Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

 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.
 29th March 2011, 12:04 PM #161 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem No, MHD is valid and useful. What Alfvén complained about was people using the frozen in concept on face value, without checking whether it was appropriate to use. Modern cosmology is not based on MDH. He would *STILL* complain about it since you're talking about *CURRENT CARRYING* plasma, and in such situations he *ALWAYS* rejected MR theory and ALWAYS preferred a "circuit/particle" orientation to a "magnetic/field" orientation.
 29th March 2011, 12:06 PM #162 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,202 Originally Posted by michaelsuede And the thing he got wrong is what modern cosmology is predicated on. No it isn't. Not in the slightest. Modern cosmology is based around general relativity.
 29th March 2011, 12:08 PM #163 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,202 Michael M, what are your views on Michael S's claim that "MHD theory is a load of junk science"?
 29th March 2011, 12:08 PM #164 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,982 Originally Posted by michaelsuede He explicitly predicted the existence of those double layers before they were confirmed by satellites. Methinks, you are mixing up Alfvén with Birkeland. Not double layers were predicted, but field aligned currents. Double layers were already studied in some form by Langmuir. The real study in the lab was started by Schoenhuber in the late 50s. Alfvén did propose that they might exist above the auroral regions. __________________ 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
 29th March 2011, 12:09 PM #165 michaelsuede Graduate Poster     Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1,416 Originally Posted by tusenfem And clearly you have not understood a word of what I have written. I have not mentioned MDH, I have just described what happens in Stenzel & Gekelman's experiment. I have explained about the direction of the double layer. Care to actually put some effort in reading what I write instead of glancing over and then come back with nonsense plattitudes? Maybe you should start to explain why the centre of a current sheet cannot be modeled by MHD. I understand your argument, and I also understand why it doesn't hold up as refuting the circuit theory cause of reconnection. You are arguing that the DL can't accelerate particles in the direction of observed reconnection. The paper I just linked demonstrates that this is not true. You can model the center of a current sheet just fine using MHD. However, you will not be able to actually give reasons for anything that is observed there without using circuit theory to explain the causative agents behind the instabilities. And you also can't use MHD to describe what results from those instabilities, such as the formation of double layers.
 29th March 2011, 12:09 PM #166 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,129 Originally Posted by michaelsuede They gain energy by ramping across a DL and the plasma gets it kinetic energy from the particles impinging on the anode and cathode side of the DL. No this is not the source of energy increase in magnetic reconnection. Double layers and magnetic reconnection are two separate phenomena. They generally occur separately. There are situations in which evidence for both have been observed. e.g. some solar flares (caused by magnetic reconnection) emit beams of electrons that are thought to be accelerated by DL. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 29th March 2011 at 12:33 PM.
 29th March 2011, 12:15 PM #167 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tubbythin Michael M, what are your views on Michael S's claim that "MHD theory is a load of junk science"? I think I felt the same way that Alfven felt and that Michael S still feels about it until I read Birn's paper. It became incredibly clear from those debates (at space.com) that it was "circuits" and "particles" doing the actual "reconnection' inside of a "double layer". Whereas Alfven literally "rejected" the whole B orientation under such conditions, I couldn't personally bring myself to do that. The B's however can be converted to E's and the whole thing becomes a PARTICLE/CIRCUIT problem. I too prefer the particle/circuit orientation in current carrying plasma so I call it "circuit reconnection". It's not actually any magnetic lines that do any "reconnecting", it's the circuits and the particles that "reconnect" (literally slam into one another) at the point of intersection inside of a double layer. Any time Alfven found a double layer, he claimed it put another nail in the coffin of MR theory. MR theory will always be 'pseudoscience" because it's only every going to be "pseudo-correct". It's not however the magnetic lines that "reconnect", so it will never be "100% correct" as long as it has such a stupid name.
