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 7th March 2012, 05:45 PM   #6681
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,134
Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection (vacuum reconnection)

Aspects of Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection - (Invited Review); Priest & Schrijver
"A CD-ROM attached to this paper presents the results of a toy model of vacuum reconnection..."
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 7th March 2012, 05:49 PM   #6682
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,134
The origins of electrical resistivity in magnetic reconnection (MR in vacuum)

The origins of electrical resistivity in magnetic reconnection: Studies by 2D and 3D macro particle simulations
"A gedanken experiment that illustrates the meaning of electrical
resistivity for magnetic reconnection (a) in vacuum, and (b) in a plasma
(dots represent plasma ions and electrons). The currents J1 and J2 flow
in the flux bundles, while J3 in the plasma does not exist initially and is
induced by the electric field Et during the reconnection process."
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 7th March 2012, 05:54 PM   #6683
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,134
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
If there is CURRENT PRESENT it's got plasma RC.
How ignorant. If there is CURRENT PRESENT it's got a CURRENT PRESENT MM.
Your statement is as stupid as stating that "If there is CURRENT PRESENT it's got a wire" !

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
BS. He claimed CURRENT was present in that "vacuum". Wake up. Current *IS NON-NEUTRAL PLASMA*.
BS. Somov stated that there were currents creating the magnetic fields. Notging to do with plasma.
Maxwell also stated in his equations that there are currents creating magnetic fields. There is no plasma in Maxwell's equations .

Wake up to your delusion that Current *IS NON-NEUTRAL PLASMA*.
A current is a current. A NON-NEUTRAL PLASMA is a NON-NEUTRAL PLASMA. Somov's chapter has currents in it. The only mention of plasma is collisionless plasma at the end.

Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VI (etc.)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
BS. Been there, looked at them.
BS. You are obviously lying about reading them:
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 7th March 2012, 06:02 PM   #6684
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,134
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The The term DISCHARGE doesn't go away just because RC says so.
Once again you are lying.
I did not say that the term electrical discharge went away. It has been in use for centuries and is still in use !

I stated that Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection.


But this was in the 1960's and there is no evidence that Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection is used today. Thus it is
  1. outdated and
  2. obsolete
You are continuing with the insanity of citing Dungey and contradicting your own assertion:
MM: Citing Dungey means that you are stating that the cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection !
8th November 2011 (5 months and counting)

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th March 2012 at 06:04 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 7th March 2012, 06:16 PM   #6685
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,134
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You've never personally cited one of them.
I never cited any of them because this is the first time that you have asked that specific question.

I expected that PIC simulations of MR would not use MHD and they do not (however ny Google skills deserted me before):
Geospace Environmental Modeling(GEM) Magnetic ReconnectionChallenge (PDF)
and in case you cannot read a PDF
Collisionless magnetic reconnectionin the presence of a guide field
Quote:
Both an implicit particle-in-cell (PIC) simulation method and a parallel explicit PIC code are used.
(Google Scholar for "PIC magnetic reconnection simulation energy" has ~5,900 results)
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 7th March 2012, 06:25 PM   #6686
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,134
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That's trivial alright. That's not what happens in a flare. There's your equivocation fallacy in a nutshell.
That's dumb alright: A flare is not a vacuum! Linking to a proton flux graph is dumb because if there are protons then it is not MR in a vacuum.
There's your ignorance of basic reading skills in a nutshell.

MR in a vacuum is descibed in Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
Quote:
Quote:
Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
X-type points consist a topological peculiarity of a magnetic field. They are places where where redistribution of magnetic fluxes occurs, which changes the connectivity of field lines. Let us illustrate such a process by the simplest example of 2 parallel electric currents of equal magnitude I in vacuum as shown in Figure 4.17. The magnetic field of these currents forms three different fluxes in the plane (x,y). Two of them belong to the upper and the lower currents, respectively, and are situated inside the separatrix field line A, which forms the figure of the eight-like curve with zeroth X-point. The third flux belongs to both currents and is situated outside of the separatrix.

If the currents are displaced in the direction of each other, then the following magnetic flux redistribution will take place. The currents proper fluxes will diminish by the quantity dA, while their common flux will increase by the same quantity. So the field line A2 will be the separatrix of the final state.

This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line.

Magnetic reconnection is of fundamental importance for the nature of many non-stationary phenomena in cosmic plasma. We shall discuss the physics of this process more fully in chapters 16 to 22. Suffice it to say that reconnection is inevitable associated with electric field generation. The field is the inductive one, since
[equation 4.65]
where A is the vector potential of magnetic field,
[equation 4.66]
In the above example, the electric field is directed along the z axis. It is clear if that if dt is the characteristic time of the reconnection process shown in Figure 4.17 then according to (4.65)
[equation 4.67]
the last equality will be justified n Section 9.2

Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
| the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle or
| particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.
MR in a vacuum is mentioned in the scientific literature: MR in a vacuum is a simple derivation from Maxwell's equations: to W.D. Clinger's simple derivation of magnetic reconnection
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 7th March 2012, 07:45 PM   #6687
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Magnetic Reconnection: In Plasma and In Vacuo

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
And for two years now you've utterly ignored that paper by Mann and Onel that disprove your claim. Why is that?

See my post Onel & Mann, Circuits, and Real Plasma Physics, dated 9 Aprl 2011, where I cleverly ignore the Onel & Mann paper by examining it in detail, including a comparison with Alfven's boundary conditions, discussing the physics of the paper and the value of the circuit paradigm. So much for me "ignoring" the Onel & Mann paper.


Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
But you're simply mislabeling several *DIFFERENT* things "magnetic reconnection", and failing to support your claim with *PUBLISHED* material that plasma is OPTIONAL Tim! How can I deal with that "scientifically"?

I have in fact supported my claim with several published references to magnetic reconnection in a vacuum. Here is a list of my posts on the topic, which the industrious reader may wish to peruse for the various references therein.

Of course, Mozina has vociferously insisted that all of the references I have provided are MHD based. All of his claims amount to wishful thinking and sub standard reading skills, and are all without a doubt quite false. In each and every case, without exception, the reconnection of magnetic fields is presented in a true vacuum, no MHD, no plasma, none whatsoever.

And I am certainly not by any means "mislabeling several *DIFFERENT* things" as magnetic reconnection. I am in fact consistent and present one and only one definition of magnetic reconnection; see my post Magnetic Reconnection defined and Described. All of my sources present the same definition of magnetic reconnection, albeit in different words, and it is the one and only definition I have used, which I will present here in my own words of the moment: A change in the topology of the magnetic field, changing the connectivity of the lines of force of the magnetic field. There is an important distinction to make here:


Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
First you seem to be relabeling "magnetic flux change/time in a vacuum" = "magnetic reconnection". Then you're relabeling an INDUCEMENT OF CURRENT IN A PLASMA that results in an "electrical discharge" the EXACT SAME TERM! See a problem there Tim?

