|
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. |
24th March 2011, 11:03 AM | #1 | ||
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
Problems With Magnetic Reconnection
I shall, in this article, attempt to illuminate the problems with current magnetic reconnection theory. In order to do that, I will first have to try and describe in layman’s terms just what the standard theory says occurs when magnetic reconnection takes place. The scientific press has been rather mute in portraying the problems with this theory.
For those of you who are totally unfamiliar with the topic, magnetic reconnection is claimed to account for sudden releases of kinetic energy within a field of plasma. Scientists presume these sudden releases of energy are caused by “reconnecting” magnetic field lines. This topic is vitally important in modern cosmology because “reconnection” plays a role in explanations of practically everything we observe in space. Magnetic reconnection is observed to occur on the Sun, in the auroras, in neutron stars, in comets, and practically every other place that matter in a plasma state exists.
|
||
24th March 2011, 11:13 AM | #2 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
24th March 2011, 11:48 AM | #3 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,393
|
With all due respect, tl;dr.
|
__________________
A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong? Now free for download! http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine |
|
24th March 2011, 11:51 AM | #4 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
tl; dr. Let's skip the bluffing and go straight to the "tells".
Quote:
In any case, it doesn't matter. The "lines" aren't causing anything. Ions and electrons don't care where lines are, they care about local field vectors. If you want to talk about reconnection scenarios purely in terms of the fields, and never mentioning lines, you can do that---the physics is the same, you're just hobbling your ability to describe it to humans.
Quote:
Let me give some advice.
|
24th March 2011, 12:08 PM | #5 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
24th March 2011, 12:16 PM | #6 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
Throwing out a list of random stuff that has nothing to do with the topic does nothing to diminish the points made in my article.
1. MHD can not describe the double layer condition, which we know must exist between two differing plasma fields. 2. Magnetic reconnection theory does not incorporate a double layer, which we know must exist between two differing plasma fields. 3. Magnetic null points are an artifact of how MHD treats the plasma. As was stated, this treatment is wrong on several levels. Given that an intense electric field is generated along the boundary of two differing plasmas, there is no way that a magnetic null point can form. |
24th March 2011, 12:33 PM | #7 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
Haven't we been through all this before?
|
24th March 2011, 12:43 PM | #8 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
Not with me you haven't.
I'm specifically looking for an explanation as to why two differing plasma fields should not have a double layer boundary. The lack of such a boundary is required for MHD models have any validity at all. Astrophysicists are basically denying that double layers exist between differing plasmas by ignoring them. Either circuit theory is wrong and there is no such thing as a double layer, or MHD reconnection is wrong. One or the other. Chose which theory to mock. |
24th March 2011, 12:47 PM | #9 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
24th March 2011, 12:49 PM | #10 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
I didn't say anything wrong.
When a plasma is moving, taking snap shots of the B field and integrating it across time and space while ignoring the parallel electric field, which by necessity is not zero, is meaningless. Fälthammar explains: http://plasma.colorado.edu/phys7810/...Lines_2007.pdf It's a totally pointless exercise used to hide what is really going on. |
24th March 2011, 12:53 PM | #11 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
24th March 2011, 12:55 PM | #12 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
|
24th March 2011, 12:57 PM | #13 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
Indeed. In fact, we can produce reconnection with only a slight modification. If you use the field
{Bx,By} = {b*y, a*x} then when you change the ratio a/b, you will reconnect points, as shown below: So the math clearly works. One may dislike the terminology all one wants to, but that's irrelevant. The term is well-defined, and actual magnetic fields which satisfy Maxwell's equations (you can check) fit the description. |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
24th March 2011, 12:59 PM | #14 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
|
24th March 2011, 12:59 PM | #15 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
Yes, you did. Your article is wrong.
"In reality, such explanations are totally meaningless. It is meaningless to assert that a field line that was at A is now at B, because there is no way to identify or distinguish one magnetic field line from another in a vector continuum that is moving." False. " The only way that the integration even comes close to being valid is when the parallel electric field (the electric field component parallel to the magnetic field line) is zero. This condition is not satisfied in standing theories of magnetic reconnection." False. "Since a magnetic field is an infinite continuum, there can be no splitting and reconnecting of field lines." False. "In order for a field line (which is a mathematical construct used to describe the location of a magnetic field) to “reconnect” it would first have to be spliced in half. This splicing creates what is tantamount to a magnetic monopole, which we know do not exist." False. "It is impossible for a magnetic field line to ever have an end-point. It is no more possible for a field line to have an end point than a contour line on a topographical map to have an end point." Contour lines on a map of a changing landscape can reconnect for exactly the same reason magnetic field lines can - at a point where the gradient is zero. |
24th March 2011, 01:00 PM | #16 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:01 PM | #17 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:02 PM | #18 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:02 PM | #19 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:03 PM | #20 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:05 PM | #21 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:06 PM | #22 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
The author argues against using a particular equation when certain conditions required for that equation do not hold. He further points out that "the most interesting plasma physics occurs precisely where and because this equation is not satisfied, such as the auroral acceleration region, magnetic field reconnection, turbulence, shocks, and many wave modes."
Read that sentence carefully. He's saying one cannot use a particular equation to describe magnetic reconnection. But do you know what that means? It means that the author is saying that magnetic reconnection is real. He's saying that if one isn't careful, one can handle it incorrectly, but he's also saying it's a real and interesting phenomenon. Furthermore, he is NOT claiming that everyone who works on magnetic reconnection is doing it wrong. No such claim exists within that paper. |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
24th March 2011, 01:08 PM | #23 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:10 PM | #24 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
I have no idea what you mean by this.
I do know, however, that the magnetic field equation I gave you satisfies Maxwell's equations, it is a rigorously defined vector quantity at every single point in space, and it is therefore a valid magnetic field. If I am wrong about that, you should be able to demonstrate my error rather simply. Just find a point where the field is not defined, or calculate the divergence to show that it's nonzero. Do you know how to calculate the divergence of a vector field? |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
24th March 2011, 01:10 PM | #25 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
ok
How about this one from Fälthammar http://www.geofisica.unam.mx/divulga.../Falthamar.pdf What Fälthammar means by "reconnection" is an exploding double layer. |
24th March 2011, 01:12 PM | #26 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:12 PM | #27 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
24th March 2011, 01:14 PM | #28 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:16 PM | #29 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
The equation I gave you does that.
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, seriously, have you EVER studied the subject? Ever read a single textbook? Do you know what Maxwell's equations actually mean? Do you even know any vector calculus? Because so far, you don't seem to have a clue about the actual math involved. And that seems to be the sine qua non for physics cranks. |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
24th March 2011, 01:20 PM | #30 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
lines are not vector fields, which encompass 3 dimensions.
If I'm understanding your argument correctly, you are making the claim that there are points in space where the magnetic field is perfectly counter balanced at all points in a sphere leading to a condition where B=0. All of this taking place right in the middle of a current sheet no less. That is what you are claiming right? |
24th March 2011, 01:21 PM | #31 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
You linked to a peer reviewed pedagogical paper which argues the following points:
Quote:
This does not argue any of your points, which were "field lines are ill defined" (wrong) and "field lines mathematically cannot cross" (wrong). It is, however, a pretty good argument in favor of my point: You, personally, don't know enough plasma physics to conduct a coherent discussion of it. All you have is a pile of Alfven-ite literature that you don't quite understand; you're going to shovel it out randomly and declare intellectual victory after each shovelful. |
24th March 2011, 01:22 PM | #32 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
Then you know something which is not true, because magnetic fields don't come from charges, they come from currents, and one can in fact create closed magnetic field configurations rather easily. A toroidal solenoid is the prototypical example.
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
24th March 2011, 01:24 PM | #33 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
So you are claiming that two differing plasma fields will not bound themselves by a double layer?
I just want to be sure I'm reading your non-argument correctly here. Given that you are engaging in ad homs rather than explaining why there is no double layer, I will consider that a victory for my cause. |
24th March 2011, 01:24 PM | #34 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
What is wrong with this B-field, Michael?
{Bx,By} = {b*y, a*x} And why don't you illustrate for us that you understand freshman-level electrodynamics by computing its curl and divergence. If you cannot do that in your head or in a few seconds on paper, you have no business whatsoever discussing this topic. Can you do that? |
24th March 2011, 01:26 PM | #35 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,565
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:28 PM | #36 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:29 PM | #37 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:29 PM | #38 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
I know that. Which is why I started out with an equation for the vector field. That equation gives you a vector quantity at every single point. It was a vector field. Given the vector field (which I specified), one can THEN draw field lines to illustrate that vector field. But the vector field obviously remains, I already defined it, and it's defined everywhere, even where I did not draw the lines.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
24th March 2011, 01:30 PM | #39 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
24th March 2011, 01:31 PM | #40 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|