 29th March 2011, 12:17 PM #169 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,202 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I think I felt the same way that Alfven felt and that Michael S still feels about it until I read Birn's paper. It became incredibly clear from those debates (at space.com) that it was "circuits" and "particles" doing the actual "reconnection' inside of a "double layer". Whereas Alfven literally "rejected" the whole B orientation under such conditions, I couldn't personally bring myself to do that. The B's however can be converted to E's and the whole thing becomes a PARTICLE/CIRCUIT problem. I too prefer the particle/circuit orientation in current carrying plasma so I call it "circuit reconnection". It's not actually any magnetic lines that do any "reconnecting", it's the circuits and the particles that "reconnect" (literally slam into one another) at the point of intersection inside of a double layer. Any time Alfven found a double layer, he claimed it put another nail in the coffin of MR theory. MR theory will always be 'pseudoscience" because it's only every going to be "pseudo-correct". It's not however the magnetic lines that "reconnect", so it will never be "100% correct" as long as it has such a stupid name. I asked what you thought about MS's opinions on MHD, not on MR.
 29th March 2011, 12:18 PM #170 michaelsuede Graduate Poster     Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1,416 [quote=Reality Check;7027611] Originally Posted by michaelsuede They gain energy by ramping across a DL and the plasma gets it kinetic energy from the particles impinging on the anode and cathode side of the DL. [/quote[ No this is not the source of energy increase in magnetic reconnection. Double layers and magnetic reconnection are two separate phenomena. They generally occur separately. There are situations in which evidence for both have been observed. e.g. some solar flares (caused by magnetic reconnection) emit beams of electrons that are thought to be accelerated by DL. In the lab, they do not occur separately. From what we know to be true about the laboratory proven physics of "reconnection" - the DL plays a role as a causative agent involved in the transfer of energy. Neglecting the existence of DLs by modeling reconnection events entirely in MHD frameworks does not mean they do not exist in real life. MHD theory is incapable of accounting for them, which is why they never pop up in discussions of reconnection. Given that we know localized instabilities will generate regions of varying voltage / potential, we know that there will be DLs formed.
 29th March 2011, 12:23 PM #172 dafydd Banned   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398 Originally Posted by tusenfem That is just idiotic, MM. Why on earth or in space or on the sun, would a current carrying plasma not be able to have magnetic reconnection? It is a frakking requirement of MHD or Maxwell's equations that if you have two regions with oppositely directed magnetic field that there is a current flowing, which facilitates the changing direction and magnitude of the magnetic field. So, when are you going to present us your circuit model of reconnection? I made a start for you in the other thread, but when you found that you actually had to do some real work, you suddenly gave up. Guess you can only write misconceptions about plasma physics, go figure. The math is beyond him. Beyond MM too.
 29th March 2011, 12:36 PM #173 michaelsuede Graduate Poster     Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1,416 Originally Posted by tusenfem No, neither of those do what you say. Alfvén used a double layer to unwind a magnetic loop on the sun. Alfvén used an exploding double layer and said it was what happens in a flare, but arguments have been made that it will not come so far, for various reasons (see your own thread). Onel and Mann describe large e fields and use circuits. That has been discussed and has nothing to do with reconnection. Please give me the E orientation of magnetic reconnection (or should that be electric reconnection then ???). I asked that before and got a nonsense answer. But one can hope. michael2 should get something together. The plasma expands primarily in the direction of ion flow: http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/web%2...rom%20Lab..pdf Toward the cathode.