No, I don't see any problem. Mozina is the one who is confused, thinking that the presence of plasma & current are a requirement of magnetic reconnection.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I'm still waiting for a ligitimate PUBLISHED reference for 'reconnection' that generates any energy that isn't based upon MHD theory. It's never going to happen either. Without plasma, as Sweet points out, no currents are INDUCED in the plasma. It's just a flux change that has no real effect on any real particles because no real particles are present. MHD theory doesn't even apply! No ENERGY EXCHANGE can occur. No CHARGED PARTICLE ACCELERATION can occur. No currents can be generated, and no DISCHARGE occurs. You can't take plasma out and still call it 'reconnection'. It's just "flux changes" that induce no current. No magnetic energy can be converted to charged particle kinetic energy.

There is no such reference. Then again, why should it be a relevant point? Nobody is making the absurd claim that magnetic reconnection produces current in a vacuum! Look at the definition I gave in my own words above, confirmed by the sources in my post: A change in the topology of the magnetic field, changing the connectivity of the lines of force of the magnetic field. This process almost always results in the magnetic field transitioning from a higher to a lower energy state (there my be exceptional cases where the energy of the field does not change, but they are surely very strange and not important for this discussion). If that happens in a vacuum, there will be no current induced, no electricity, no "discharge", none of that. How could there be? It's a vacuum! Nobody ever made such a claim that I am aware of, and I most certainly never have. However, if that process happens in a plasma environment, then instead of the excess energy simply radiating away unnoticed to the vacuum, it goes into the plasma when the post reconnection magnetic field relaxes from higher to lower energy. Only then do we get currents and all of the nifty plasma physics that comes out of magnetic reconnection. Nobody writes papers about the magnetic field reconnecting & relaxing in a vacuum because it's a really boring thing that does nothing worth writing about. On the other hand, everybody wants to write papers about the reconnection of magnetic fields in a plasma because lots of really fascinating stuff happens in that case.

Let me be clear about this: Magnetic reconnection is a process whereby the topology of the magnetic field changes. That's its raw definition. I have never defined the post reconnection plasma physics as magnetic reconnection and nobody should; although it might appear to be so in colloquial usage between experts who know what they are talking about, it is certainly not a proper or formal definition.


Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Let's see the fallacy is yours, then, because you equate a change of flux with magnetic reconnection.
Boloney. Tim did that. He essentially claimed that any FLUX CHANGE = "magnetic reconnection" and the NULL isn't "special" at all.

I did associate a change in flux with magnetic reconnection, but I certainly did not claim that "any flux change = magnetic reconnection". Go back and look what I actually did say:

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Any change in the topology of the magnetic flux is magnetic reconnection by definition. See my earlier post Magnetic Reconnection Defined and Described (24 January 2012). The terms "magnetic flux" and "magnetic field" are related to each other as shown by the passages below ...

Any old change won't do, only a change in the topology. In that post I also show the definition of magnetic flux as the surface integral of the magnetic field. In associating the magnetic flux with magnetic reconnection, I imagine a small unit area, a nearly infinitesimal circle perhaps, over which the flux is integrated. If the volume of magnetic field is sufficiently sampled by the unit area integral, you will have a volume representation of the flux. The flux at each area element will be a vector parallel to the normal vector to the surface, if the sampling surface is small enough. That volume representation of the flux should have a topology related to the topology of the field, and if the field topology changes, then so must the topology of the volume representation of the flux. I was trying to use flux in a manner akin to Mozina's without being technically incorrect and thought I had succeeded.

But in any case, it has to be stressed that in the end there is one and only one correct definition of magnetic reconnection and that is the change in topology of the magnetic field, which will of course produce plasma phenomena only in the presence of a plasma and never in a vacuum.
__________________
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 8th March 2012, 01:29 AM   #6688
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Oh, Sweet himself explained the difference quite clearly. He noted that WITHOUT PLASMA no CURRENTS would be INDUCED! That's the part you can't handle.

Apparently you wish to "dumb down" the process to the point that ANY magnetic field FLUX CHANGE ends up being relabeled "magnetic reconnection", with or without plasma, with or without MHD theory, with or without *PUBLISHED MATH*. Actually WITHOUT published math.
Well srcew my nipple nuts and send me to alaska!
No plasma means no currents??? whoddatoughtdat!!!!
I have no idea what I can't handle, but maybe it is your blatand lack of knowledge of basic electrodynamics, let alone plasma physics. Let's look at your next paragraph, where, as usual you are misusing clearly defined physical terms and try to sound important, but instead sound ridiculous.
Your claim that "any magnetic field flux change" ends up beling labeled "magnetic reconnection" is so weird, that I cannot even fathom it, let alone accept that you have ever actually read Alfvén's work.

Example: If I have a coil and I crank up the current in the coil the magnetic field will increase and thus the flux will increase. Reconnection does not come anywhere close to describing this, because it has nothing to do with reconnection, it has to do with changing flux.

However, to you flux and topology apparently are the same thing. I cannot help here, I can only say read some real books about electrodynamics and maybe at some point you will understand that flux and topology are not the same.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Essentially you want to discuss particle VELOCITY, even without particles. I hate to break it to you t, but MHD theory (including the resistive type) is all about the BEHAVIORS OF CHARGED PARTICLES. You can't ignore that relationship and dumb down a current driven *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE* process to a simply "magnetic flux change". I won't let you.

And? MHD theory is all about the behaviors of charged particles. With them, currents can be induced by those flux changes. Without them, no currents, no discharges, no flares.
No, I am not talking about particles when I talk about a vacuum, I do have that much knowledge.
Yes, MDH is about magnetized fluids, I know that, I am not applying MHD to vacuum though, I apply a vacuum superposition. I do hope you know that Maxwell's equations also apply in vacuum.
Your nagging about MHD makes no sense when I or Tim or anyone else claim to look at a vacuum model or a vacuum superposition. Really, what part of the word vacuum don't you understand?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
It means you side doesn't care one iota about math in the final analysis. All that math *INSISTS* that particles are involved in the DISCHARGE/RECONNECTION process. You're trying to DUMB IT DOWN. That's the fallacy in play. As Sweet himself (from *YOUR* reference) noted, no plasma, no induced current as a result of the field movement over time.
No, it does not do that at all, math doesn't, that is your interpretation only. Like the claims above from the post by RC by Priest: "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trival process..." And added to that it is also rather uninteresting, because nothing interesting happens. The field will, because of the lack of plasma, be potential fields, and just gradually move from one state to the other, when we, e.g. bring the two Sweet loops together.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
There *AREN'T* any *LINES*. Even that is *DUMBED DOWN* representation of FULL FIELD INTERACTION. No individualized "lines" exist, certainly not in the ABSENCE OF PARTICLES.
Guess you never played with iron shavings and a bar magnet?
As you are always so fond of saying "the magnetic field is a continuum" or something like that, and indeed it is a vector field. The only way to find out how a vector field looks like is by using equipotentials, which in the case of the magnetic field are the magentic field lines. No, they are not real, like said before, they are as real as height contours on a map. However, they play an important role in showing the topology of the magnetic field and they are also very useful to show the dynamics of the magnetic field. Therefore, though not real physical objects, they are useful.
They are, actually, as real as your resistor and capacitor and inductor in your circuit representation of a coronal loop.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Boloney. Tim did that. He essentially claimed that any FLUX CHANGE = "magnetic reconnection" and the NULL isn't "special" at all.

