Lets discuss reconnection

[korjik]

I dont even know where to begin.
Why would there be a current in a permanent magnet?
Are you saying that plasma is like a permanent magnet?
Do permanent magnets vary their field strength?
There is no such thing a variable permanent magnet.
In order to have a variable magnetic field you must have a variable current flow in a conductor.
Plasma has a variable magnetic field so it cannot be a permanent magnet, so it must be an electromagnet, which requires an electric current.
Is that clear enough?

If you search upriver and bar magnet, you could probably find my comments on that.

This is not an answer. You have repeatedly stated that magnetic fields cannot exist without currents, so where are the currents in a permanent magnet?

Morse Code?

Not an anwser. You have stated that there is no energy in a magnetic field. So, how does energy pass between the two electrically isolated portions of a transformer?

Electrically via photon waves.

What is a photon wave?

The solar wind (mostly)does not recombine. It's a "neutral" plasma. Plasma means it ionized, neutral means equal number of species.
And we all know recombination is a femtosecond process.

How do you know that recombination is a femtosecond process? reference please.

My point was this.
Where is the 149490k heat source that keeps the H and He ionized all the way to the heliosphere?

In my experiment, the D2 ionization went away immediately when I turned off the current. Are you saying that H, D2 are different out in space?

How do you measure 'went away immediately'? reference please. I do know that in my experiment we get D plasma up to 30kps drift velocities which means that the chamber is empty of plasma in microseconds just from hitting the walls. I also know that the 30kps plasma also lasts the microseconds needed to go the meter to reach my probe in a rather high background neutral environment. Both of these seem to indicate that the recombination takes longer that femtoseconds.

If you do plasma physics, how do you not know that temperature is not a well defined concept in a plasma?

I will not put up with dodging my questions. please answer them according to the BAUT rules.

[ManInTheMirror]

Not an anwser. You have stated that there is no energy in a magnetic field. So, how does energy pass between the two electrically isolated portions of a transformer?

Argh! This is like having someone run their nails down a chalkboard. I do not want to rain on your parade here, but you can't use a transformer as a example of magnetic reconnection! There is no such thing as magnetic reconnection in a transformer. A transformer transforms *electric current*!

If you going to use analogies, how about trying an induction analogy where that solid magnet of yours passes by some fixed coils. At least that makes your analogy a valid analogy. Even then however *electricity* is created!

Astronomers do not seem to understand that magnetism and electricity go hand in hand. They want to fixate on *only* the magnetism, and they completely neglect the electrical aspect of the energy transaction.

Jerry is right. This became really confused, and it became confused because astronomers do not know enough about electrical engineering. The universe is one giant electrical engineering problem.

Alfven was right, the energy does not come from the magnetism, the magnetism is an effect of the current flow and the current flow provides the energy to the system.

[ManInTheMirror]

I dont even know where to begin.
Why would there be a current in a permanent magnet?

I'd like to interject a couple of comments. All around those atoms in the fixed magnet, there are moving electrons. The atoms in a magnet have arranged themselves in an aligned pattern that leads to magnetism. Nothing however is really "motionless", and quantum energy is traversing that moving system at all times, particularly in an EU scenario.

In a pure "electrical" view of things, there is no current flowing through a fixed magnet, but in a universe filled with EM fields, the lattice structure is filled with moving electrons that are being traversed by flowing energy at all times. There is no charge difference between the magnet and other objects around the magnetic so no current flows from the magnet to any other object. On the other hand, it's a bit misleading to look at a "solid magnet" as something that isn't electrical in nature. Everything is electrical in nature, including fixed magnets.

[iantresman]

Read Parkers paper on the different paradigms and learn something.

Is this paper you are referring to?

• The alternative paradigm for magnetospheric physics, Parker, E. N., in
  Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 101, Issue A5, p. 10587-10626
  05/1996

[korjik]

Argh! This is like having someone run their nails down a chalkboard. I do not want to rain on your parade here, but you can't use a transformer as a example of magnetic reconnection! There is no such thing as magnetic reconnection in a transformer. A transformer transforms *electric current*!