 29th March 2011, 12:38 PM #174 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,982 Originally Posted by michaelsuede The plasma expands primarily in the direction of ion flow: http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/web%2...rom%20Lab..pdf Toward the cathode. What kind of comment is that supposed to be? __________________ 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
 29th March 2011, 12:41 PM #175 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,129 Originally Posted by michaelsuede In the lab, they do not occur separately. ...snipped unsupported assertions... In the lab they do occur separately. There are many magnetic reconnection experiments. In some experiments DLs are also detected, e.g. these 1982 and 1983 experiments Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment N.B. AFAIK current sheet disruption happens after the magnetic reconnection event. Magnetic Field Line Reconnection Experiments, 5. Current Disruptions and Double Layers __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 29th March 2011, 12:51 PM #176 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,129 Originally Posted by tusenfem What kind of comment is that supposed to be? It is certainly a strange reply. The paper turns out to be Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986 So he cites people who say that magnetic reconnection exists and worked with it a lot in the 1980s ! ETA: There is that double layers can be caused by current disruption. ETA2: And the paper that he cites proves that the current disruption and so the DL happens after the magnetic reconnection! __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 29th March 2011 at 02:32 PM.
 29th March 2011, 12:52 PM #177 michaelsuede Graduate Poster     Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1,416 Originally Posted by Reality Check In the lab they do occur separately. There are many magnetic reconnection experiments. In some experiments DLs are also detected, e.g. these 1982 and 1983 experiments Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment N.B. AFAIK current sheet disruption happens after the magnetic reconnection event. Magnetic Field Line Reconnection Experiments, 5. Current Disruptions and Double Layers The DLs are the mechanism that imparts kinetic energy to the particles. As I stated earlier, what causes the instabilities in the current sheet is external to the sheet and a property of the circuit. You can have all sorts of instabilities without them resulting in the formation of a double layer. However, it is the formation of a double layer that drives 'reconnection'. An explosive release of energy can not occur without the onset of a DL.
 29th March 2011, 12:53 PM #178 michaelsuede Graduate Poster     Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1,416 Originally Posted by Reality Check It is certainly a strange reply. The paper turns out to be Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986 So he cites people who say that magnetic reconnection exists and worked with it a lot in the 1980s ! I'll agree to magnetic reconnection if you agree to that paper's theory about what causes it.
 29th March 2011, 02:17 PM #179 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,129 Originally Posted by michaelsuede I'll agree to magnetic reconnection if you agree to that paper's theory about what causes it. That 1986 (see below about why I have this in bold) paper says nothing about what causes magnetic reconnection. It states that magnetic reconnection exists and presumably the authors are capable of reading basic textbooks on electromagnetism and seeing that the cause is the reconfiguration of magnetic fields as allowed by Maxwell's laws. It says that after the magnetic reconnection there is current sheet disruption. That current sheet disruption can cause DLs. So I guess that you "agree to magnetic reconnection" . The point of the paper is that there is a regime in which the usual MHD concepts (e.g. Alfven waves and frozen-in magnetic fields) are violated and have to be replaced with other concepts such as Whistler waves. That is basically what Alfven said, i.e. the frozen-in magnetic field approximation was being applied to inappropriate regimes. That is why modern (2011) plasma physicists are careful to not apply the frozen-in magnetic field approximation inappropriately. In these regimes they use resistive MHD rather than ideal MHD. When the plasma is collisionless, they add in the Hall effect. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 29th March 2011, 02:30 PM #180 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,129 Originally Posted by michaelsuede The DLs are the mechanism that imparts kinetic energy to the particles. ... Repeating a wrong assertion does not make it true. When there is just magnetic reconnection, magnetic reconnection is the mechanism that imparts kinetic energy to the particles. When there is magnetic reconnnetion + DLs then both mechanisms impart kinetic energy to the particles. The formation of the DLs happens after the magnetic reconnection. See Figure 9 in Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986 ! Can you read it, michaelsuede? Can you see the disruption happening after the reconnection, michaelsuede? Can you understand the abstract where it stated that the double layers happen after the disruption, michaelsuede? __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 29th March 2011 at 02:31 PM.
