Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[ben m]

No. Field lines do NOT reconnect, they form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning, without ending, without the ability disconnect from, or reconnect to any other "magnetic line".

Nope. Field lines can cross at saddle points. We've given you an explicit equation for a B field that does this. We've given you an explicit current field that generates such a B field. You can, in fact, generate a reconnecting B field by moving two refrigerator magnets towards each other.

Sound familiar?

Heck, I thought your objection had switched from "field lines never ever cross" to "no field energy is stored where field lines cross". Apparently not.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope. Field lines can cross at saddle points. We've given you an explicit equation for a B field that does this.

Yes, but you never once demonstrated it works in the lab Ben. You shouldn't need CURRENT at all to "reconnect" a couple of magnetic lines. In fact, all you should need is a couple of Earth magnets and NON CURRENT CARRYING plasmas to demonstrate the effect in the lab and I should see million degree electrons flying out of the plasma.

We've given you an explicit current field that generates such a B field.

You provided no physical way in your experiments to differentiate between "field line reconnection' and ordinary induction processes in plasma Ben.

You can, in fact, generate a reconnecting B field by moving two refrigerator magnets towards each other.

Sound familiar?

Sounds like a familiar bunch of BS. In fact ben, if your theory worked as described, you should NEVER need to put currents into the plasma in the first place!

Heck, I thought your objection had switched from "field lines never ever cross" to "no field energy is stored where field lines cross". Apparently not.

The transfer of stored magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy already has a proper scientific name Ben, it's called "induction". The "reconnection" of two currents is called "current reconnection". Magnetic lines never reconnect in the lab, and you have yet to provide an experiment that is even capable of discerning current reconnection from magnetic line reconnection, let alone any experiment that positively rules out induction as the cause of the results that are seen in the experiment.

 

[ben m]

I can respond to each of these individually, but at this point I can't tell what you're objecting to. After five hundred posts of "waaa you guys are ignoring currents", suddenly there's a current-carrying plasma experiment and you want it not to have currents?

If you want to see reconnection with no current-carrying plasma, use refrigerator magnets in air. But then you'll object that it doesn't simulate the Sun because it doesn't have current.

Aaaand that gets me right back to not caring any more. A new speed record!

 

[Michael Mozina]

There's a series of blatant problems in the MR experiments cited to date:

Not one of them makes a single attempt to eliminate induction and ordinary current flow processes as the cause of the energy transfer process. Not one of the begins with the B field, they all actually start with the E field or current. Virtually all the experiments cited thus far have followed the pattern: E field first, current flow, reconnection of current which is then erroneously labeled "magnetic reconnection".

Not a single one of them actually attempts to ELIMINATE other options, in fact they specifically and intentionally DO NOT make any attempt to eliminate ordinary electrical processes in plasma, and go out of their way to CONFUSE the issue by erroneously starting with current carrying plasma rather than simply starting with a magnetic field in a non current carrying environment.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, I'm still waiting for one of you folks to explain that flare video and the items I marked on the JPG image.

 

[dasmiller]

Well, that's part of it. They just so happen to follow the same arc shape that Birkeland's experiments "predicted" they would take over 100 years ago.

Ah, Birkeland's experiments showed U-shaped arcs with aspect ratios of 5-20, with both ends connected to the tirella? I thought they showed twisty, high-aspect-ratio arcs with one end on the tirella and the other on the wall of the chamber.

Well, that tells us it's mostly from the 131 channel and that it's millions of degrees hot.

So it must I²R heating because it's really hot?

Who cares? It's HUGE! Electrical discharges have been shown to occur over vast distances. What is the longest "magnetic reconnection" process that been seen on Earth?

The largest terrestrial electric discharges would be far too small to be visible on the picture that you provided. The size of the flare does not favor electrical discharge over any other theory.

What other mechanism would that be?

I'd vote for magnetic reconnection, despite your denials. But I'd defer to Tim, Tus, etc.

Has that specific method resulted in a nice pretty atmospheric arc like Birkeland did in his experiments?

Speaking for myself, while I find the images of Birkeland's experiments to be fascinating and a little eerie, I do not find them to be compellingly evocative of solar flares.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ah, Birkeland's experiments showed U-shaped arcs with aspect ratios of 5-20, with both ends connected to the tirella? I thought they showed twisty, high-aspect-ratio arcs with one end on the tirella and the other on the wall of the chamber.