If you going to use analogies, how about trying an induction analogy where that solid magnet of yours passes by some fixed coils. At least that makes your analogy a valid analogy. Even then however *electricity* is created!

Astronomers do not seem to understand that magnetism and electricity go hand in hand. They want to fixate on *only* the magnetism, and they completely neglect the electrical aspect of the energy transaction.

Jerry is right. This became really confused, and it became confused because astronomers do not know enough about electrical engineering. The universe is one giant electrical engineering problem.

Alfven was right, the energy does not come from the magnetism, the magnetism is an effect of the current flow and the current flow provides the energy to the system.

As usual, you completely miss the point. I even put the reason for my asking in and you missed the point. Tusenfem explains why physicists usually go for a magnetic view on magnetic effects and you miss the point. At least 2 physicists tell you that electricity IS considered in space effects, and you miss the point.

Let me put this as bluntly as possible. The starting point for ALL EM effects is Maxwells Equations. ALL of them. Especially the one with the curl of B equals a current plus the time rate of change of the electric field.

As for the entire universe being an electrical engeneering problem, where exactly do you think electrical engineering came from? Electrical engineering is a specific SUBSET of physics, which does not use all the effects based on first priciples that physics does. Do not say again that I am ignoring things, or I will start considering it an ad hom attack.

[ManInTheMirror]

As usual, you completely miss the point. I even put the reason for my asking in and you missed the point. Tusenfem explains why physicists usually go for a magnetic view on magnetic effects and you miss the point. At least 2 physicists tell you that electricity IS considered in space effects, and you miss the point.

Let me explain the point as I see it based on statements from Alfven himself as quoted from the book "Cosmic Plasma":

Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of 'magnetic merging' or of 'magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration. In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).

Page 33, Chapter 2

From my perspective, Alfven literally wrote "The Book" on plasma cosmology from the perspective of an electrical engineer. He also wrote the book on MHD theory. If there is any expert on plasma physics that I look up to, it's Hannes Alfven. He studied high energy discharge problems in real life situations. He knew how energy was being released and moved around in plasma. He understood plasma at a mathematical level and from years of laboratory experimentation.

If you wish to convince me that Alfven was wrong about this statement, you will need to give a much better explanation than I have heard so far. I can see that Alfven was not a fan of magnetic reconnection, and he was also familiar with Maxwell's equations and used them regularly.

IMO a test is worth a thousand expert opinions. Alfven tested his theories in the lab. He checked his math against his laboratory experiments to make sure they worked. They worked. Simply pointing me to Maxwell's equations doesn't really help me since the electrical equations all express the magnetic field as a continuum. There is no "magnetic reconnection" in Maxwell's equations.

I have no wish to attack anyone, but I do want to participate in the conversation, and I would like to represent Alfven's views as it relates to the topic of magnetic reconnection. He did not believe that such a thing existed, and he studied plasma his whole life. Why should I believe you rather than the guy that wrote the book on MHD theory, and who also wrote the book on cosmic plasmas?

[Nereid]

It was clear at the onset of this thread there is considerable confusion over what 'magnetic reconnection is', so I went scurrying through my old texts to see what I was missing.

My 1981 Able Astronomy does not even contain the word plasma. The interstellar medium is said to contain only gas and dust. The solar wind is made up of 'corpusals'; which was a turn-of-the-20th century term for ions and cations. There is no mention of deb's lengths, sheaths and layering.

Someone born in 1981, and who chose to study astrophysics, would be completing the PhD by about now.

Surely a much more relevant set of materials would be textbooks written in the 1990s, preferably late 1990s?

Further, I have no idea what your "1981 Able Astronomy" is (could you please provide some more useful reference?), and no way to judge how representative of standard astronomy textbooks it might be, even for 1981.

At that time, astrophysicists seemed to be going out-of-their-way to avoid terminology that would imply there could be electrical charge and potential in the inter stellar medium. The terminology that has evolved since, which emphasizes magnetism is indeed confusing. Dated students of astronomy have no idea what is being talked about, electrical engineers have a clue; but the real bottom line is, the whole topic - on both sides - is loaded with a lot of handwaving about a very complex phenomenon that is still poorly understood.