 29th March 2011, 02:37 PM #181 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,129 Originally Posted by michaelsuede However, it is the formation of a double layer that drives 'reconnection'. An explosive release of energy can not occur without the onset of a DL. I will emphasis this one more time in case it is not clear to you, michaelsuede. You cited Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986 That paper proves that the order of events in their magnetic reconenction experiment wasMagnetic reconnection. Current sheet disruption. Double layer formation. Thus you are wrong in stating that DL formation comes magnetic reconnection. That is as easy as 1, 2, 3 michaelsuede . __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 29th March 2011, 03:03 PM #182 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem That is just idiotic, MM. Then you're actually calling Alfven an idiot, not me. Cosmic Plasma: Quote: 113 .3. MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface . In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface. All theories of magnetic merging' (or field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention. Where is interstellar space does no electric current cross the surface and/or the perpendicular component of the the curl is zero at every point on the surface tusenfem? Last edited by Michael Mozina; 29th March 2011 at 03:06 PM.
 29th March 2011, 03:35 PM #185 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,129 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Then you're actually calling Alfven an idiot, not me. Cosmic Plasma: Wrong MM. Read the quote Quote: 113 .3. MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface . In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface. All theories of magnetic merging' (or field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention. He never states that there is no physical situation where no electric current crosses the surface. He is saying that all of the MR theories in the 1980's were valid for when the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface (frozen-in magnetic field approximation?) and should not be used for other situations. Of course these is a little thing called science. Science progresses. MR theories improve. They are now valid for a wider regime. That is the danger, Michael Mozina, of relying on old textbooks - you get fooled by outdated science. As people have suggested several times - update your science library to at least get into the 21st century ! __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 29th March 2011, 05:22 PM #186 ben m Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,387 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger The primary novelty of this thread is that our two deniers, michaelsuede and Michael Mozina, have gripped their argumentative swords with both hands and proceeded to hack off each other's legs. So what? The list of objections that bounce of MM is already pretty long. And it already includes "you're contradicting yourself", "you're contradicting Maxwell", "you're contradicting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics", and "you're contradicting actual lab experiments". So now we can add "you're contradicting a fellow anti-reconnection crackpot" to the list?
 29th March 2011, 06:01 PM #187 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,234 Bertrand Russell explains... Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell A wise man will enjoy the goods of which there is a plentiful supply, and of intellectual rubbish he will find an abundant diet, in our own age as in every other. Bertrand Russell. An outline of intellectual rubbish: a hilarious catalogue of organized and individual stupidity. Haldeman-Julius Publications, Kansas, 1943; reprinted in Unpopular Essays, Allen & Unwin (London), Simon & Schuster (New York), 1950; reprinted in The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell, edited by Robert E Egner and Lester E Denonn, Simon & Schuster, 1961. Final sentence. Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 29th March 2011 at 06:58 PM. Reason: typo
 31st March 2011, 01:13 PM #190 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,982 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I hate to break it to you, but it wasn't a 'tactic', I simply misread his question. I would tend to 'disagree' with the claim that MHD theory is 'junk science' (assuming anyone actually said that). I want to see you help me with that curl. Where in interplanetary space are Alfven's conditions met? That may or may not be true, I'm sure that both of us are equally committed to empirical physics. What's clear from the empirical physical 'experiments' done on MR theory is that they "short circuit' two CURRENT CARRYING FILAMENTS and call it "magnetic reconnection". That's just baloney. From a mathematical perspective, yes you can approach it *EITHER* from a B or an E orientation, but it's actual the particles and circuits that 'reconnect', not the magnetic lines. Those 'lines' are produced by "current flow' and the "current flow" sustains both filaments and 'rate of flow' (of particles) across the double layer determines the rate of "reconnection"! They other obvious thing about all the so called "experiments' done to date is that NONE OF THEM actually tried to falsify the claim. They never explain what is physically unique and different from the kinetic energy particle transfers that Alfven describes in his double layer paper, or the transfer of photon kinetic energy to charged particles, *PROPERLY CALLED INDUCTION*. Instead they *ASSUME* things like the E field remained stable even while the thread size shrinks! The whole this is goofy. The particle reconnect. The current flows change direction. It's no mystery and no magnetic lines ever actually 'reconnect'. They just exist as a result of the current and their topology is directly related to the flow of that current as it changes over time. Then show it MM, show how it is induction, or circuits slamming together, or whatever, but in detail, explain it to us. __________________ 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
 31st March 2011, 01:27 PM #191 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check Repeating a wrong assertion does not make it true. Ditto. Care to demonstrate Alfven was wrong?