That's incorrect:

The loops start and end on the terrella itself. I'm not sure about the aspect ratios he created in his particular experiments, but the obvious loop shapes are pretty obviously like the coronal loops in overall shape.

So it must I²R heating because it's really hot?

Since electrical discharges are known to do that around other bodies in the solar system it's certainly the single most likely candidate. No other theory even scores a 2 out of 6 possible points whereas electrical discharges have been empirically linked to 6 of 6.

The largest terrestrial electric discharges would be far too small to be visible on the picture that you provided.

It might show up in a pixel or two, but you're right, it's a "percent of sphere" sort of 'relative'. Compared to anything ever accomplished with 'magnetic reconnection' on Earth, it's not even a competition however. If we grade by relative size, your MR theory is also a relative wimp again.

The size of the flare does not favor electrical discharge over any other theory.

It's certainly an issue that must be explained by whatever energy sources and mechanisms we put forth.

I'd vote for magnetic reconnection, despite your denials. But I'd defer to Tim, Tus, etc.

You're essentially voting for the wimpy 1 out of 6 empirical weakling that never happens "naturally" here on Earth, and betting against the 6 to one favorite, with muscles of steel and 6 out of 6 points, including the fact it happens "naturally" around other bodies in the same solar system! Good luck with that bet....

Speaking for myself, while I find the images of Birkeland's experiments to be fascinating and a little eerie, I do not find them to be compellingly evocative of solar flares.

Since you didn't know that both of his footprints touched the surface of the sphere, that is entirely understandable. I humbly suggest that you reread his work again to gain a greater appreciation for it's value as it relates to solar physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://spaceweather.com/images2011/24sep11/x2.mov
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/sdo/shockwave.jpg

You guys really have a major problem on your hands when it comes to explaining that shockwave. Not only does the shock wave split into two, right at the ridge (1 and 3), it also blows down tons and tons of other coronal loop clusters in it's path. If EM fields alone had the power to block the path of the shock wave, we would have seen evidence of such a thing as the shockwave traveled south. Nothing like that happens. The coronal loops in the path of the shockwave behave like grass that is blowing in the wind. They show no signs at all of blocking the travel path of the shockwave at all during it's trip south. The only thing that blocks the shockwave is the ridge. Nothing much happens to any coronal loops beyond that ridge line I drew, but no coronal loop or cluster of loops in the path of the shock wave traveling south has even the slightest effect on path of the shockwave.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Oh, but I do. I understand the physical difference between a flow of current and a "magnetic line", something you folks seem to be completely incapable of discerning.

If Michael Mozina understood the difference between magnetic lines and currents, he wouldn't be claiming that the magnetic field lines shown in Dungey's paper are actually currents.

I find it hard to believe that any of the regular participants in this thread, except for Michael Mozina and possibly a few other ES believers, have ever confused magnetic lines with a flow of current.

The fact you don't care is what prevents you from seeing that at the level of actual particle physics, it's not the magnetic lines that "reconnect", it's currents that "reconnect". Since you don't care, you don't care.

A Google search on "magnetic reconnection" turns up over 200,000 hits. A Google search on "current reconnection" turns up fewer than 2000 hits, and the only link on the first page that could possibly be using that phrase as Michael Mozina uses it is a link to one of Michael Mozina's posts here at the JREF Forum. (The other links are about Hall current reconnection or random juxtapositions such as "current, reconnection".)

So Michael Mozina would appear to bear the burden of convincing the world that his terminology and point of view are correct.

We've been over this a million times. Field lines DO reconnect. (So can currents, of course, but that's not what we're talking about) The physics is fine. Alfven was wrong on this point.

Indeed.

No. Field lines do NOT reconnect, they form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning, without ending, without the ability disconnect from, or reconnect to any other "magnetic line".

Nonsense. As I have explained previously, Michael Mozina is merely asserting his misunderstanding of Maxwell's equations and of magnetic field lines. Indeed, a Google search on "form as a full and complete continuum" turns up nothing but Michael Mozina's posts. He's been repeating that phrase so often that he's talked himself into believing it.

Nope. Field lines can cross at saddle points. We've given you an explicit equation for a B field that does this. We've given you an explicit current field that generates such a B field. You can, in fact, generate a reconnecting B field by moving two refrigerator magnets towards each other.

Sound familiar?

It should.

Here's just one of countless examples that Michael Mozina has ignored:

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:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1192499b6711ad5d6.gif[/qimg]

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.

