of the magnet.
OK, but well, this is more difficult than I thought. If two such magnets are together the lines from the north pole of magnet A wraps around and enters the south pole of the magnet B. Now, when they are very far from each other, are not the lines from the north pole of A -- that were entering the south pole of B -- now entering the south pole of A? These are the same lines that were exiting A before that are no longer entering B. Would these lines not have to have broken and reconnected at some point for this to happen?
Is this something other than the magnetic reconnection being discussed here?

Addendum: Note in the animation this is exactly what happens to the lines illustrated when the magnets are first drawn apart, before any twisting is done.
__________________
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

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 3rd November 2011 at 07:02 PM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 06:58 PM   #4462
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I do not follow what you're saying. When the two magnets are together, the magnetic lines go -- by convention -- from north to south (outside) forming a kind of shell around the connected objects, which act as a single magnet. When they are pulled apart, all the lines no longer wrap around the two objects but end up wrapping around each magnet individually. What happened o these lines? Did they not break and simultaneously reconnect? If not, how did this new configuration of the lines come about?
Mr. Mozina, I am really trying to stay with you on this.
A physical object, like a solid magnetic can be broken in two. It has a beginning, it has an ending, and it has a middle. You can in fact "disconnect" the two solid magnets, and "reconnect" them physically again. That is "solid magnetic reconnection". The number of magnetic lines, and contours of those magnetic lines are directly related to the NUMBER of magnets.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/electrom...agneticlines2/

Don't touch the two magnets together for a minute. Would you agree that what occurs between the two magnets is "attraction" and "repulsion"? When do the magnetic field lines "reconnect"?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 07:00 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 07:06 PM   #4463
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
A physical object, like a solid magnetic can be broken in two. It has a beginning, it has an ending, and it has a middle. You can in fact "disconnect" the two solid magnets, and "reconnect" them physically again. That is "solid magnetic reconnection". The number of magnetic lines, and contours of those magnetic lines are directly related to the NUMBER of magnets.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/electrom...agneticlines2/

Don't touch the two magnets together for a minute. Would you agree that what occurs between the two magnets is "attraction" and "repulsion"? When do the magnetic field lines "reconnect"?
You are not addressing my question about the magnetic lines. Do they not break and reconnect? See my response to Reality Check above.
__________________
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 07:11 PM   #4464
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Is this something other than the magnetic reconnection being discussed here?
Sadly I believe that you'll get different answers from different individuals.

Most "magnetic reconnection" papers and experiments I've ever read occur in plasma, typically "current carrying" plasma. Yes, "magnet reconnection" is different from (a physically different process from) "magnetic/current reconnection" (in current carrying plasma).
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 07:18 PM   #4465
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
You are not addressing my question about the magnetic lines. Do they not break and reconnect? See my response to Reality Check above.
I already answered NO. The MAGNETS physically disconnect and reconnect.

Let's try this "slowly" and let find SOME agreement here. Start with two magnets. Would you agree that what you observe BEFORE you physically reconnect the magnets is "attraction" and "repulsion" depending on the N/S alignments? Yes or no? If yes, when are you claiming that the magnetic fields go from being attractive/repulsive to "reconnected"?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 07:39 PM   #4466
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
That is stupid - shall I ask you about all of the books that I have read that you probably have not?
I can already name at least 5 textbooks on plasma physics that I've read that you haven't read. Can you name even two plasma physics textbooks that you've actually read? Basic electrodynamic theory textbooks do not count since they are not focused on plasma physics.

Quote:
I do not have to read specific books to know that the physics of magnetic reconnection are well understood (except by you of course)
Irony overload from the guy that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in a plasma.

Quote:
That has nothing to do with the fact that Somov in his other book states that magnteic reconnection in vacuum happens.
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
Oh, INDUCED E fields are real alright, but Somov makes it very clear it's an INDUCTIVE process, and like Alfven, it's essentially a pseudonym in Somov's book(s) for quite ordinary current sheet acceleration.

In fact in Chapter 16 of my book Somov calls it "Reconnect of Electric Currents" and proceeds to use Alfven's work to explain the same process via circuit theory.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 07:54 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 07:50 PM   #4467
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
FYI RC, Clingers "vacuum" equations look nothing like the equations Somov uses. In fact on the page you cited Somov clearly stated that it's an INDUCTIVE process and he uses the E orientation to explain that inductive process.

Quote:
The electric field is *INDUCED* and can accelerate a charged particle or particles in the vicinity of the neutral point
Emphasis mine.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 07:57 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 07:58 PM   #4468
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Can you name even two plasma physics textbooks that you've actually read?
I have read none. I have read articles and papers about plasma physics. My level of education allows me to understand them (mostly !)