 31st March 2011, 01:33 PM #192 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check When there is just magnetic reconnection, magnetic reconnection is the mechanism that imparts kinetic energy to the particles. How? I want to hear you *OR ANYONE ELSE* explain *EXACTLY* what makes "magnetic reconnection" a "new" and unique form of energy exchange. The transfer of particle kinetic energy to other particles of mass is not "magnetic reconnection", it's "particle collision/reconnection". The transfer of magnetic field energy to charged particles already has a proper scientific name, it's called *INDUCTION*. How did you or anyone else eliminate ordinary double layer processes like particle collision and induction from consideration before *LEAPING TO THE CONCLUSION* that "magnetic reconnection did it"? How did they eliminate ordinary induction and particle collisions as the real "cause/culprit' of particle acceleration?
 31st March 2011, 01:37 PM #193 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by tusenfem Then show it MM, show how it is induction, or circuits slamming together, or whatever, but in detail, explain it to us. Quantitatively and objectively, please, like a real scientist might do.
 31st March 2011, 01:44 PM #194 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by ben m So what? The list of objections that bounce of MM is already pretty long. And it already includes "you're contradicting yourself", "you're contradicting Maxwell", "you're contradicting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics", and "you're contradicting actual lab experiments". So now we can add "you're contradicting a fellow anti-reconnection crackpot" to the list? Ya but don't forget that Alfven was an anti-reconnection crackpot too and *I'm* the one going at on a limb in terms of the merits of MR theory. Alfven simply rejected MR theory outright, calling it "pseudoscience" more than a dozen times in 1986 in front of a room for of plasma physicists. That's a pretty strong stance actually. I'm willing to concede that the B orientation is mathematically "ok", but why won't you cop to the fact that Alfven's method is also "acceptable"? If I'm *FORCED TO CHOOSE* between Alfven's view and MR theory, forget MR theory. It's the most ridiculously named "theory" of all time and I thought the term "black hole" was misleading.
 31st March 2011, 01:47 PM #195 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack Quantitatively and objectively, please, like a real scientist might do. http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813 What are you waiting for, a engraved invitation to comment on Onel and Mann's work?
 31st March 2011, 02:00 PM #196 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813 What are you waiting for, a engraved invitation to comment on Onel and Mann's work? The question was regarding this discussion in this thread about this topic... Originally Posted by tusenfem Then show it MM, show how it is induction, or circuits slamming together, or whatever, but in detail, explain it to us. And make your explanation quantitative and objective, please. Provide this induction and/or circuits explanation in a way that other people can understand, thoroughly, show the relevant math, and include proper citations to works, pages, and paragraphs.