Correction: Anyone who knows enough physics to contribute to these discussions can check such examples to determine whether Maxwell's equations are satisfied. Michael Mozina can't.

 

[dasmiller]

That's incorrect:

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg[/qimg]
The loops start and end on the terrella itself.

I stand corrected; I was thinking of most of the other images. It took me a while to find that one, btw.

I'm not sure about the aspect ratios he created in his particular experiments, but the obvious loop shapes are pretty obviously like the coronal loops in overall shape.

Once again, we part company. In the terrella picture, the arcs start at the mid-latitudes and head south, remaining close to the surface, until they reach the equator, at which point they merge into a big saucer shape that invisibly connects to a few points coming off of one pole.

Aside from glowing, the loop in the NASA picture looks nothing like that.

And to quote Birkeland himself when discussing this image,

In this case the origin of the sun-spots must be that the presumptive more or less insulating photospheric envelope was sometimes pierced by disruptive discharges, thus forming great electric arcs. That the tension necessary to pierce the photosphere would be very great would not be surprising, this alone being sufficient to explain the very great rigidity of the cathode-rays emitted.

The temperature of the spots should, upon this hypothesis, be very high. This, it is said, does not seem to be well confirmed by the measurements;

 

[Michael Mozina]

If Michael Mozina understood the difference between magnetic lines and currents, he wouldn't be claiming that the magnetic field lines shown in Dungey's paper are actually currents.

I find it hard to believe that any of the regular participants in this thread, except for Michael Mozina and possibly a few other ES believers, have ever confused magnetic lines with a flow of current.

On no. Your entire industry can't tell a current from a 'magnetic line' or they wouldn't be reconnecting two CURRENTS in plasma and calling it "magnetic line reconnection". Alfven was right. The term "pseudoscience" applies to the concept of MR theory. It's "pseudo" correct from the standpoint of mathematics (sort of), but from the standpoint of particle physics, it's FUBAR.

You have CURRENTS that actually "reconnect" in your empirical experiments, not simple, "magnetic lines". Essentially you're intentionally dumbing down the math to the B orientation, even though your physical experiments all begin with E! In the commercial world that would be called false advertizing, or "bait and switch" advertizing.

Salesman: I have this great device that runs on "magnetic reconnection".
Customer: If it runs on "magnetic reconnection" why do I have to plug it in to the wall socket?
Salesman: Well, that's just because.
Customer: Are you absolutely sure that this thing runs on "magnetic reconnection" and not electricity?
Salesman: Of course (he scoffs)! Here's all the equations in this book that comes with the device.
Customer: Why does it use so much electricity according to the specs?
Salesman: I dunno.

A Google search on "magnetic reconnection" turns up over 200,000 hits. A Google search on "current reconnection" turns up fewer than 2000 hits, and the only link on the first page that could possibly be using that phrase as Michael Mozina uses it is a link to one of Michael Mozina's posts here at the JREF Forum. (The other links are about Hall current reconnection or random juxtapositions such as "current, reconnection".)

So Michael Mozina would appear to bear the burden of convincing the world that his terminology and point of view are correct.

Nice try at shifting the empirical burden of proof, but it won't fly. I have ALREADY empirically linked electrical discharges to 6 of 6 of the items on my list. It's your burden now to PHYSICALLY and EMPIRICALLY demonstrate that you have a competitive product, in the lab, in real "controlled" experiments where the CONTROL mechanisms isn't just an electrical switch that produce CURRENTS which you then "reconnect".

Nonsense. As I have explained previously, Michael Mozina is merely asserting his misunderstanding of Maxwell's equations and of magnetic field lines. Indeed, a Google search on "form as a full and complete continuum" turns up nothing but Michael Mozina's posts. He's been repeating that phrase so often that he's talked himself into believing it.


It should.

Here's just one of countless examples that Michael Mozina has ignored:

Correction: Anyone who knows enough physics to contribute to these discussions can check such examples to determine whether Maxwell's equations are satisfied. Michael Mozina can't.

Your argument is pure baloney. Alfven certainly understood Maxwell's equations as well as you do, and he rejected the concept till the day he died, in fact he rejected the idea for DECADES. Even someone that doesn't know a thing about math knows that your power source isn't "magnetic reconnection' if you have to plug it in.

I already went through the physics of those experiments which you claim involve "magnetic reconnection". The only thing(s) that physically reconnected were "currents", not "magnetic lines".