Boloney. The one thing Clinger actually did demonstrate is that in terms of Gauss's law, it's NOT SPECIAL IN ANY WAY! The laws are satisfied there like everywhere. Since magnetic fields have no source and no sink, they don't "disconnect", nor do they "reconnect". The only thing they do is "flux" and thereby INDUCE CURRENT in a CONDUCTOR.
No, you are confusing flux and induction with reconnection.

The magnetic null is special (in my opinion) because that is where the magnetic field has zero value and no direction: B = (0, 0, 0).

And really "the only thing they do is flux", can you please explain in full detail what you mean when you say that fields "flux." Flux is not a verb, it is a noun in physics.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No, it's not "magic". He moved BOTH FIELDS. Of course the Null moves accordingly. DUH! As Sweet points out however, no plasma, no induced current, and oh, no MHD theory.
So what, "he moves both fields" and how exactly is the null to move and please give a full description with drawings etc. like clinger did to show you are right.
An of course no MHD, you keep on hitting a dead horse, Mikey, it is only you who seems to have problems about when and when not MDH can be or is applied.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
So what if they and Sweet "superimpose" the magnetic fields into a vacuum? The movement of the fields INDUCES current according to Sweet. The lack of any plasmas will result in NO INDUCED current and no flare.

So what? That does that do in the absence of plasma, particularly at a NULL? Nothing! The movement of the WHOLE FIELDS will induce current EVERYWHERE, not just some magic place. The more the field changes in some place or another, the more INDUCED CURRENT will occur, ONLY IN A CONDUCTOR!
No, movement of fields, in a vacuum or in a non-conducting atmosphere induce electric fields (as in the case when plasma is present, you know curl E ~ dB/dt), which however will not generate currents as there are no particles to carry the current.

As long as you cannot do electrodynamics in a vacuum (is like 1st year college stuff) then you are definitely not going to be able to do actual MHD, let along plasma physics.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Ya, it gets "fun" because the currents flow and then MHD theory actually applies. No particles, no velocities to talk about, no induced current, no energy transfer to charged particles as a result of WHOLE FIELD CHANGES.
And there can be energy stored in a system, when there is a plasma, unlike in vacuum where there is only the magnetic energy of the field, moving from one potential to another.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
But Sweet sank your ship t. He specifically REQUIRED plasma and current to explain it, and specifically points out that it *WON'T INDUCE CURRENT* in a vacuum! He specifically REFUTES your claim!

I can see I'm going to have to stop by at least once or twice a week to see if any of you actually come up with a PUBLISHED reference to support this nonsense. Thus far, Sweet disproved everything you're claiming because he specifically cited the problem. He specifically noted that for currents to be INDUCED, current (a conductor) MUST be present.

Still waiting for a published paper that supports your claim t. Sweet *DESTROYED* your argument, he didn't help it.
The offhand rejection of any books and papers that talk about vacuum superposition and reconnection, just because in your mind there must be currents flowing, clearly shows that you are not willing whatsoever even to actually think about basic electrodynamics.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Of course it's based on "resistive" MHD because plasmas are NOT perfect conductors. The plasma particles have a PROPERTY of resistance, just like they have a property of being affected by EM fields and they have a property of behaving like a fluid in large numbers. All the properties are represented in RESISTIVE MHD theory, whereas the original brand is missing an important BEHAVIOR of plasma. It does become unstable in the presence of large currents, and "resistive" to that current.
The thing is, that MRx is actually not based on MDH, it is a fully plasmaphysical process and MHD, even resistive MDH is only an approximation of actual plasmaphysics. That is why I said that in my claim about the Sweet paper, because he would not have used MDH, but real plasma physics, as at the time that that paper was written the use of MHD was not ubiquitous.

One interesting thing is that these plasma particle, with their property of being affected by EM fields in the neighbourhood of the X-line are no longer affected by the magnetic field. First the ions decouple from the field and then the electrons decouple, creating the ion and electron diffusion regions. The claim of the EU/PU/EC/ES/PC proponents always comes back to that the charged particles are greatly affected by the magnetic fields and such, however, this is not always the case. There is a certain important quantity, usually called the plasma-beta, which determines what behaviour is more important, to say it simplified: the gas part or the frozen in part.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 02:21 AM   #6689
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Y
BS. He claimed CURRENT was present in that "vacuum". Wake up. Current *IS NON-NEUTRAL PLASMA*.
Oh Michael, how often do we have to go through this basic plasma physics or for I care basic MHD?

Current is not a non-neutral plasma. Once more, but you finally should try to remember this, in plasma physics / MHD, neutrality is defined by the total charge density ρc being zero:

<br />
rho_c = \Sigma_k n_k q_k = 0,<br />

where nk and qk are the number density and charge of particle species k and k runs over all species of ions and electrons.

Now an electric current in a plasma is defined in the following way:

<br />
{\bf j} = \Sigma_k n_k q_k {\bf v}_k<br />

where vk is the velocity of species k.

Now, please explain why if there is a current j that the plasma needs be non-neutral?

And to quote from your non-neutral link:

Originally Posted by wiki
Non-neutral plasma

The strength and range of the electric force and the good conductivity of plasmas usually ensure that the densities of positive and negative charges in any sizeable region are equal ("quasineutrality"). A plasma with a significant excess of charge density, or, in the extreme case, is composed of a single species, is called a non-neutral plasma. In such a plasma, electric fields play a dominant role. Examples are charged particle beams, an electron cloud in a Penning trap and positron plasmas.
Wow, this has absolutely nothing to do with a quasi-neutral plasma with a current. (ofcourse we remember that your definition of neutral is not the usual definition of neutral as given in the equation above, but that is yet another example of you using perfectly defined physics terms in a different way. Fluxing isn't it?)
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 10:54 AM   #6690
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Oh Michael, how often do we have to go through this basic plasma physics or for I care basic MHD?