 31st March 2011, 03:22 PM #197 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969 Laboratory Magnetic Reconnection & Induction Originally Posted by Tim Thompson As I have pointed out before, magnetic reconnection is observed directly to happen in laboratory plasmas. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina No, DISCHARGES are directly observed in laboratory plasmas. PARTICLES AND CIRCUITS do the "reconnecting", not *JUST* the magnetic field topology! That's the whole problem with your claim. You can't even produce the process without *CURRENT* and "circuits". Rubbish. Lest we forget, from 13 February 2009 ... Originally Posted by Tim Thompson Representative comments; clearly Mr. Mozina, and others no doubt, reject the concept of "magnetic reconnection" altogether. This is an uncomfortable position to take, since "magnetic reconnection" is directly observed in controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments (i.e., Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008; Cheng, et al., 2008; Yamada, et al., 2007; Yamada, Ren & Ji, 2007; Yamada, et al., 2006; Sarff, et al., 2005 & etc.; Yamada, 1999 reviews the previous 20 years of laboratory plasma studies of magnetic reconnection). So, Mr. Mozina, have you ever read any of the papers I cited here? No, you have not. Have you ever read any papers describing laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not. Have you ever examined the design & procedures of laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not. Have you ever examined the data coming out of any laboratory magnetic reconnection experiment? No, you have not. So, how the hell do you know what is really going on? "Particle reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" are buzzwords of your own invention which have no basis in physical reality. You have been asked to physically describe what they are supposed to mean on too many occasions to count, and have failed to do so every time. So I still have no idea what you think you are talking about. But I do know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that it is the "reconnection" of the magnetic field and not the "reconnection" of anything else, especially the currents & particles, which is the source of energy. I know this because I know that the topology of the magnetic field changes first (we call that "cause") and the accelerated currents flow afterwards (we call that "effect"). Since cause precedes effect rather more often than effect precedes cause, magnetic reconnection is the obvious answer. This is why people do things called "experiments". I realize you have much disdain for such menial tasks and prefer to live a life of academic seclusion, but the rest of us have faith in the ability of the real world to actually show us what is really happening, if we just bother to look. You should bother someday yourself, you might actually learn something (perish the thought!). Originally Posted by Michael Mozina What's clear from the empirical physical 'experiments' done on MR theory is that they "short circuit' two CURRENT CARRYING FILAMENTS and call it "magnetic reconnection". That's just baloney. Have you ever examined the design & procedures of laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not. Have you ever examined the data coming out of any laboratory magnetic reconnection experiment? No, you have not. So, how the hell do you know what is really going on? No, as a matter of fact, it is not only not clear, it's not even possible because the like charges of the currents would repel each other, or are you now going to war against Coulomb too? And what about the magnetic fields generated by the currents in the filaments, which will surround the filaments in solenoidal shape? By what process do you suppose they might conveniently get out of the way and allow the bare naked currents to "reconnect"? Originally Posted by Michael Mozina They other obvious thing about all the so called "experiments' done to date is that NONE OF THEM actually tried to falsify the claim. They never explain what is physically unique and different from the kinetic energy particle transfers that Alfven describes in his double layer paper, or the transfer of photon kinetic energy to charged particles, *PROPERLY CALLED INDUCTION*. Instead they *ASSUME* things like the E field remained stable even while the thread size shrinks! The whole this is goofy. The particle reconnect. The current flows change direction. It's no mystery and no magnetic lines ever actually 'reconnect'. They just exist as a result of the current and their topology is directly related to the flow of that current as it changes over time. Have you ever examined the design & procedures of laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not. Have you ever examined the data coming out of any laboratory magnetic reconnection experiment? No, you have not. So, how the hell do you know what is really going on? Sorry to but into this reverie with shocking facts, but there are these things called "measuring devices" in laboratories. They are used to measure things. Amongst the many things that can be measured are electric currents, electric fields and magnetic fields. So no, they do not assume that the electric field is constant, they measure the electric field, which cannot be constant and is not constant, because of Faraday's Law (or maybe now you are going to war against both Coulomb & Faraday?). They also measure the magnetic field and the electric currents. Funny thing is the magnetic field changes first (we call that "cause") and the electric currents change afterwards (we call that "effect"). How dare Mother Nature disagree with Mozina! Who does she thing she is, anyway? Originally Posted by Michael Mozina They never explain what is physically unique and different from the kinetic