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You have CURRENTS that actually "reconnect" in your empirical experiments, not simple, "magnetic lines". Essentially you're intentionally dumbing down the math to the B orientation, even though your physical experiments all begin with E! In the commercial world that would be called false advertizing, or "bait and switch" advertizing.

No. Your "argument" above depends upon your assumption that you're right about the magnetic lines being currents. You're wrong, and you're wrong because you can't tell the difference between a magnetic field line and a current.

Your argument is pure baloney. Alfven certainly understood Maxwell's equations as well as you do, and he rejected the concept till the day he died, in fact he rejected the idea for DECADES.

Although Alfvén has forgotten more of that stuff than I ever knew, and I'm kinda rusty myself, I'm pretty sure that my current knowledge of Maxwell's equations compares favorably to Alfvén's current knowledge.

You can't defend your argument by using mathematics or physics, so you have to appeal to the prejudices of a dead guy. Although Alfvén was skeptical about the relevance of magnetic reconnection to solar phenomena, he never denied the reality of magnetic reconnection itself. That's your shtick.

I already went through the physics of those experiments which you claim involve "magnetic reconnection". The only thing(s) that physically reconnected were "currents", not "magnetic lines".

No, you have only claimed to have gone through the physics of those experiments. You haven't even begun to address the physics of Ziggurat's simple example, which I quoted about three posts up.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. Your "argument" above depends upon your assumption that you're right about the magnetic lines being currents. You're wrong, and you're wrong because you can't tell the difference between a magnetic field line and a current.

You have that backwards. We looked at your so called "experiments". They all started with the E field and two 'currents', not just 'magnetic lines'.

Although Alfvén has forgotten more of that stuff than I ever knew, and I'm kinda rusty myself, I'm pretty sure that my current knowledge of Maxwell's equations compares favorably to Alfvén's current knowledge.

I'm pretty sure it's an irrelevant argument because it still comes right back to your laboratory experiments that all require "current".

You can't defend your argument by using mathematics or physics, so you have to appeal to the prejudices of a dead guy. Although Alfvén was skeptical about the relevance of magnetic reconnection to solar phenomena, he never denied the reality of magnetic reconnection itself. That's your shtick.

What are you talking about? I didn't rely on anything Alfven said. I looked at your EXPERIMENTS that had not even been done prior to his death to figure out that you reconnected a couple of CURRENTS.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You mean to tell me that with all your combined expertise on the standard solar model, not a single one of you can explain the travel path(s) of that shock wave we see in the SDO movie? What a useless theory.

 

[tusenfem]

But you never once provided an experiment that didn't simply reconnect "currents", not magnetic lines. You folks did the "bait and switch" routine. You created two currents, dumbed them down verbally and mathematically and called them "magnetic lines". You then called it "magnetic line connection" when in fact it was "current reconnection" that actually occurred in the plasmas. In effect your own cited experiments show that your B orientation is pathetically meaningless and a complete misrepresentation of the physics. The majority of your own "experiments" begin and end with the E field not the B field. You have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse, and your assertion it is "magnetic lines" that reconnect is pure BS. The CURRENTS physically reconnect.

And still you don't understand reconnection. The whole important thing is that the magnetic field topology is irreversably changed, which CANNOT be done with induction or just currents, for one the time scales ARE WAY TOO LONG to explain observations e.g. in the Earth's magnetotail.

Circuit theory explains flares just fine. I don't need you precious "magnetic reconnection" theory to explain a flare!

NO it does not, you can use a circuit model to calculate the total energy stored in the coronal loop, however there is no way in space that you can actually describe the microphysics of the energy release. That may be totally uninteresting for you, because then you would have to actually deal with real physics, in order to understand what the actual release process is, and you rather look at pictures.

In current carrying plasmas, all you need is one or a couple of "short circuits" to explain flares. I don't need your stupid reconnection theory and I already know for a fact that you blatantly misrepresent CURRENT reconnection as "magnetic reconnection". I've learned a lot.

Oh really, it is just that simple, how odd that I never realized that. What exactly is a "short circuit"? How do you get from a coronal loop, after the explosion again a smaller coronal loop and a magnetic bubble that is flying away from the sun? Please give us a full explanation of this current reconnection, and explain the observations from Runov et al. in the Earth's magnetotail, which happens to be in agreement with everything that is expected from magnetic reconnection. But hey, you are apparently the one eyed king in the land of the blind, so please make us see with a full fledged model.

Please excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

 

[tusenfem]

No. Field lines do NOT reconnect, they form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning, without ending, without the ability disconnect from, or reconnect to any other "magnetic line".