What is really imnportant is whether a person understands their sources. If they do not then they are wiser to read a wide range of and agree with the scientific consensus.

Your level of education (Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule)) leads you to make absurd claims, e.g.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Irony overload from the guy that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in a plasma.
Ignorance overload from the guy that has no idea what an electrical discharge is and that its definition means that it can never happen in a plasma, e.g. Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge .

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Oh, INDUCED E fields are real alright, but Somov makes it very ....
Oh, INDUCED E fields are real alright and obsessively repeating it does not effect the simple fact that electrical fields can be induced !

But Somov makes it very clear that reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
Quote:
Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle of particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 08:02 PM   #4469
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Emphasis mine.
FYI - you are lying (quote mining) again:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
Quote:
This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line.
Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle of particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.
Emphasis mine.

Also note that that "electric field is induced" is mentioned after the reconnect. The implication is that is the reconnect that induces the electric field.

ETA: Added the paragraph before "Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process" so you do not think that I am ignoring the currents that produce the magnetic fields.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd November 2011 at 08:09 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 08:08 PM   #4470
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
FYI - you are lying (quote mining) again:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov

Emphasis mine.

Also note that that "electric field is induced" is mentioned after the reconnect. The implication is that it the reconnect that induces the electric field.
He's describing the INDUCTION process RC, not "reconnections per unit distance".
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 08:15 PM   #4471
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
He's describing the INDUCTION process RC, not "reconnections per unit distance".
You are wrong: This section is describing the process of reconnection in a vacuum.
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
Quote:
Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
...
This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line.
Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
| the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle or
| particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.
The mention of the induction of an electric field is after the description of magnetic reconnection. It is almost an afterthought.

And we also have: Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length" !

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd November 2011 at 08:16 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 08:24 PM   #4472
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The mention of the induction of an electric field is after the description of magnetic reconnection. It is almost an afterthought.
So what? It's still an INDUCTION process with permeability measured in *INDUCTANCE* per unit distance, not "magnetic reconnections".

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 08:26 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 08:33 PM   #4473
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I already answered NO. The MAGNETS physically disconnect and reconnect.

Let's try this "slowly" and let find SOME agreement here. Start with two magnets. Would you agree that what you observe BEFORE you physically reconnect the magnets is "attraction" and "repulsion" depending on the N/S alignments? Yes or no? If yes, when are you claiming that the magnetic fields go from being attractive/repulsive to "reconnected"?
OK, yes, of course S and N attract while alike poles repulse.
Now, back to my question. If I have a bar magnet, I know that there is a magnetic field around it with the field lines (by convention) exiting the N pole and entering the S pole. I know this because I can pass a conductor through that field and generate an electric current, where the direction of the current will tell me where N and S are.
Now, if two bar magnets are connected with S and N together, they essentially become one magnet with one field exiting the non-connected N and entering the other S. Again I know these magnetic field lines are there because I can generate a current by passing a conductor through the field in the same manner as above. Now I repeat my scenario above:

Quote:
If two such magnets are together the lines from the north pole of magnet A wraps around and enters the south pole of the magnet B. Now, when they are very far from each other, are not the lines from the north pole of A -- that were entering the south pole of B -- now entering the south pole of A? These are the same lines that were exiting A before that are no longer entering B. Would these lines not have to have broken and reconnected at some point for this to happen?
Is this not what is meant by magnetic reconnection, and if not, why not?
__________________
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 08:34 PM   #4474
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I have read none.
That explains EVERYTHING!
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 08:47 PM   #4475
Humanzee
Muse
 
Humanzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 530
Im sorry, am I not seeing reconnection when the magnets are seperate but when one or the other is rotating? Isn't reconnection when a field line that begins and ends on magnet A suddenly begins and on magnet A and ends on magnet B? Sorry if this is a stupid question.

I've lurked here a long time and would really love to see an answer to Perpetual Students question.
Humanzee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 08:47 PM   #4476
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by Reality Check
That has nothing to do with the fact that Somov in his other book states that magnteic reconnection in vacuum happens.
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
Reality Check beat me to it, but it's worth repeating: On that very page, Somov writes:
Originally Posted by Somov
Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it
As Somov says, it is the magnetic field lines that reconnect in that vacuum.

Somov also notes that collisionless reconnection is simpler to understand than reconnection in highly-conducting space plasma. That's why I've been recommending that Michael Mozina try to understand magnetic reconnection in a vacuum, where everything is so much simpler that he could actually understand it (if only he'd learn some freshman-level math and physics).

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
FYI RC, Clingers "vacuum" equations look nothing like the equations Somov uses.
That's because Somov is using a variant of Faraday's law of induction to explain why the electric field changes in response to fast magnetic reconnection.

My derivation does not involve that law of induction. That's why I've had to be so careful about changing the magnetic field so slowly that the effect of ∂B/∂t on the electric field will be negligible and can be ignored. By avoiding induction, I simplify the derivation and keep it within the realm of first-year magnetostatics and freshman calculus. That means the magnetic reconnection has to happen slowly, which might make it kind of boring if we were looking at it in real time, but we can use time-lapse animation to compensate for that.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 08:52 PM   #4477
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Humanzee View Post
Im sorry, am I not seeing reconnection when the magnets are seperate
Right, just attraction and repulsion.

Quote:
but when one or the other is rotating?
The rotation process causes "magnetic flux" and induces currents. That "rotation" feature generates the magnetic field changes that induce currents. It's still an induction process. The only thing that physically "reconnects" in PS's experiment are the magnets themselves. While rotating however, they will induce currents between the magnets, at least in plasma.

Quote:
Isn't reconnection when a field line that begins and ends on magnet A suddenly begins and on magnet A and ends on magnet B? Sorry if this is a stupid question.
Considering how many different definitions "reconnection" we seem to have, your question doesn't sound silly at all. I have no idea what *THEY* mean by the idea, I only know what it means as it relates to plasma physics and solid magnets aren't relevant in that environment. The MOVEMENT factor is relevant in plasma and that movement of the magnetic field will in fact induce currents in plasma.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 09:17 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 08:57 PM   #4478
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
OK, yes, of course S and N attract while alike poles repulse.
So the only physical thing that actually physically reconnects are the magnets. The fields simply repulse or attract until the magnets are JOINED. The MOVEMENT of the field (the rotation) will in fact INDUCE currents.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 08:58 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 09:11 PM   #4479
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Reality Check beat me to it, but it's worth repeating: On that very page, Somov writes:

As Somov says, it is the magnetic field lines that reconnect in that vacuum.
There's a difference between HIS "magnetic" lines and yours. His fields lines don't "reconnect" at a couple of zero points, they merge, change, FLUX and INDUCE currents. He also has CURRENT flowing through his X points. You'd know all this if you'd read his WHOLE book as I have done. Evidently you have no intention of reading his work. Fine. Keep going with your math. I'm dying to find out how you intend to handle that kinetic energy problem at a couple of zero points in a magnetic field. I know how Somov and Dungey deal with it (current), but I have no idea what you think is the POWER SOURCE for your experiment yet.

Quote:
Somov also notes that collisionless reconnection is simpler to understand than reconnection in highly-conducting space plasma.
Sure, as long as you realize it is INDUCTION that transfers magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy.

Quote:
That's why I've been recommending that Michael Mozina try to understand magnetic reconnection in a vacuum, where everything is so much simpler that he could actually understand it (if only he'd learn some freshman-level math and physics).
Alright, I'm going to ask you the same question I asked RC. I can name at least 5 plasma physics textbooks I've read to date. How many books on PLASMA PHYSICS have you actually read Clinger?

Quote:
That's because Somov is using a variant of Faraday's law of induction to explain why the electric field changes in response to fast magnetic reconnection.
It's simply "fast induction" due to changing magnetic fields (like PS's rotating magnets). There's nothing "special" about that kind of "INDUCTION"!

Quote:
My derivation does not involve that law of induction.
And that is why you're basically screwed in terms of explaining the kinetic energy. FYI, you are in fact using INDUCTANCE related variables that will change dramatically with the material.

Quote:
That's why I've had to be so careful about changing the magnetic field so slowly that the effect of ∂B/∂t on the electric field will be negligible and can be ignored.
Ya, but that's never going to explain the kinetic energy of a flare Clinger.

Quote:
By avoiding induction, I simplify the derivation and keep it within the realm of first-year magnetostatics and freshman calculus.
You also charged into UNCHARTED TERRITORY since no other author I've ever read makes your claim and doesn't use induction.

Quote:
That means the magnetic reconnection has to happen slowly, which might make it kind of boring if we were looking at it in real time, but we can use time-lapse animation to compensate for that.
And the irony of course is that CURRENT is actually doing all the work. In the real world dB/dt changes fast and that's all related to Dungey's "electrical discharge" process.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 3rd November 2011 at 09:15 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2011, 09:29 PM   #4480
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Humanzee View Post
Im sorry, am I not seeing reconnection when the magnets are seperate but when one or the other is rotating? Isn't reconnection when a field line that begins and ends on magnet A suddenly begins and on magnet A and ends on magnet B? Sorry if this is a stupid question.

I've lurked here a long time and would really love to see an answer to Perpetual Students question.
Are you finding it as amazing as I am that no answers to these questions are forthcoming?
__________________
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:34 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.