energy particle transfers that Alfven describes in his double layer paper, or the transfer of photon kinetic energy to charged particles, *PROPERLY CALLED INDUCTION*. Of course they do. In fact, they always do. But since you can't read, you are hardly likely to realize this. however, for those who can read, and for the umpteenth time already since December 2009 ... Originally Posted by Tim Thompson Reference the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Magnetic reconnection is not induction. Here is the induction equation in a plasma as given in Priest & Forbes, page 5: (1) $\partial \boldsymbol B / \partial t = \nabla \times (\boldsymbol v \times \boldsymbol B) - \nabla \times (\eta \nabla \times \boldsymbol B)$ Here $\eta$ is the magnetic diffusivity. If $\eta$ is uniform then the induction equation reduces to ... (2) $\partial \boldsymbol B / \partial t = \nabla \times (\boldsymbol v \times \boldsymbol B) + \eta \nabla^2 \boldsymbol B$ [ .... ] The conversion of magnetic energy into a current always operates on a time-scale characteristic of the system, and that time scale is controlled by the ability of the magnetic field to move through the conductor, in order to create a dB/dt term from which the current is generated. That time-scale in a plasma is rather different than it is for a fixed conductor. Here we find the real deal once again in Priest & Forbes: "In space physics the distinction between ideal and non-ideal processes is important because simple estimates imply that magnetic dissipation acts on a time-scale which is many orders of magnitude slower than the observed time-scale of dynamic phenomena. For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 105 km is of the order of 106 yrs." Priest & Forbes, page 6 All of this occurs in the first few pages of the book, but evidently Mozina has not even bothered to look at it. [ ... ] This entire thread is just one constant repetition of the same tired old arguments: real physics vs. the pure prejudice of Mozina. It will never change because Mozina will never learn. So get used to zillions of pages to come with no change & no progress & no real physics ever from Mozina. That you can count on. Considering the "current" state of affairs, I must say I am impressed with the predictive power of the statement I made in those last few sentences from two years ago. And I boldly predict that, two years hence, the "current" state of affairs will remain unchanged. __________________ 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
 31st March 2011, 04:15 PM #198 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,129 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Ditto. Care to demonstrate Alfven was wrong? Nothing to do with Alfven. That was michaelsuede's assertion that all magnetic reconnection is DLs. That is wrong beacuse: When there is just magnetic reconnection, magnetic reconnection is the mechanism that imparts kinetic energy to the particles. When there is magnetic reconnnetion + DLs then both mechanisms impart kinetic energy to the particles. The formation of the DLs happens after the magnetic reconnection. See Figure 9 in Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986 ! Where do you think Alfven states that all magnetic reconnection is DLs? (Hint: it is not his 30 year old pseudoscience remark - that is about he inappropriate application of the frozen-in field approximation) __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 31st March 2011, 04:23 PM #199 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,129 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina How? How is Maxwell's equations. The ignorance continues (and the crackpot quoting and uppercasing !) Magnetic reconnection is not a new or unique form of energy exchange. Changes in magnetic field configurations impart energy to particles all of the time. Ask any particle physicist! The stupidity of calling magnetic reconnection has been pointed out many times before. The time scales make it impossible for induction to transfer the energy, And one more time for the simple minded (and I do mean you MM - you are obviously too simple minded to read or understand the many posts that have explained this to you. ):Induction was eliminated as a cause of particle acceleration because it takes too long, e.g. in solar flares it would take a million years to do it. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 31st March 2011, 10:34 PM #200 tusenfem Graduate Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,982 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813 What are you waiting for, a engraved invitation to comment on Onel and Mann's work? Onel & Mann use a circuit model of structures on the sun, and then come up with the various values for the R and the U and everything else. Then they find the power in photospheric motion in Eq. 9 and show that in the circuit there is a total energy that is comparable with what is released in solar flares. One would be surprised if they had found something else. Then they use runaway electrons that are accelerated at a coronal electric field, that lose energy through coulomb collisions Eqs. 11/12/13 and find a value for the Dreicer field, above which electrons are basically collisionless. Then basically, what they want to explain is the X-ray emission from flares, and find that the bremsstrahlung by accelerated electrons is the main cause and that electric fields, as described in their model, can explain the acceleration of the electrons. Fine, it is a nice paper (which I have said already some time ago), however, has nothing to do with magnetic reconnection. Nothing about how the magnetic field changes etc. Nice try, but no cigar. __________________ 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

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit