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 20th November 2011, 08:37 AM   #5081
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Well, whether or not magnetic monopoles actually physically exist is irrelevant anyway. Their actual physical existence is not assumed in the paper, which in fact goes on to prove that magnetic monopoles cannot exist in a linear force-free field. So I don't see any problem.
Let me try to spell out the problem very clearly then. If monopoles do not exist, then no B field lines begin or end, or reconnect. You still need a DEVICE to act in that capacity in terms of passing "magnetic charges". I showed you in that source/sink paper in equations 16 and 17 that the "device" Priest actually uses is CURRENT. It's CURRENT RECONNECTION at it's most fundamental level because the E field is the TRUE source and the sink Tim, not the B lines! The B field CHANGES and that change over time INDUCES E fields and CURRENT that physically "reconnects". There cannot be a source or a sink, a beginning or an end, or a "reconnection" of any B field line. The B field is NOT a source or a sink! It's just that simple. The CURRENT RECONNECTION is the process that occurs at the most fundamental level because E fields ARE the actual source and sink for the DISCHARGE PROCESS IN PLASMA!

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 20th November 2011 at 08:57 AM.
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 20th November 2011, 09:56 AM   #5082
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,971
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
As you and The Man have surmised and correctly pointed out, that particular statement of mine is both sloppy and factually incorrect. I should have used (and been using) the term "electrical current", not "E field". My apologies, and thank you both for pointing it out. I amend my statements to read: "You can't INDUCE an electrical current in a PURE VACUUM that is utterly devoid of plasma particles. No induced current will occur in the vacuum.
OK, but that does seem rather trivial doesn’t it, that you can’t have charges moving (a current) through an area where there are no charges to be moved through it?


Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
FYI Tim, I'll spend some time this weekend to see if I can find the paper in question by Priest about monopoles.


In the meantime, since you and The Man have a proven track record now of pulling the splinters and twigs out of my eye over my errors in this discussion, how about spending some time with Clinger explaining to him that *IN A VACUUM* (not a plasma) B field lines have no source or sink, no beginning or ending and that a NULL is not a "beginning" nor an "ending" of any B line? That would really help move things along.

That’s a splinter you’ve jammed in your own eye and apparently you just want to keep it there for now. Hopefully you’ll remove it on your own whenever you’re ready. In the mean time (as I think Reality Check brought up before) please tell us what is the magnitude and direction of the magnetic force vector (what the field lines represent) at a null point (hint the answers to both questions is given in the named of the point)?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 20th November 2011, 10:02 AM   #5083
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
That’s a splinter you’ve jammed in your own eye and apparently you just want to keep it there for now. Hopefully you’ll remove it on your own whenever you’re ready.
Huh? I copped to my mistake INSTANTLY. Neither you or Tim has yet set Clinger straight about beginnings and ending of B lines. Why is that?
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 20th November 2011, 10:04 AM   #5084
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
In the mean time (as I think Reality Check brought up before) please tell us what is the magnitude and direction of the magnetic force vector (what the field lines represent) at a null point (hint the answers to both questions is given in the named of the point)?
It's CURRENT that is doing all the actual work, and the E field is the SOURCE AND SINK!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=5065
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 20th November 2011, 10:09 AM   #5085
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,971
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Let me try to spell out the problem very clearly then. If monopoles do not exist, then no B field lines begin or end, or reconnect. You still need a DEVICE to act in that capacity in terms of passing "magnetic charges". I showed you in that source/sink paper in equations 16 and 17 that the "device" Priest actually uses is CURRENT. It's CURRENT RECONNECTION at it's most fundamental level because the E field is the TRUE source and the sink Tim, not the B lines! The B field CHANGES and that change over time INDUCES E fields and CURRENT that physically "reconnects". There cannot be a source or a sink, a beginning or an end, or a "reconnection" of any B field line. The B field is NOT a source or a sink! It's just that simple. The CURRENT RECONNECTION is the process that occurs at the most fundamental level because E fields ARE the actual source and sink for the DISCHARGE PROCESS IN PLASMA!
Highlighting added. So “The B field CHANGES and that change over time INDUCES E fields and CURRENT that physically "reconnects".” Sounds like your “CURRENT RECONNECTION” is driven by magnetic reconnection.



Let me spell out the problem for you as clearly as I can. Areas that are magnetically isolated (field lines are in opposition) can become magnetically coupled (field line now pass between the two regions). That’s basically it; regions that were magnetically isolated are now magnetically coupled due to a change in the magnetic field topography, magnetic reconnection.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 20th November 2011, 10:26 AM   #5086
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,971
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
It's CURRENT that is doing all the actual work, and the E field is the SOURCE AND SINK!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=5065

What "actual work"? The question was clear and direct and didn’t ask anything about what you might call "actual work". Again, please tell us what is the magnitude and direction of the magnetic force vector (what the field lines represent) at a null point (hint the answers to both questions is given in the named of the point)?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 20th November 2011, 10:30 AM   #5087
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,971
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Huh? I copped to my mistake INSTANTLY. Neither you or Tim has yet set Clinger straight about beginnings and ending of B lines. Why is that?

Because that is still just your mistake that you have yet to cop to, you stuck that splinter in your eye and evidently simply don't want to remove it because you just like how things look to you now.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 20th November 2011, 10:44 AM   #5088
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Because that is still just your mistake that you have yet to cop to, you stuck that splinter in your eye and evidently simply don't want to remove it because you just like how things look to you now.
That is just plain ridiculous. I admitted my error, but you have yet to set Clinger straight about B lines having no beginning or ending, no SOURCE and no SINK! As long as you IGNORE the fact that equations 16 and 17 relate to CURRENT, there's really nothing more to discuss.