Current is not a non-neutral plasma. Once more, but you finally should try to remember this, in plasma physics / MHD, neutrality is defined by the total charge density ρc being zero:
Who cares? It's not WITHOUT PLASMA! You folks can't talk about particle species and particle velocity because CLINGER doesn't have particles in the first place! Somov's work does NOT support Clinger's outrageously FALSE claim. I have one of Somov's books on plasma physics. RC doesn't. He (and now you) are ignoring the fact that to have CURRENT you need CHARGED PARTICLES. Somov's vacuum contains PARTICLES.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th March 2012 at 10:55 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 9th March 2012, 11:09 AM   #6691
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Who cares? It's not WITHOUT PLASMA! You folks can't talk about particle species and particle velocity because CLINGER doesn't have particles in the first place! Somov's work does NOT support Clinger's outrageously FALSE claim. I have one of Somov's books on plasma physics. RC doesn't. He (and now you) are ignoring the fact that to have CURRENT you need CHARGED PARTICLES. Somov's vacuum contains PARTICLES.

As usual, that isn't an argument. It's a complaint about failing to understand an argument. And as always, that strategy will never result in success.
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 9th March 2012, 11:33 AM   #6692
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
As usual, that isn't an argument. It's a complaint about failing to understand an argument. And as always, that strategy will never result in success.
My big complaint is that you all blatantly FAIL to embrace PHYSICAL fact. Unlike Clinger's vacuum, Somov's 'vacuum' and maths (like every other reference you've cited) *INCLUDES PHYSICAL CURRENT, PARTICLES, and PHYSICAL PARTICLE MOVEMENT! No particles, no "reconnection/electrical discharge".

The EU hater denial-go-round is never ending around here.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th March 2012 at 11:35 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 9th March 2012, 11:36 AM   #6693
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
My big complaint [...] is never ending around here.

Fixed.
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 9th March 2012, 12:20 PM   #6694
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
See my post Onel & Mann, Circuits, and Real Plasma Physics, dated 9 Aprl 2011, where I cleverly ignore the Onel & Mann paper by examining it in detail, including a comparison with Alfven's boundary conditions, discussing the physics of the paper and the value of the circuit paradigm. So much for me "ignoring" the Onel & Mann paper.
Ya, but note you still won't accept the mathematical legitimacy of the CIRCUIT orientation to these very same events Tim. You see one orientation B as always being superior (you're sort of Alfven's alter ego) and refusing to embrace BOTH sides (like Alfven).

Quote:
I have in fact supported my claim with several published references to magnetic reconnection in a vacuum. Here is a list of my posts on the topic, which the industrious reader may wish to peruse for the various references therein.
You NEVER PROVIDED EVEN *TOY* math! I guess your "best" attempt to address the fact they used MHD THEORY in the end was based on THIS one paragraph:

Quote:
Paragraph 1
"We have constructed a toy model for vacuum reconnection driven by the motion of photospheric sources and have presented the results in the accompanying CD-ROM. We calculate the potential magnetic field due to two, three or four sources in the solar surface and then extend it to a many-source case in which the surrounding fields generally limit the motions of the field lines in response to the footpoint motions to much smaller amplitudes than in the few-source case. The sources are slowly moved around and we assume that the field remains potential. Although this is an oversimplified model, the resulting motion of the field lines is instructive and it is a useful preliminary for the resistive MHD numerical model that we are planning to undertake."
You've utterly *IGNORED* the fact that they are championing a resistive MHD *REAL* model, and you've never personally provided ANY math related to the TOY version. Get a grip! If their REAL version is base on MHD theory, their papers doesn't support your claim. If you've provided any MATHS on the TOY BRAND, I've yet to see it. Maybe I missed it?

The rest of your links look to be related to this one paper, and/or the same "magnetic flux change in a vacuum" = "reconnection" equivocation fallacy. You're utterly ignoring the fact that as Sweet mentioned, no conductive environment, no electrical current.

Where's the TOY MATH? I guess that's the whole basis of your argument and I've never even SEEN that math from you. Like I said, maybe I missed it.

Quote:
Of course, Mozina has vociferously insisted that all of the references I have provided are MHD based.
The are, including the paper in question. Did you not see the line about RESISTIVE MHD theory Tim?

Quote:
All of his claims amount to wishful thinking and sub standard reading skills, and are all without a doubt quite false. In each and every case, without exception, the reconnection of magnetic fields is presented in a true vacuum, no MHD, no plasma, none whatsoever.
Boloney. The paper in question is based on MHD theory Tim. We're evidently now arguing about the meaning of "toy model".

Quote:
All of my sources present the same definition of magnetic reconnection, albeit in different words,
Ya, and different maths, including resistive MHD theory. I don't recall seeing any resistive MHD equations in Clinger's work.

Quote:
and it is the one and only definition I have used, which I will present here in my own words of the moment: A change in the topology of the magnetic field, changing the connectivity of the lines of force of the magnetic field.
Your entire argument is one giant equivocation fallacy. You've essentially turned *ANY* sort of "flux change" into "reconnection". That's not "reconnection", that's only the *FIRST STEP* in a process that *REQUIRES* the *INDUCEMENT OF CURRENT* and an "electrical discharge/reconnection" of that current.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th March 2012 at 12:25 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 9th March 2012, 12:22 PM   #6695
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Fixed.
It's "fixed" in typical EU hater fashion alright. You simply took out the stuff you didn't want to hear. Haters are all alike. Topics change, but the behaviors are identical.
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 9th March 2012, 12:44 PM   #6696
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I never cited any of them because this is the first time that you have asked that specific question.

I expected that PIC simulations of MR would not use MHD and they do not (however ny Google skills deserted me before):
Geospace Environmental Modeling(GEM) Magnetic ReconnectionChallenge (PDF)
and in case you cannot read a PDF
Collisionless magnetic reconnectionin the presence of a guide field


(Google Scholar for "PIC magnetic reconnection simulation energy" has ~5,900 results)
Let me highlight the relevant PHYSICS for you:

Quote:
The results of kinetic simulations of magnetic reconnection in Harris current sheets are analyzed. A range of guide fields is considered to study reconnection in plasmas characterized by different β values, β>me/mi. Both an implicit particle-in-cell (PIC) simulation method and a parallel explicit PIC code are used. Simulations with mass ratios up to the physical value are performed.
What part of "current sheets" *IN PLASMAS* and MASS RATIOS don't you understand? Wow! I've never seen such a LAME attempt at supporting such a RIDICULOUS claim in my life.

Folks, get REAL! Plasma is not "optional' in the 'reconnection" process. As Sweet *ELOQUENTLY* explained, you NEED a conductive environment to INDUCE current in that environment as a result of the field changes. The conductor and the physics isn't optional. The current doesn't flow without a conductor when the fields change. The fields just FLUX/MOVE/CHANGE and nothing happens. Wow!

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 9th March 2012 at 12:53 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 9th March 2012, 12:54 PM   #6697
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,530
Michael, the reason people are talking about reconnection in a vacuum is that YOU stated it couldn't happen in a vacuum. We're trying to get you to understand what reconnection is.

The fact that it causes interesting effects in a plasma doesn't mean plasma is required for reconnection.
phunk 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 9th March 2012, 01:13 PM   #6698
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Michael, the reason people are talking about reconnection in a vacuum is that YOU stated it couldn't happen in a vacuum. We're trying to get you to understand what reconnection is.

The fact that it causes interesting effects in a plasma doesn't mean plasma is required for reconnection.
I own, have read, and I've pretty reasonably understood at least 5 books now on *PLASMA PHYSICS*. Many (all?) of them describe the "reconnection" process in plasma. In addition, I've read HUNDREDS of papers on the topic of RECONNECTION based upon MHD theory and MHD maths. What I have NEVER seen *PUBLISHED* is anything that REMOTELY supports your claim.

Got it? Yes or no?

I know what RECONNECTION is. You don't. Plasma isn't optional in the 'reconnection" process, and not one paper you've cited claims otherwise.
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 9th March 2012, 01:24 PM   #6699
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,530
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I own, have read, and I've pretty reasonably understood at least 5 books now on *PLASMA PHYSICS*. Many (all?) of them describe the "reconnection" process in plasma. In addition, I've read HUNDREDS of papers on the topic of RECONNECTION based upon MHD theory and MHD maths. What I have NEVER seen *PUBLISHED* is anything that REMOTELY supports your claim.
That's like saying you've read lots of books on fish, and none of them claim gills are optional, so breathing outside of water is impossible.

Quote:
Got it? Yes or no?

I know what RECONNECTION is. You don't. Plasma isn't optional in the 'reconnection" process, and not one paper you've cited claims otherwise.
Clearly, you are the one who doesn't get it.

Please, explain what happens with the magnetic field lines of two permanent magnets when their opposing poles are brought together. Without plasma.
phunk 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 9th March 2012, 01:40 PM   #6700
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
 
D'rok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,399
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Please, explain what happens with the magnetic field lines of two permanent magnets when their opposing poles are brought together. Without plasma.
OMG! They *FLUX*!


(Sorry. Couldn't hold it in).
__________________
"War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor

"Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC
D'rok 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 9th March 2012, 01:40 PM   #6701
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Michael, the reason people are talking about reconnection in a vacuum is that YOU stated it couldn't happen in a vacuum. We're trying to get you to understand what reconnection is.

Indeed. Magnetic reconnection occurs. It can be demonstrated with a few refrigerator magnets. It will occur in your living room and it will occur in space. If two refrigerator magnets are inside an evacuated bell jar and one refrigerator magnet is outside the bell jar, magnetic reconnection can occur between the vacuum and the non-vacuum regions. It's a grade school science experiment and it doesn't even require any understanding of math to observe the results. Math idiots could get it.

Quote:
The fact that it causes interesting effects in a plasma doesn't mean plasma is required for reconnection.

Indeed again. Magnetic reconnection, as it applies to the atmosphere of the Sun which is the environment under discussion, necessarily entails plasma. And all the dishonest distraction and silly semantic nonsense isn't going to change that.

Also, given that it is the responsibility of the against-the-mainstream advocates to support their own claims, what we're seeing is more dishonest deflection of the burden of proof, dishonest evasion, and another complete failure to objectively quantitatively support any electric/iron Sun conjecture.
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 9th March 2012, 03:55 PM   #6702
tusenfem
Graduate Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Who cares? It's not WITHOUT PLASMA! You folks can't talk about particle species and particle velocity because CLINGER doesn't have particles in the first place! Somov's work does NOT support Clinger's outrageously FALSE claim. I have one of Somov's books on plasma physics. RC doesn't. He (and now you) are ignoring the fact that to have CURRENT you need CHARGED PARTICLES. Somov's vacuum contains PARTICLES.
Sorry to break it to you, but it is you who keeps on claiming that a current is a non-neutral plasma, not only this last time, but many a time in the years before in this thread and in other threads.

Otherwise, we seem to be stuck again in an idiotic discussion here, where we probably have to "come to a middle ground", which means we just have to give in to you, which we naturally will not do, because you don't understand what is being told to you.

Vacuum superpostion and reconnection do not have currents because it is in a vacuum.
Reconnection in a plasma does have currents associated with it.

A claim like above Somov's vacuum contains particles is too idiotic to even discuss.

However, I see that your answers are getting more and more devoid of any science, you won't even discuss physics and your misunderstandings about flux and current etc. The only things that are increasing again are CAPITALS and ***CAPITALS BRACKETED WITH STARS***
__________________
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

Last edited by tusenfem; 9th March 2012 at 03:57 PM.
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 05:10 PM   #6703
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
A claim like above Somov's vacuum contains particles is too idiotic to even discuss.
Not really. Have you forgotten what MM had to say about the Casimir effect?
DeiRenDopa 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 9th March 2012, 06:14 PM   #6704
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Quote:
However, I see that your answers are getting more and more devoid of any science, you won't even discuss physics and your misunderstandings about flux and current etc. The only things that are increasing again are CAPITALS and ***CAPITALS BRACKETED WITH STARS***
Yes.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2012, 09:30 PM   #6705
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Clearly, you are the one who doesn't get it.

Please, explain what happens with the magnetic field lines of two permanent magnets when their opposing poles are brought together. Without plasma.
Such statements, without clearly defining such things as reconnection rate, are nothing much more than theoretical hypostatized hyperbole.
Zeuzzz 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 9th March 2012, 11:12 PM   #6706
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,530
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Such statements, without clearly defining such things as reconnection rate, are nothing much more than theoretical hypostatized hyperbole.
That wasn't a statement or hyperbole, it was a question. I want to know how he thinks magnetic fields merge without reconnection.
phunk 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 9th March 2012, 11:54 PM   #6707
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
^ Ok. Well I guess this is more a case of how you define λ than an explicit fault with the system.

Still, such things need to be clearly defined before productive discussion can continue on this subject.
Zeuzzz 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 10th March 2012, 03:46 PM   #6708
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo XI

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Please, explain what happens with the magnetic field lines of two permanent magnets when their opposing poles are brought together. Without plasma.
Such statements, without clearly defining such things as reconnection rate, are nothing much more than theoretical hypostatized hyperbole.