Ofcourse, what you forget is that the magnetic field at the neutral point/line is zero.

How is a field line defined when the field strength is zero, how does the continuity work there?

 

[Michael Mozina]

And still you don't understand reconnection. The whole important thing is that the magnetic field topology is irreversably changed, which CANNOT be done with induction or just currents,

If your so called "magnetic line" turns out to be nothing more than a "Birkeland current", you sure can. That's exactly what your experiments PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt in fact. You used two CURRENTS, specifically FIELD ALIGNED CURRENTS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

NO it does not, you can use a circuit model to calculate the total energy stored in the coronal loop, however there is no way in space that you can actually describe the microphysics of the energy release.

That isn't true. You can subdivide the loops like Mann and Onel did.

That may be totally uninteresting for you, because then you would have to actually deal with real physics, in order to understand what the actual release process is, and you rather look at pictures.

Actually I do rather enjoy looking at the pictures and EXPLAINING them. Since you fancy yourself as this thread foremost leading expert on plasma physics, and "magnetic reconnection' theory, how about you use all this great knowledge to explain the travel path of that shock wave in the SDO movie of that X-class flare for us?

Oh really, it is just that simple, how odd that I never realized that.

How odd indeed. Did you ever actually talk to Alfven about it by the way?

What exactly is a "short circuit"?

You've really never seen one occur?

How do you get from a coronal loop, after the explosion again a smaller coronal loop

Some of the materials blow off the thread during the pinch but some current continues down a smaller thread.

and a magnetic bubble

WTF is a "magnetic bubble"?

that is flying away from the sun?

That shock wave from the flare didn't actually fly "away from" the sun. It flew toward the 10:00 position, got split into two like it hit a solid mountain range and proceeded to then blow over every coronal loop in it's path. Care to explain that shock wave?

Please excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

Please excuse my lack of interest in your magnespheric nonsense which Alfven also explained with CIRCUITS. I'm interested in solar physics, and the physics of that last x-class flare. Shows us your stuff...... Not that I'm actually holding my breath.....

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ofcourse, what you forget is that the magnetic field at the neutral point/line is zero.

How is a field line defined when the field strength is zero, how does the continuity work there?

A better question would be, since your field strength is ZERO, where the hell is the kinetic energy coming from?

 

[Reality Check]

You guys really have a major problem on your hands when it comes to explaining that shockwave. Not only does the shock wave split into two, right at the ridge (1 and 3), it also blows down tons and tons of other coronal loop clusters in it's path. If EM fields alone had the power to block the path of the shock wave, we would have seen evidence of such a thing as the shockwave traveled south....

We have no problems.
You are the one without an explanation about the path of the shock wave.

You are asserting without evidence that there are 'EM fields' that should exist to the south and that these fields should change the density of the plasma and defflect the shock wave.

The actual science is the other way around.
Magnetic fields change the density of plasma (standard plasma physics). The non-deflection of the shock wave to the south indicates that in that region the density of the plasma has not changed enough to deflect the shock wave.

If you are asserting that there are magnetic fields in that region that should have deflected the shock wave then it is up to you to provide the evidence that these magnetic filed exist.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We have no problems.
You are the one without an explanation about the path of the shock wave.

What? Based on the Birkeland solar model described on my website I would "explain" it by saying that the shockwave hit a literal (and solid) mountain range and was deflected by those physical objects.

What was your explanation for the fact the shockwave is split in two at area 1 and is blocked from further expansion in the regions beyond the line marked 3?

You are asserting without evidence that there are 'EM fields' that should exist to the south and that these fields should change the density of the plasma and defflect the shock wave.

Er, no. I'm saying a literal mountain range deflected the shockwave. What did you say deflected that shockwave?

Magnetic fields change the density of plasma (standard plasma physics).

So what? Got any evidence there was either a density or field change capable of deflecting and separating that shock wave at 1 or along 3? Aren't you claiming all those iron lines ONLY appear in the 'corona', a wispy light layer of the sun?

The non-deflection of the shock wave to the south indicates that in that region the density of the plasma has not changed enough to deflect the shock wave.

What explains the fact that it changed direction so complete and the fact that none of the shockwave proceeds beyond the areas 1 and 3 or has any effect on the loops beyond that line?

If you are asserting that there are magnetic fields in that region that should have deflected the shock wave then it is up to you to provide the evidence that these magnetic filed exist.

Right back at you in region 3 RC.