No plasma, no induced current, no "magnetic charge" at equation 17, and no electrical discharge. The E field is the actual source and sink, and CURRENTS reconnect. When did you and Tim intend to admit that?
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 20th November 2011, 10:46 AM   #5089
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Because that is still just your mistake that you have yet to cop to, you stuck that splinter in your eye and evidently simply don't want to remove it because you just like how things look to you now.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=5062

I took out my splinter immediately. You've yet to remove that log from Clinger's eye. Why not? B fields do not begin. They do not "end". They do not have a source. They do not have sink. They can't "reconnect" unless one of you three has a monopole up your sleeve. Got one?
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 20th November 2011, 11:12 AM   #5090
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_line

Quote:
For example, Gauss's law states that an electric field has sources at positive charges, sinks at negative charges, and neither elsewhere, so electric field lines start at positive charges and end at negative charges. (They can also potentially form closed loops, or extend to or from infinity). A gravitational field has no sources, it has sinks at masses, and it has neither elsewhere, gravitational field lines come from infinity and end at masses. A magnetic field has no sources or sinks (Gauss's law for magnetism), so its field lines have no start or end: they can only form closed loops, or extend to infinity in both directions.
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 20th November 2011, 12:41 PM   #5091
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,971
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That is just plain ridiculous. I admitted my error, but you have yet to set Clinger straight about B lines having no beginning or ending, no SOURCE and no SINK! As long as you IGNORE the fact that equations 16 and 17 relate to CURRENT, there's really nothing more to discuss.

No plasma, no induced current, no "magnetic charge" at equation 17, and no electrical discharge. The E field is the actual source and sink, and CURRENTS reconnect. When did you and Tim intend to admit that?
This is still just your error (in case you haven't realized it yet you had more than just one error), expecting others to "set Clinger straight" will not change that fact that it is still simply your error. Agian...

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
please tell us what is the magnitude and direction of the magnetic force vector (what the field lines represent) at a null point (hint the answers to both questions is given in the named of the point)?

That you apparently simply refuse to even attempt to address this question demonstrates that you just want to keep that particular splinter in your eye. Fine that’s your choice, but set yourself straight first before you expect us to take someone else to task for your own, now apparently deliberate, mistake.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 20th November 2011, 01:16 PM   #5092
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Magnetic field lines end at null points II

Preface: What is a "Field Line"?

Magnetic field lines are mathematical devices for describing and analyzing magnetic fields. They are not physically real objects. I have pointed this out before.

From 26 January 2010
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
I want to take another crack at the concept of field lines. One of the complaints leveled at the idea of magnetic reconnection is that the field lines are not physically real, which I think is an irrelevant point. So it does not hurt to consider for a moment exactly what a "field line" is supposed to be in some detail.

What is a "field line"?

"In electric and magnetic phenomena, the magnitude and direction of the resultant force at any point is the main subject of investigation. Suppose that the direction of the force at any point is known, then, if we draw a line so that in every part of its course it coincides with the direction of the force at that point, this line may be called a line of force, since it indicates the direction of the force in every part of its course.
By drawing a sufficient number of lines of force, we may indicate the direction of the force in every part of the space in which it acts.
Thus if we strew iron filings on paper near a magnet, each filing will be magnetized by induction, and the consecutive filings will unite by their opposite poles, so as to form fibres, and those fibres will indicate the direction of the lines of force. The beautiful illustration of the presence of magnetic force afforded by this experiment, naturally tends to make us think of the lines of force as something real, and as indicating something more than the mere resultant of two forces, whose seat of action is at a distance, and which do not exist there at all until a magnet is placed in that part of the field. We are dissatisfied with the explanation founded on the hypothesis of attractive and repellant forces directed towards the magnetic poles, even though we may have satisfied ourselves that the phenomenon is in strict accordance with that hypothesis, and we cannot help thinking that in every place where we find these lines of force, some physical state or action must exist in sufficient energy to produce the actual phenomena."

From the paper "On Physical Lines of Force" by James Clerk Maxwell, originally published in The Philosophical Magazine, vol. XXI (1861)
See The Scientific Papers of James Clark Maxwell, volume I; Dover publications, 2003, pages 451-452 (a republication of the 1965 Dover reprint of the original, published in 1890 by Cambridge University Press). Emphasis in the quote is from the original.
The concept for "lines of magnetic force" comes from Michael Faraday and was adopted by Maxwell (see On Faraday's Lines of Force; page 155 in the same volume I of Maxwell's collected papers; read Dec 10, 1855 and Feb 11, 1856). He later generalized the concept and used it to literally invent the theory of electromagnetic fields, and really the general topic of field theory (see A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field; page 526 in the same volume I of Maxwell's collected papers; read Dec 8, 1864; and see the subsection On Lines of Magnetic Force, page 551 and On Magnetic Equipotential Surfaces, page 553). In the passage above, where Maxwell begins "We are dissatisfied ...", he is expressing his dissatisfaction with the notion of "action at a distance" (an idea Newton did not like either), and his belief that some "physical state or action" must permeate the space around the magnet. That "physical state or action" of 1861 became Maxwell's electromagnetic field of 1864.

Just in case Maxwell is not good enough, here is another, more recent definition for a field line:

"If we join end-to-end infinitesimal vectors representing E, we get a curve in space - called a line of force - that is everywhere normal to the equipotential surfaces. The vector E is everywhere tangent to a line of forces"
From Electromagnetic Fields and Waves, Lorrain & Corson, W.H. Freeman & Co., 1970 (2nd edition), page 46 [this was my undergrad textbook]. This definition for an electric field line works just fine for a magnetic field, just replace E with B and you have the definition for a magnetic field line; the definition is general, so just substitute your favorite letter for your favorite field and you've got it.

By now it should be obvious that the field line cannot exist unless the vector that defines the field line exists. This is a crucial point as we shall see.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Quote:
For example, Gauss's law states that an electric field has sources at positive charges, sinks at negative charges, and neither elsewhere, so electric field lines start at positive charges and end at negative charges. (They can also potentially form closed loops, or extend to or from infinity). A gravitational field has no sources, it has sinks at masses, and it has neither elsewhere, gravitational field lines come from infinity and end at masses. A magnetic field has no sources or sinks (Gauss's law for magnetism), so its field lines have no start or end: they can only form closed loops, or extend to infinity in both directions.

Wikipedia is not an "authoritative source" for anything. In this case, it happens to be wrong, so unending repetitions of the same wrong quote are an exercise in futility. The first part of the highlighted sentence is correct, a magnetic field has no sources or sinks and satisfy Gauss's Law everywhere. However, the language that follows is incorrect. Obviously, if a field line ends at a neutral point or null point, then Gauss's Law is satisfied, and that is the one and only true restriction. "Magnetic field lines have no start or end" is not a law of physics and is wrong. "A magnetic field has no sources or sinks (Gauss's law for magnetism)" is correct.

All of this should be painfully obvious as a necessary consequence from the definition of a field line, given here from authoritative sources. Remember what i said would be crucial: the field line cannot exist unless the vector that defines the field line exists. At the null or neutral point the magnetic field vector does not exist. Therefore neither does the field line exist at that point. It is not esoteric & obscure reasoning to point out that if the field line exists, and then it does not exist, it must have ended somewhere. All of this derives not from the popular pages of Wikipedia, but from the rigorous definition of a field line (see proof that magnetic field lines can begin/end at a neutral point, W.D.Clinger, for the formal mathematics).

The final conclusion is obvious: Magnetic field lines can & do end at null or neutral points, and Mozina has failed to provide any authoritative evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I showed you in that source/sink paper in equations 16 and 17 that the "device" Priest actually uses is CURRENT.

I have no intention of further discussing the Invararity & Priest paper because it is entirely irrelevant. The computational trick used in that paper has never appeared anywhere else, yet Mozina treats is as if it is some fundamental aspect of all magnetic reconnection arguments. In fact it was never a very good idea, it appears in two obscure papers, was never done before and has not been done since. It does not appear in any text book on plasma physics or magnetic reconnection, especially & including Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Priest (the same Priest) and Forbes. If it was such a hot idea and Priest used it in a paper, then why does it not appear in his textbook? Because it was not such a hot idea, that's why. It has nothing at all to do with any serious discussion of 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
Tim Thompson 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 20th November 2011, 02:58 PM   #5093
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ines_never_end

Now I've seen EVERYTHING. You guys even changed that WIKI page! Unbelievable.
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 20th November 2011, 03:08 PM   #5094
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
This is still just your error (in case you haven't realized it yet you had more than just one error), expecting others to "set Clinger straight" will not change that fact that it is still simply your error. Agian...

That you apparently simply refuse to even attempt to address this question demonstrates that you just want to keep that particular splinter in your eye. Fine that’s your choice, but set yourself straight first before you expect us to take someone else to task for your own, now apparently deliberate, mistake.
Your whole question is a ruse. A NULL is not a "beginning" nor an ending of any magnetic line. You guy can't change enough wiki pages to hide the fact that B lines have no source or sink.
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 20th November 2011, 03:13 PM   #5095
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
The final conclusion is obvious: Magnetic field lines can & do end at null or neutral points, and Mozina has failed to provide any authoritative evidence to the contrary.
Boloney. I provided you with two authoritative references, one of which you folks CHANGED! I sure as hell didn't write that WIKI page and something like is sure as sugar exists in pretty much every intro to electromagnetism textbook on the planet. You guys can't change enough WIKI links and books to hide from your source/sink problem.

Quote:
I have no intention of further discussing the Invararity & Priest paper because it is entirely irrelevant. The computational trick used in that paper has never appeared anywhere else, yet Mozina treats is as if it is some fundamental aspect of all magnetic reconnection arguments.
What a crock! I pointed out the EXACT lines where Priest "cheated" and turned electrons into monopoles and now you don't want to talk about it. How funny. It's absolutely hysterical that one of you actually went so far to CHANGE A WIKI page because of this debate. Amazing.
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 20th November 2011, 03:19 PM   #5096
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Wiki Edit

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ines_never_end

Now I've seen EVERYTHING. You guys even changed that WIKI page! Unbelievable.

Interesting. Wasn't me, I've never edited a Wiki page, though I admit being tempted more than once. The revision page shows that the change was made by user "Tstein", who has done quite a bit of editing on that page, on 18 November at 23:20 (UT, I assume, which would be 15:30 PST).

What's "unbelievable" about it? It was wrong. Shouldn't Wiki pages with mistakes on them be corrected?
__________________
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
Tim Thompson 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 20th November 2011, 03:25 PM   #5097
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
What a crock! I pointed out the EXACT lines where Priest "cheated" and turned electrons into monopoles and now you don't want to talk about it.

Maybe now the discussion can move towards some actual support from the electric Sun advocates rather than the hollow unfounded criticism of the contemporary consensus position on the magnetic reconnection.

Quote:
How funny. It's absolutely hysterical that one of you actually went so far to CHANGE A WIKI page because of this debate.

It's not so much a debate as it is several knowledgeable people explaining the legitimate math and science of magnetic reconnection, and some off hand rejection of those explanations based on unsupported assertions and an apparent disdain for the term itself.
GeeMack 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 20th November 2011, 03:35 PM   #5098
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Wiki Edit II

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
It's absolutely hysterical that one of you actually went so far to CHANGE A WIKI page because of this debate. Amazing.

What's really hysterical is that you think it's hysterical.

Do you even know what Wikipedia is? It's "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". If you're so offended, and so sure you are right, then register as a Wiki user and re-edit the page yourself to put back whatever you think should be there. Then you can have this whole discussion again in the Wiki talk arena, that should be fun. The Magnetic Field Page has been edited 50 times just since mid September! Wikipedia pages change all the time, every day.

I think it's hysterical that you think it's hysterical that somebody actually had the nerve, the gaul, the raw arrogance to actually ... wait for it ... edit a Wikipedia page!
__________________
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
Tim Thompson 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 20th November 2011, 03:39 PM   #5099
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch11/ch11.html

This page is wrong too I presume?

Quote:
The nonexistence of magnetic monopoles means that unlike an electric field, a magnetic one, can never have sources or sinks. The magnetic field vectors lead in paths that loop back on themselves, without ever converging or diverging at a point, as in the fields shown in figure r.
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 20th November 2011, 03:41 PM   #5100
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
What's really hysterical is that you think it's hysterical.

Do you even know what Wikipedia is? It's "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".
It's the fact that one of you would actually DO IT because of this debate that is "hysterical". You folks can't edit enough textbooks and WIKI pages to hide from your source/sink problem.
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 20th November 2011, 03:47 PM   #5101
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://math.mit.edu/classes/18.013A/...section02.html

Oh Look, MIT has it all wrong too:

Quote:
He found that magnetic field lines have no sources or sinks, and instead form closed loops. Electric field lines on the other hand originate at the locations of positive charge, which are its "sources" and end where there is negative charge, called "sinks".
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 20th November 2011, 03:48 PM   #5102
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,971
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Your whole question is a ruse. A NULL is not a "beginning" nor an ending of any magnetic line. You guy can't change enough wiki pages to hide the fact that B lines have no source or sink.
Your pretence of a "ruse" is not an answer, the question is simple and direct. Why hide from it, unless the only "ruse" is entirely yours? Oh and I've never changed or contributed to any "wiki pages".
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 20th November 2011, 03:52 PM   #5103
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys13...inductance.htm

Quote:
Maxwell’s equations predict that static magnetic fields are produced by moving charges or currents. There are no magnetic charges, and therefore no sources and sinks for magnetic field lines. Static magnetic fields lines ALWAYS form closed loops. They encircle moving charges according to the right hand rule.
I guess the University of Tennessee - Knoxville is clueless too eh?
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 20th November 2011, 05:46 PM   #5104
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Try reading what you cite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_line
Quote:
Precise definition
A vector field defines a direction at all points in space; a field line for that vector field may be constructed by tracing a topographic path in the direction of the vector field. More precisely, the tangent line to the path at each point is required to be parallel to the vector field at that point.
A complete description of the geometry of all the field lines of a vector field is sufficient to completely specify the direction of the vector field everywhere. In order to also depict the magnitude, a selection of field lines is drawn such that the density of field lines (number of field lines per unit perpendicular area) at any location is proportional to the magnitude of the vector field at that point.
...
A magnetic field has no sources or sinks (Gauss's law for magnetism), so its field lines have no start or end: they can only form closed loops, or extend to infinity in both directions.
The latter part of the quote is incorrect. A magnetic field has no sources or sinks. This does not mean that field lines cannot end or start. Gauss's law for magnetism means that any field line that ends at a point has to have a corresponding field line that starts.
A neutral point is not a source of magnetic field.
A neutral point is not a sink of magnetic field.
A neutral point is a point where there is no magnetic field.

Magnetic field lines that cross a neutral point have to break (MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point) thus forming one incoming line that ends and one outgong line that starts. Gauss's law for magnetism is not violated.

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th November 2011 at 05:52 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 20th November 2011, 05:56 PM   #5105
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ines_never_end

Now I've seen EVERYTHING. You guys even changed that WIKI page! Unbelievable.
Now I've seen EVERYTHING. The belief that "we" guys even changed that WIKI page! Unbelievable. !

This just demonstrates how dangerous it is to rely on Wikipedia as your primary source. The definitions that it states (like that for field lines) are reliable. The interpretations can be wrong, e.g. Gauss's law for magnetism actually means that any field line that ends at a point has to have a corresponding field line that starts at that point. The definition of a field line means that there are no field lines where there is no vector field (the density of field lines is zero).
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 20th November 2011, 06:00 PM   #5106
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_b...ch11/ch11.html

This page is wrong too I presume?
Since it is not talking about magnteic reconnection - yes.
What is Magnetic Reconnection?
Quote:
Magnetic reconnection (henceforth called "reconnection") refers to the breaking and reconnecting of oppositely directed magnetic field lines in a plasma. In the process, magnetic field energy is converted to plasma kinetic and thermal energy.
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 20th November 2011, 06:09 PM   #5107
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://math.mit.edu/classes/18.013A/...section02.html

Oh Look, MIT has it all wrong too:
Oh Look, The ignorance that MIT researches magnetic reconnection and calls it ... magnetic reconnection!

Shall we mention about 2800 Google Scholar results for "magnetic reconnection field lines break"?
What about the 1,580 results for the same criteria in Google Books?
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 20th November 2011, 06:14 PM   #5108
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys13...inductance.htm
I guess the University of Tennessee - Knoxville is clueless too eh?
I guess that you want to demonstrate that you remain clueless that neutral points are not sources or sinks of magnetic field.
MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point and does not violate Gauss's law for magnetism.
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 20th November 2011, 06:18 PM   #5109
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Your pretence of a "ruse" is not an answer, the question is simple and direct. Why hide from it, unless the only "ruse" is entirely yours? Oh and I've never changed or contributed to any "wiki pages".
I've already answered that question in this thread. 0+0=0. So what? That does not mean that the X is the beginning or the ending of any of those lines, let alone every magnetic line in the UNIVERSE! OMG.

I've even taken the time to POINT OUT where Priest turns electrons/current (equation 16) into "magnetic charge" (equation 17). Holy Cow. What more can I do? The E field is the source and sink of the kinetic energy, and the electron is the transfer device, not a monopole.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 20th November 2011 at 06:31 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 20th November 2011, 06:23 PM   #5110
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Look folks, it's really simple:

No electrons, no protons, no induced current, no electrical discharge in plasma. The E field is the source and sink of Priests energy conversion "device". The magnetic line is not a source, nor a sink of any B Line. The electron kinetic energy (AKA current) is simply being "mathematically transformed" in equation 17 into "magnetic charge". I don't know how much more fundamentally *WRONG* that is, not not mention DAMN CONFUSING, but not a single magnetic line begins or end at ORIGIN, the fake source/sink god of the magnetic NULL void. The source and sink of the actual kinetic energy is the induced E field, not Origin the big fat zero.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 20th November 2011 at 06:26 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 20th November 2011, 06:42 PM   #5111
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Look folks, it's really simple:

No electrons, no protons, no induced current, no electrical discharge in plasma. The E field is the source and sink of Priests energy conversion "device". The magnetic line is not a source, nor a sink of any B Line. The electron kinetic energy (AKA current) is simply being "mathematically transformed" in equation 17 into "magnetic charge". I don't know how much more fundamentally *WRONG* that is, not not mention DAMN CONFUSING, but not a single magnetic line begins or end at ORIGIN, the fake source/sink god of the magnetic NULL void. The source and sink of the actual kinetic energy is the induced E field, not Origin the big fat zero.

Again, arguing that there is a flaw in the premise while admitting to not understanding it is an argument from ignorance. When the "misunderstanding" is intentional, it's willful ignorance.
GeeMack 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 20th November 2011, 06:59 PM   #5112
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Again, arguing that there is a flaw in the premise while admitting to not understanding it is an argument from ignorance. When the "misunderstanding" is intentional, it's willful ignorance.
In your case it's willful ignorance. You *STILL* have never read a book on plasma physics.
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 20th November 2011, 07:48 PM   #5113
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Look folks, it's really simple:

No electrons, no protons, no induced current, no electrical discharge in plasma. The E field is the source and sink of Priests energy conversion "device". The magnetic line is not a source, nor a sink of any B Line. ...gibberish snipped....
Look folks, it's really gibberish wriiten by Michael Mozina
  1. No one would be idiotic enough to think that with no electrons and no protons, there would be plasma. That is a vacuum.
  2. The EM field is the source and sink of Priests energy conversion "device".
  3. No electrical discharge in plasma (Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma) !
  4. "The magnetic line is not a source, nor a sink of any B Line" is gibberish as is the rest of the post.
The null point in magnetic reconnection (e.g. in a vacuum, despite Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section ) is no a source or sink of magnetic field. Any magnetic field line that enters the null point is matched by a magnetic field line that leaves the null point. A source has field lines that all start at it. A sink has field lines that all end at it.
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 20th November 2011, 08:00 PM   #5114
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
In your case it's willful ignorance. You *STILL* have never read a book on plasma physics.

Regardless of the persistent, uncivil, and dishonest attempts to make it so, this discussion is not about me. It is about the electric Sun conjecture. With over 5000 posts and not a trace of objective quantitative support for that notion, pretty much everyone has noticed that any pretense of supporting an electric Sun conjecture was abandoned a long time ago. I, like most others here, recognize that the entire premise is built on nothing but logical fallacies, dishonest redefinitions of terms, severe misunderstandings of contemporary and historical science, and intellectually bankrupt arguments.
GeeMack 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 20th November 2011, 08:10 PM   #5115
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,136
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I've even taken the time to POINT OUT where Priest turns electrons/current (equation 16) into "magnetic charge" (equation 17). Holy Cow. What more can I do?
Holy Cow - you can try to understand the physics!
Holy Cow - you can try to understand that there are no actual monopoles in the paper. They are computational devices.
Holy Cow - you can try reading the abstract even!
The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field
Quote:
...The properties of monopole and dipole solutions in particular are discussed and it is shown that isolated magnetic charges exist only in the potential limit and not in a linear force-free field.
So we have a paper about "a linear force-free field" and the abstract states that "isolated magnetic charges" do not exist in a linear force-free field.

As for equations 16 and 17, there is no problem there.
Quote:
3. Study of the particular case l=0
3.1 Singularity along the negative z-Axis
Equation (15) gives a singular field only on the negative part of the z-axis. Here both currents and magnetic charges are present:
Ampere's theorem gives a current along the z-axis of magnitude
[equation 16]
Gauss' theorem applied to a core starting from the origin gives a density for magnetic charges along the z-axis of
[equation 17]
Kinetic energy does not appear at all in the equations so your " E field is the source and sink of the kinetic energy" is just a fantasy.
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 21st November 2011, 08:28 AM   #5116
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,971
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I've already answered that question in this thread. 0+0=0. So what? That does not mean that the X is the beginning or the ending of any of those lines, let alone every magnetic line in the UNIVERSE! OMG.


"0+0=0"? What the heck are you talking about the question did not reference a summation. Oh and just for your edification 1 + -1 = 0 as well.

So here is the question again…

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
please tell us what is the magnitude and direction of the magnetic force vector (what the field lines represent) at a null point (hint the answers to both questions is given in the named of the point)?


Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I've even taken the time to POINT OUT where Priest turns electrons/current (equation 16) into "magnetic charge" (equation 17). Holy Cow. What more can I do? The E field is the source and sink of the kinetic energy, and the electron is the transfer device, not a monopole.
Take all the time you want to point out anything you want about that paper, since it is irrelevant to the question you are deliberately avoiding.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 21st November 2011, 08:56 AM   #5117
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
a simple derivation of magnetic reconnection, part 5 of 5

In this final part 5, we use the magnetic fields developed in parts 1 through 4 to understand the two main results of [Dungey 1958] (see references at the bottom of this post).


Review of parts 1 through 4

My web page on magnetic reconnection contains a more graphic summary of parts 1 through 4 of this derivation. Here I'll just highlight the main facts we need for part 5.

Starting from Maxwell's equations, we derived the magnetic field that's generated by four conducting rods at the corners of a square. When all four rods carry the same current, with the current running in the same direction for rods that are on the same diagonal of the square but in the opposite direction for rods on the other diagonal, we get a magnetic field B4 that approximates Dungey's figure 1.

The center of that square is a neutral point (where B4 is zero). Even tiny variations in the magnetic field can result in magnetic reconnection of magnetic field lines at the neutral point.

All magnetic fields, including B4, satisfy Gauss's law for magnetism, which states that the divergence of the magnetic flux density is zero at every point; equivalently, the magnetic flux through every closed surface is zero. That implies there are no magnetic monopoles, sinks, or sources. All of that is easy to prove for B4, and I have proved it several times using several different methods of proof.

I have also proved that, for every value of the z coordinate, the xy plane determined by z contains two magnetic field lines that begin at the neutral point and two other magnetic field lines that end at the neutral point. B4 therefore serves as a simple counterexample to a popular myth that has been repeated by Wikipedia and other unreliable sources. (Michael Mozina and other EU folk have relied upon that myth as the technical basis for their denials of magnetic reconnection. Since the myth is untrue, their denials have no technical basis at all.)

Reducing the current through the rods in one diagonal to zero while maintaining a constant current through the other rods gives us a much more dramatic example of magnetic reconnection. When current flows through only two parallel rods, and flows in the same direction through each rod, we get a "figure 8" field B2 that reproduces Dungey's figure 2.

That figure 8 field B2 also contains a neutral point, and provides yet another counterexample to the Wikipedia-endorsed myth. It's not quite as simple, because the magnetic field lines that begin or end at the neutral point of B2 are curved instead of straight. That makes this counterexample's calculations more complicated than for B4.

The magnetic fields B4 and B2 are vacuum solutions of Maxwell's equations. Once those vacuum solutions are thoroughly understood, we can reproduce the main results of [Dungey 1958] by considering what happens when we introduce some plasma and allow a magnetic field such as B4 to act upon charged particles that are moving in the z direction.


Historical context

Dungey's 1958 paper is only 5 pages long, but it contains several minor errors that confused me on my first readings of it. (I'll point out some of those errors below.) Another problem is that Dungey's paper is a reply to a 1953 paper by T G Cowling, and I have not read Cowling's paper (which does not appear to be available online).

In the first sentence of the introduction to Dungey's 1958 paper, Dungey writes:

Originally Posted by Dungey
The suggestion that a solar flare results from an electrical discharge situated in the neighborhood of a neutral point of the magnetic field was made by Giovanelli [2].
That's puzzling, because I don't see the word "discharge" anywhere within the paper cited [Giovanelli 1947].

Originally Posted by Dungey
The defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density.
Aha. Giovanelli talked a lot about current density.

It must have been Dungey (or Cowling) who put the word "discharge" into Giovanelli's mouth. Evidently "discharge" is Dungey's or Cowling's idiosyncratic synonym for "large current density". In what follows, I will speak of current density instead of discharges, because current density has a mathematically precise meaning and is less misleading than the word "discharge".

In [Giovanelli 1947], Giovanelli was trying to figure out how a large current density could be associated with sunspots and solar flares. Giovanelli argued that electric fields alone can't do the job, so he turned to magnetic fields. Giovanelli then argued that magnetic fields can't produce large current densities either except in the vicinity of a neutral point.