I disagree. I think you are making things more complicated than they need to be. One need only look at either of the images provided by phunk (post 6553, 29 Feb 2012) or myself (Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo, 20 May 2011) and see that when the opposite polarity ends of a bar magnet face each other, then the magnetic field lines from either magnet are fully connected to those of the other, while in the case of same polarity ends the magnetic field lines of either magnet are fully disconnected from those of the other. Simply rotating one magnet with respect to the other creates a transition from a fully connected to a fully disconnected state, or vice-versa. That is all you need to see & know, to know that the field lines of the two magnets have to change their connectivity, or in other words, the field lines must reconnect. Now, if we want to talk about the process in some more detail, then all of the technical details you talk about must come into play. However, simply to establish the minimal condition that some form of reconnection takes place does not require anything beyond a visual inspection of the field line images.
__________________
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 10th March 2012, 03:48 PM   #6709
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,134
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Let me highlight the relevant PHYSICS for you:
...rant about MR in plasma requiring plasma - Duh ...
Let me highlight the relevant ENGLISH for you.
You asked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
I'm still waiting for a ligitimate PUBLISHED reference for 'reconnection' that generates any energy that isn't based upon MHD theory.
I answered:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
I never cited any of them because this is the first time that you have asked that specific question.

I expected that PIC simulations of MR would not use MHD and they do not (however ny Google skills deserted me before):
Geospace Environmental Modeling(GEM) Magnetic Reconnection Challenge (PDF)
and in case you cannot read a PDF
Collisionless magnetic reconnectionin the presence of a guide field
These are legitimate PUBLISHED references for MR that generates any energy that are not based upon MHD theory.

Your rant though suggests that we are back to your delusions about MR in vacuum:
MR in a vacuum is descibed in Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov
MR in a vacuum is mentioned in the scientific literature:
MR in a vacuum is a simple derivation from Maxwell's equations: W.D. Clinger's simple derivation of magnetic reconnection.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th March 2012 at 04:06 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 10th March 2012, 03:57 PM   #6710
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,134
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Many (all?) of them describe the "reconnection" process in plasma. In addition, I've read HUNDREDS of papers on the topic of RECONNECTION based upon MHD theory and MHD maths.
Thes are books and papers on magnbreic reconnection in plasma and MHD (a theory about plasma).
It would be idiotic to think that they would ignore plasma!.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
What I have NEVER seen *PUBLISHED* is anything that REMOTELY supports your claim.
The only way that you are not lying yet again is if you you are saying that you have never read any of the *PUBLISHED* sources for MR in vacuum.

So here the citations yet again:Try reading them and tell us what Somov meant by his title "Reconnection in a Vacuum" when he follows with a definition of magnetic reconnection in a vacuum !

You have not picked up on your hypocrisy yet.
You have stated that Peratt's section titled "Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma" means he is about to define electrical discharges that happen in plasma. But the section is just about normal electrical discharges and their role in creating terrestrial plasma thus Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!

So why is Somov section titled "Reconnection in a Vacuum" not a mean that he is about to define MR in a vacuum when it is followed by a definition of MR in a vacuum?

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th March 2012 at 03:59 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 10th March 2012, 04:06 PM   #6711
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,134
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Such statements, without clearly defining such things as reconnection rate, are nothing much more than theoretical hypostatized hyperbole.
Such statements, without actually understanding the post, are nothing much more than theoretical hypostatized hyperbole .

This is refering to the example of MR using fridge magnets.The "reconnection rate" is the rate at which you choose to turn the magnets around (not as they are "brought together" as in phunks post).

Of course we have much better descriptions of MR in a vacuum - Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov and W.D. Clinger's simple derivation of magnetic reconnection.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th March 2012 at 04:07 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 10th March 2012, 04:16 PM   #6712
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,134
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I have one of Somov's books on plasma physics. RC doesn't.
That is irrelevant unless in the book by Somov that you have he states that MR in vacuum is impossible. Does he?

It is totally irrelevant because the chapter of Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov is available in Google Books. I have quoted Somov explaining MR in vacuum.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
He (and now you) are ignoring the fact that to have CURRENT you need CHARGED PARTICLES. Somov's vacuum contains PARTICLES.
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section VI (etc.)

You are ignoring the fact Somov's vacuum contains general CURRENTS without any physical mechanism specified. They could be currents in WIRES.
You are ignoring the fact that Maxwell's equations contain CURRENTS. Do you think that they only apply to plasma?

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th March 2012 at 04:17 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 10th March 2012, 04:29 PM   #6713
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Circuits & E vs B (comments)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
See my post Onel & Mann, Circuits, and Real Plasma Physics, dated 9 Aprl 2011, where I cleverly ignore the Onel & Mann paper by examining it in detail, including a comparison with Alfven's boundary conditions, discussing the physics of the paper and the value of the circuit paradigm. So much for me "ignoring" the Onel & Mann paper.
Ya, but note you still won't accept the mathematical legitimacy of the CIRCUIT orientation to these very same events Tim. You see one orientation B as always being superior (you're sort of Alfven's alter ego) and refusing to embrace BOTH sides (like Alfven).

Once again, wrong on several levels. First, I do accept the mathematical & physical validity of the circuit model (it's not an "orientation" it's a "model") for astrophysical plasmas. One need only go back and look at what I have actually said.

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Now let me repeat myself with slightly altered emphasis: "Alfven established faulty boundary conditions because he was guided by a faulty paradigm, ... ", that faulty paradigm being the circuit paradigm. Certainly "faulty" is an unfortunate choice of words, since it arguably puts me in the position of being self-contradictory, which fortunately for me went unnoticed by certain others ...
{ ... }
Certainly the circuit paradigm is not wrong or faulty in any general sense. However, it is an approximation of limited use. Better for me to say that Alfven was misled by an oversimplified paradigm, rather than a faulty one. So I will correct myself to that extent.
{ ... }
But the only real point that one can take home from this is that the circuit paradigm is not wrong in the general sense. One can also argue, assuming that Onel & Mann make a valid point, that not all flare electrons are accelerated by magnetic reconnection. But then nobody ever made that claim that I am aware of anyway.
{ ... }
I agree with tusenfem, there is no "middle ground", and it is not true that the circuit orientation is "equally viable" or "equally well suited". As I said myself in a quote above, the circuit paradigm in an approximation which, as tusenfem correctly points out, hides all of the real physics that's going on in the plasma, behind a wall of averages & approximations.

Those are my own words from April 2011 and they clearly show that Mozina's claim regarding myself and the circuit paradigm for plasma physics is not justified by facts.