(Giovanelli was still assuming that the large current density would be generated by induction, and was trying to figure out how induction could generate a large current density fast enough to be consistent with observation. It is my impression that modern researchers have pretty much given up on induction as the source of these particular large current densities, because induction processes can't go fast enough.)

T G Cowling apparently objected to Giovanelli's hypothesis that large current densities occur in solar flares near neutral points of the magnetic field. Cowling gave two distinct reasons for his objection:
  1. According to calculations, the large current density would occur in a sheet that's only a few meters thick, and Cowling just didn't believe something so thin could cause the observed phenomena.
  2. Cowling thought Lenz's law would limit the current density.
The first of those objections was just an argument from incredulity. Dungey answered the second of those objections by a qualitative argument using magnetic fields similar to B4 [Dungey 1958].

Before we consider Dungey's arguments in detail, let's take a moment to understand how a small plasma current can interact with B4 to form a thin sheet of increased current density near the neutral point.


Interaction with plasma current: first-order approximation

The second paragraph of Dungey's second section begins with these observations:

Originally Posted by Dungey
Consider a neutral point N, where the lines of force in one plane have the form shown in Fig. 1. The limiting lines of force through N form an X and would be perpendicular, if there were no current flowing in the z-direction (normal to the paper).
With no current, the situation is exactly what we saw in a vacuum with B4, and exactly what we saw when we zoomed in on the neutral point of B4.

Originally Posted by Dungey
For the field of Fig. 1 there is a roughly uniform current in the z-direction, which contributes a field directed clockwise.
Something's wrong here. As we saw in part 2 of this derivation, a current in the z-direction contributes a field directed counterclockwise, not clockwise.

Dungey appears to be thinking of electrons drifting in the z-direction. Because the electrons are negatively charged, their movement in the z-direction counts as a current in the opposite direction. (We have Benjamin Franklin to blame for that.)

In what follows, I will assume the plasma current is in the negative z-direction, and consists entirely of electrons moving in the positive z-direction. I will also assume the plasma is electrically neutral, as would result from the presence of stationary protons or other positively charged particles that balance the charge of the electrons. So far as I can tell, those assumptions are consistent with everything in [Dungey 1958].

With those assumptions, Dungey's figure 1 makes sense:



The magnetic force always runs perpendicular to both the current and the magnetic field. If the current were running in the positive z direction, then Dungey's magnetic force lines (labelled "f") would be pointed in the wrong direction, but Dungey's magnetic force lines are correct for a current flowing in the negative z direction.

Along the x axis, the magnetic force compresses the current toward the neutral point N. Along the y axis, the magnetic force pulls the current away from the neutral point. Those forces result in a narrow sheet of current near the neutral point. The sheet is narrow along the x axis, and long along the y axis.

(For that result, Dungey cites one of his own papers from 1953, but it's pretty obvious from Dungey's figure 1 and the argument given above.)

T G Cowling agreed that pre-existing magnetic fields similar to B4 would tend to flatten any current near the neutral point into a sheet, but Cowling thought that flattening process would be limited by Lenz's law:

Quote:
The effect of induced currents is always to oppose the changes to which they are due.

The main result of Dungey's 1958 paper is that Lenz's law does not limit the flattening of currents near the neutral points of magnetic fields such as B4 and B2:

Originally Posted by Dungey
It is found, however, that Lenz's law is reversed at a neutral point and this will now be explained.
To understand that reversal, we must look at what happens to the magnetic field when a fairly uniform current in the (minus) z direction is compressed into a small region of high current density near the neutral point.


Interaction with plasma current: second-order approximation

A small and uniform current in the z or minus-z direction has little influence near the neutral point of B4, so long as that current is centered near the neutral point and is uniform over a much larger region than the region we're examining. (Why? Because the magnetic field generated by that current at some point p is dominated by the contributions of the nearby current. When the nearby current is nearly uniform, its contributions to the magnetic field at p nearly cancel.)

As noted above, however, magnetic fields such as B4 tend to concentrate that current into a sheet near the neutral point. As that happens, the magnetic field generated by the increased current density near the neutral point begins to distort the original magnetic field, resulting in magnetic reconnection that looks something like this:



That animation was created by adding a fifth conducting rod to the four rods that generate the field B4, and placing that fifth rod at the origin and parallel to the other four rods. When no current is running through that fifth rod, we get the initial magnetic field B4:

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Epheme...re1zoomout.png

Zooming in on the origin, we see this:



Increasing the current through the fifth rod to 2% of the current through the other four rods begins to distort the magnetic field:

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Epheme...ness/MR/b5.png



Comparing that graph to the one above it, we see that the field line in the NE quadrant that originally ended at the origin has merged with the field line in the SE quadrant that originally began at the origin, and that merged field line is moving away from the origin toward the east. Similarly, the field line in the SW quadrant that originally ended at the origin has merged with the field line in the NW quadrant that originally began at the origin, and that merged field line is moving away from the origin toward the west.

Meanwhile, the eight field lines whose arrows were originally marked near the y axis are becoming weaker as they advance toward the origin. (Why weaker? The current at the origin is running in the negative z direction, so its contribution to the magnetic field runs clockwise, which cancels some of the original intensity of the field lines that were running in more of a counterclockwise direction.) The original neutral point has now split into two black regions of very weak (but not quite zero) magnetic field intensity on the y axis above and below the origin.

Increasing the current through the fifth rod to 8% of the current through the other four rods results in still more magnetic reconnection and an even more obviously asymmetric magnetic field:

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Epheme...ess/MR/b5A.png



The vertical stretching and horizontal compression of the X shape is beginning to become evident in that graph, although it has not yet reached the level of distortion shown in Dungey's figure 1.

Getting back to Lenz's law, we can now use our five-rod approximation to answer a non-trivial question about plasma physics: Has the increasing current density at the origin acted to diminish the magnetic force that was causing the increase in current density?

No! The magnetic field lines that were compressing the plasma along the x axis toward the origin have become stronger, not weaker. Meanwhile, the magnetic field lines that were pulling the plasma away from the origin along the y axis have become weaker. The net result of increasing current density at the origin is to increase the forces that will increase that current density still further.

Originally Posted by Dungey
It is only necessary to consider the signs of the variables to show that they all increase in magnitude indefinitely, and hence Lenz's law is reversed.
That is the most important result of Dungey's 1958 paper.


Dungey's speculation about magnetic reconnection

In his section 4, Dungey performs a few simple calculations to show that an extremely thin sheet of very high current density could produce the observed emissions from solar flares. Those calculations dismiss Cowling's argument from incredulity.

That's the second main result of Dungey's paper.

Dungey doesn't stop there, however.

Having gone through the exercises above, Dungey obviously knew about the magnetic reconnections that result from increasing current density near the neutral point of an X-shaped magnetic field, and was impressed by how rapidly those reconnections occur and by how violently they snap the magnetic forces around.

Dungey goes on to speculate about the possible importance of those magnetic reconnections. (Recall that "discharge" is just Dungey's word for the rapid increase in current density near the neutral point.)

Originally Posted by Dungey
The effect of the discharge is to 'reconnect' the lines of force at the neutral point, and this happens quickly. The 'reconnection' upsets the mechanical equilibrium in the neighborhood in a way that can be visualized, if the lines of force are seen as strings. Then the mechanical disturbance will spread from the neutral point and may have energy comparable to the energy of the spot field in the solar atmosphere. This disturbance, characterized by a sudden onset, may account for several features: surge prominences and Doppler shifts, which are probably different aspects of the same phenomenon; the emission of a mechanical disturbance responsible for magnetic storms; the activation of prominences; the triggering of other neutral points, in whose neighborhood the field is weak, resulting in multiple flares.

I am not a physicist. To me, that looks like hand-waving. It was informed hand-waving, however. I am not qualified to evaluate Dungey's speculation, or to evaluate the role of magnetic reconnection in solar flares, but it isn't hard to understand that Dungey is speculating about the possible effects of magnetic reconnection.


Conclusion

Starting with the basics of electromagnetism as taught by first-year textbooks such as Edward M Purcell's Electricy and Magnetism, and using little math beyond basic vector calculus, we have proved that magnetic reconnection is an undeniable consequence of Maxwell's equations.

Along the way, we have refuted several common myths about magnetic fields.

We concluded this five-part series by using a variation of the experiment I've been recommending to Michael Mozina to replicate the main result of [Dungey 1958].

For easy reference, I have created a web page that links to all parts of this series (and links to some related material as well).


References

[Dungey 1958] J W Dungey. The neutral point discharge theory of solar flares. A reply to Cowling's criticism. Proceedings of Electromagnetic Phenomena in Cosmical Physics, edited by Bo Lehnert. International Astronomical Union number 6, Cambridge University Press, page 135.

[Giovanelli 1947] R G Giovanelli. Magnetic and electric phenomena in the sun's atmosphere associated with sunspots. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 107, 1947, pages 338-355.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 21st November 2011 at 09:26 AM. Reason: removed bogus line break, corrected a quotation
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 21st November 2011, 09:12 AM   #5118
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,971
Very nice work W.D. Clinger!!!!


But just remember that “0+0=0”, so clearly Michael Mozina thinks the vector contributions at a null point must also be, well, null yet somehow presumes such a ludicrous position will help him. It does not bode well for him.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 21st November 2011, 09:46 AM   #5119
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Very nice work W.D. Clinger!!!!
Ya, nice work LYING through his teeth when he said he would duplicate Dungey's reconnection process IN A VACUUM! Nothing like bait and switch advertizing.

Not a SINGLE magnetic line "begins or ends" in his experiment, either in a vacuum or in plasma. ORIGIN is neither a sink, nor a source of B field lines. All the lines simply traverse ORIGIN at a zero energy strength. Whatever kinetic energy occurs occurs due to the ELECTRIC field, not due to Origin the big fat zero.

No plasma, no DISCHARGE. No plasma, no INDUCED current. No CURRENT, no "magnetic charges" in Priests paper at equation 17, and no "magnetic reconnection". After BSing his way through the entire presentation, KLUDGING basic theory to hell in terms of B line sources and sinks, and then FINALLY doing a bait and switch at the end, yes indeed, he CAN come up with an 'electrical discharge' *IN PLASMA*.

Oy Vey. His *ENTIRE* presentation was pure BS. He accomplished NOTHING in his VACUUM in terms of the release of kinetic energy and he *STILL* thinks induction didn't do it. Pathetic.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 21st November 2011 at 09:48 AM.
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 21st November 2011, 09:49 AM   #5120
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger
I suggested that experiment to you because it would have helped you to understand that

Dungey is describing magnetic reconnection.
There is no "circuit reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
There is no "current reconnection" in Dungey's paper.
The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can be reproduced without plasma.
The magnetic reconnection described in Dungey's paper can occur with a near-zero electric (E) field.
Which of these statements do you still stand by?
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
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 05:32 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.