On the matter of the "E" paradigm vs the "B" paradigm, I do indeed accept one as superior to the other. Physics is not an egalitarian democracy; rather, the laws of physics rule with an "iron" fist. See my post Plasma Physics: "E Orientation" of "B Orientation"?. A plasma is made of particles and all particles obey the laws of physics. In the case of a non-relativistic plasma, all particles must simultaneously obey both Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws of motion. There is no choice, it's not "either, or", it's both at once, always. It is in most cases not possible to do this if one deals with the plasma using the "E orientation", and therefore necessary to resort to the "B orientation". It's not always the case, but it usually is the case. That is not some arbitrary choice, unless you think the decision to respect all of the laws of physics, instead of just some of the laws of physics, is somehow a capricious choice to make. In this case, "being able to embrace both sides" is just a propaganda piece. It's all about embracing whatever works and whatever respects the laws of physics.
__________________
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 10th March 2012, 06:16 PM   #6714
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Magnetic Reconnection In Vacuo XII

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
I have in fact supported my claim with several published references to magnetic reconnection in a vacuum. Here is a list of my posts on the topic, which the industrious reader may wish to peruse for the various references therein.
You NEVER PROVIDED EVEN *TOY* math! I guess your "best" attempt to address the fact they used MHD THEORY in the end was based on THIS one paragraph:
Quote:
Paragraph 1
"We have constructed a toy model for vacuum reconnection driven by the motion of photospheric sources and have presented the results in the accompanying CD-ROM. We calculate the potential magnetic field due to two, three or four sources in the solar surface and then extend it to a many-source case in which the surrounding fields generally limit the motions of the field lines in response to the footpoint motions to much smaller amplitudes than in the few-source case. The sources are slowly moved around and we assume that the field remains potential. Although this is an oversimplified model, the resulting motion of the field lines is instructive and it is a useful preliminary for the resistive MHD numerical model that we are planning to undertake."
You've utterly *IGNORED* the fact that they are championing a resistive MHD *REAL* model, and you've never personally provided ANY math related to the TOY version. Get a grip! If their REAL version is base on MHD theory, their papers doesn't support your claim. If you've provided any MATHS on the TOY BRAND, I've yet to see it. Maybe I missed it?

Nice try, but it's all propaganda, and not very well done even for that. You will find the phrase "toy model" is quite common in the physics literature (a quick look at ADS reveals 332 papers with the phrase "toy model" in their title; no telling how often it shows up buried in the text). A "toy model" is a model that everyone knows is oversimplified, but nobody cares. Its purpose is to elucidate fundamental behavior. Once that is done, then successive waves of detail & complication are included until the "toy" model morphs into a "real" model. In this case, the model is a "toy" because it deals with magnetic reconnection in a vacuum, where the complications of the plasma environment can be ignored. That elucidates the fundamental behavior of the magnetic fields. The toy model will then be upgraded to include details of plasma physics deliberately left out for the "toy". By making models that are increasingly complicated, step by step, physicists are able to tell which of the many competing physical processes are more important or have a larger affect on the system, and which are the lesser players. It is a fairly common practice. And the "toy" math is there in the paper.

Now, Mozina chooses to highlight the words "photospheric" and "solar surface". I choose to highlight the phrase "vacuum reconnection driven by the motion of photospheric source". Mozina tells us this means the authors are using plasma, not a vacuum. Mozina is wrong, it says and does no such thing; neither plasma nor MHD is in any way involved. The real photosphere sits under the plasma of the chromosphere, the transition region and the corona. The toy photosphere sits under a vacuum (that's why it's a "toy" model). So the magnetic field loops that look like real coronal magnetic field loops extend not into a plasma but into a vacuum, where reconnection takes place (that's why it's called "vacuum reconnection"). Real coronal magnetic field loops are eventually anchored in the photosphere, at two places called "footpoints". In the toy model the footpoints move just like t,e real footpoints in the real photosphere. In a real model, one would use plasma physics & MHD and the "frozen flux" approximation to generate footpoint motion in a plasma photosphere. But that is not done here. No plasma, no MHD. Just motion of the footpoints that mimics real motions. No plasma, no MHD, Mozina is wrong again. Neither the use of the word "photosphere" nor the words "solar surface" has anything at all to do with plasma physics or MHD in the toy model as presented in this paper.

Also note that Mozina chooses to highlight "resistive MHD numerical model and then scold me with, "You've utterly *IGNORED* the fact that they are championing a resistive MHD *REAL* mode". Now allow me to highlight the authors words in an alternative fashion: "Although this is an oversimplified model, the resulting motion of the field lines is instructive and it is a useful preliminary for the resistive MHD numerical model that we are planning to undertake." First, I point out the phrase "that we are planning to undertake" which clearly refers to a resistive MHD model that does not yet exist, but will exist in the future, and not one that is used here & now, in this simulation of vacuum reconnection. The fact that they champion a model they plan to undertake at some undefined time in the future is irrelevant to what is happening in the here & now, in the toy model under question. In fact, despite Mozina's strident propaganda to the contrary, he is unable to show any use of plasma of MHD at all in the toy model.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The rest of your links look to be related to this one paper, and/or the same "magnetic flux change in a vacuum" = "reconnection" equivocation fallacy. You're utterly ignoring the fact that as Sweet mentioned, no conductive environment, no electrical current.

This "equivocation fallacy" is a figment of your overactive imagination. The whole point is that the prime & fundamental definition of magnetic reconnection is that of a change in topology of the magnetic field. That definition is entirely independent of plasma. The fallacy would exist only if the definition of magnetic reconnection required or included the presence of some electric current or accelerated plasma, but it does not. Hence, no fallacy. All of the definitions I supplied are basically & physically the same and are strictly limited to the magnetic field, independent of all plasma.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You've essentially turned *ANY* sort of "flux change" into "reconnection".

Not at all. Like I said before, and you have ignored, ...
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Any old change won't do, only a change in the topology. In that post I also show the definition of magnetic flux as the surface integral of the magnetic field. In associating the magnetic flux with magnetic reconnection, I imagine a small unit area, a nearly infinitesimal circle perhaps, over which the flux is integrated. If the volume of magnetic field is sufficiently sampled by the unit area integral, you will have a volume representation of the flux. The flux at each area element will be a vector parallel to the normal vector to the surface, if the sampling surface is small enough. That volume representation of the flux should have a topology related to the topology of the field, and if the field topology changes, then so must the topology of the volume representation of the flux. I was trying to use flux in a manner akin to Mozina's without being technically incorrect and thought I had succeeded.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That's not "reconnection", that's only the *FIRST STEP* in a process that *REQUIRES* the *INDUCEMENT OF CURRENT* and an "electrical discharge/reconnection" of that current.

Absolutely dead wrong. There is nothing in the definition of magnetic reconnection that requires any inducement of current. That happens if and only if the reconnection of the magnetic field happens in a plasma. I have said this before too ...

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Nobody is making the absurd claim that magnetic reconnection produces current in a vacuum! Look at the definition I gave in my own words above, confirmed by the sources in my post: A change in the topology of the magnetic field, changing the connectivity of the lines of force of the magnetic field. This process almost always results in the magnetic field transitioning from a higher to a lower energy state (there my be exceptional cases where the energy of the field does not change, but they are surely very strange and not important for this discussion). If that happens in a vacuum, there will be no current induced, no electricity, no "discharge", none of that. How could there be? It's a vacuum! Nobody ever made such a claim that I am aware of, and I most certainly never have. However, if that process happens in a plasma environment, then instead of the excess energy simply radiating away unnoticed to the vacuum, it goes into the plasma when the post reconnection magnetic field relaxes from higher to lower energy. Only then do we get currents and all of the nifty plasma physics that comes out of magnetic reconnection. Nobody writes papers about the magnetic field reconnecting & relaxing in a vacuum because it's a really boring thing that does nothing worth writing about. On the other hand, everybody wants to write papers about the reconnection of magnetic fields in a plasma because lots of really fascinating stuff happens in that case.

Bottom line: I have already fully justified magnetic reconnection in a vacuum, but Mozina has ignored my primary arguments and badly fouled up on those he chooses to respond to, usually ignoring the fact that things have already been said, while ho goes off on some tangent about how we have not done or said something that was done & said long ago. This is going to get boring, if it isn't already.
__________________
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 11th March 2012, 12:46 PM   #6715
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,134
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
The real photosphere sits under the plasma of the chromosphere, the transition region and the corona. The toy photosphere sits under a vacuum (that's why it's a "toy" model). So the magnetic field loops that look like real coronal magnetic field loops extend not into a plasma but into a vacuum, where reconnection takes place (that's why it's called "vacuum reconnection").
Perhaps this is something that we have not emphasized enough to Mozina (or that he has chosen to ignore): MR in a vacuum is "in a vacuum" because it happens at the null point which is in vacuum.
So even if someone was ignorant enough to replace the idealized current flowing through a point in 2D with an infinitesimally thin, non-physical wire (or even plasma magically constrained to flow through a point!), the MR would still happen in a vacuum.
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 13th March 2012, 08:46 AM   #6716
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Thumbs up Hey, LMSAL is *FINALLY* starting to figure it out!

Quote:
LOCKHEED MARTIN SOLAR AND ASTROPHYSICS LABORATORY SEMINAR

Date : Tuesday, 20 March 2012

Time : 3:00 PM

Place: 2nd FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, Bldg. 252,
3176 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304

Speaker: Christoph Kuckein
(Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias)

Title: An active region filament studied simultaneously in the photosphere and chromosphere

Abstract: We present new results regarding the magnetic structure, magnetic field strength and Doppler velocities found in a compact active region (AR) filament. The observed structure is best described as a flux rope that emerges from below the photosphere, where it is recognized as an orphan penumbral system,and makes its way up into the chromosphere. Spectropolarimetric data sets, which comprise the photospheric Si I 10827 AA line and the chromospheric He I 10830 AA triplet, were acquired with the Tenerife Infrared Polarimeter (TIP-II @ VTT, Tenerife, Spain) in 2005. Hence, the filament can be studied simultaneously in the photosphere and chromosphere. The four Stokes profiles were inverted with different inversion codes to retrieve the vector magnetic field and the line-of-sight (LOS) velocities. The velocities were calibrated on an absolute scale. To describe the evolution of this AR filament we also used SOHO/MDI, BBSO, and images of the Dutch Open Telescope (La Palma, Spain).

A widening of the polarity inversion line (PIL), simil! ar to the 'sliding door' effect shown by Okamoto et al. 2008, was seen in our data. The inferred vector magnetic fields of the filament suggest a flux rope topology. However, the very low-lying filament seems to be divided in two parts: one that lies in the chromosphere while the other part is trapped in the photosphere and hence develop an orphan penumbral system. The filament region displays upward motions of the horizontal magnetic field lines in the photosphere. In the chromosphere, only localized upflow patches of the horizontal fields are seen above the orphan penumbrae. Photospheric supersonic downflows that last for tens of minutes are detected below the filament along the PIL.
Emphasis mine. It's about TIME! They are FINALLY realizing that the coronal loops originate *UNDER* the photosphere and can be tracked up the SIDE of UMBRA! WOW! That's progress. Now if I can just get them to describe the relationships between the filters, and the fact the iron ion line can be seen traversing the surface of the photosphere, we can actually have a real conversation about solar satellite images. I wonder where they now place "solar moss" in relationship to the surface of the photosphere now that they FINALLY understand that magnetic rope/Bennett pinch begins UNDER the photosphere? That's is progress IMO.

I may actually see if I can figure out a way to go to that particular meeting. It sounds positively FASCINATING. I'm curious to know how deeply into the photosphere they are able to see.

Cool!
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 13th March 2012, 08:53 AM   #6717
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Such statements, without clearly defining such things as reconnection rate, are nothing much more than theoretical hypostatized hyperbole.
Clinger's maths are *WAY* too primitive to describe rates of reconnection, or anything of the sort. They are destined to NEVER see the light of publishing day. IMO DRD's conversation about the usefulness of published works is ironic, particularly when applied to this topic. The EU haters utterly ignore the fact that not one of them has produced a *PUBLISHED* work that supports their claim that plasma physical particles are 'optional', let alone anything that describes the rate of reconnection in the absence of plasma physics. The whole thing is an ironic sham, because their position on this topic is a pathetic house of cards. They could NEVER produce a published work to support their nonsense that describes the rate of reconnection in the absence of plasma and they know it.

They don't really care about publishing or mathematics. When it comes right down to it, they cling to a NON PUBLISHED piece of nonsense on the internet and fail to produce ANYTHING PUBLISHED that even REMOTELY supports their claim. Irony overload.
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 13th March 2012, 08:57 AM   #6718
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Wow! The more I think about that presentation at LMSAL next week, the more I'm stoked and excited. It's about time that the mainstream finally acknowledges that the coronal loops TRAVERSE the surface of the photosphere and they are "lit up" and achieve million degree temperatures UNDER the surface of the photosphere. It's definitely progress IMO.
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 13th March 2012, 09:00 AM   #6719
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Indeed. Magnetic reconnection occurs. It can be demonstrated with a few refrigerator magnets.
BS. It's just "flux". You folks will NEVER produce a PUBLISHED work that makes that claim, let alone demonstrate that reconnection occurs in the ABSENCE of plasma. It's never going to happen. It can't physically happen in fact. No physical charged particles means no transfer of stored magnetic field energy can take place into particle kinetic energy. Therefore no discharge, and no 'reconnection'.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 13th March 2012 at 09:02 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 13th March 2012, 09:11 AM   #6720
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Sorry to break it to you, but it is you who keeps on claiming that a current is a non-neutral plasma, not only this last time, but many a time in the years before in this thread and in other threads.
You keep trying to tap dance around the point. Somov's "vacuum" contains *PLASMA*. Get a grip. Get RC to get a grip.

IMO the mainstream keep ignoring the physics! It's not JUST about math, it's also about the PHYSICAL PARTICLES that do the work!
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 07:28 PM.
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.