Leaving aside the effortless transition of some 26 years, which implies that very little happened, don't you think you're levelling an apparently very serious charge at a great many astronomers ("Dated students of astronomy have no idea what is being talked about")?

Perhaps you could back up this assertion, by providing something more than what appears to be simply personal bias?

It may have helped, if astro-physicists would have adapted terminology from established fields rather than inventing a whole new set of definitions. Because when we look into the vacuum of space, we are looking into a very efficient valve, or vacuum tube - It seems the Brits and Americans could have come to terms on this as well.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride ... how does this wish contribute to this thread?

Specifically, in what way does the study of (astrophysical) plasmas not start with Maxwell's equations?

[Nereid]

[snip]

Astronomers do not seem to understand that magnetism and electricity go hand in hand. They want to fixate on *only* the magnetism, and they completely neglect the electrical aspect of the energy transaction.

[snip]

I am sure that if one would sit down one could write down the Ej view of the alpha and omega dynamos, but as these are driven by the differential flow in the Sun, it will be very tedious and basically useless to do any calculations with. One has to use the correct tool (or paradigm) for the correct problem, so either the Ej or the Bv paradigm. As an "anti-electricity" mainstreamer I will ask you to write down the governing equations for a double layer in B and v (which will be as useless as the Ej view of the dynamos).

tusenfem is an astronomer.

tusenfem understands that "magnetism and electricity go hand in hand"*.

Ergo, MiTM's assertion is shown to be inconsistent with reality.

*For further evidence, please consult his PhD thesis.

[ManInTheMirror]

I'd like to return now to the part of our conversation from the other thread:

Actually, you need to learn the definition of what a plasma is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29

I'm comfortable with this description. We seem to be arguing about the flow conditions *within* the plasma, not the nature of plasma.

In terms of charge, a plasma is quasi-neutral. This means that on the very small scale, the plasma is a charged fluid, made up of positive and negative charges, but that at the large scale the plasma is electrically neutral, as the positives and negatives have averaged out. Look up debye length for more info.

Well, I will accept that it can be thought of that way, but in an ionized state, it's only "quasi"-neutral. At an atomic interaction level however, it's ionization state has significant implications for molecular bonding. Plasma acts as a "near" perfect conductor, though it isn't a perfect conductor. Those imperfections show up in coronal loop activity as heat.

When we look into space we observe magnetic fields everywhere we look because current "flows" through the plasmas of space. Quasi-neutral or not, it will also conduct current. The plasma will indeed seek equilibrium, but if there were no currents flowing through the plasmas of space, there would be no magnetic fields to be seen in these plasma threads. There is a magnetic field present in the plasma threads of space because there is a current flowing through the plasma threads of space. There is a direct relationship between current flow and magnetic fields. They come as a set, particularly as they manifest themselves in plasma.

One thing to remember is that any charge imblance will quickly be lost.

It will quickly be "distributed" perhaps, but nothing is ever "lost".

The charge imbalance will make an electric field which will then apply a force to the rest of the plasma. If the imbalance is too large, the plasma will be blown apart. If the imbalance is relatively small, then electrons will flow in or out to try to balance the charges.

OK.

Another thing to remember is that plasma is a fluid made up of two types (at least) of charged particles. Generally a large number of charged particles. This is alot of what makes the plasma quasi-neutral, since any charge imbalance will cause huge coulomb forces, and force the plasma to disperse or become neutral.

When you say "disperse out", you're getting a bit vague. The current will flow to create charge equalization *if possible*, but you're sort of skirting the edges here of what electrical current actually does in plasma.

So let me sum up: if it is plasma, it is neutral on the large scale. If it werent, it wouldnt be plasma.

Again, I think that is only true if no current flows *through* the plasma. Perhaps in that single scenario charge equalization would occur, but if the current is constant, or even intermittent, the threads of the plasmas themselves will conduct that current until there is charge equalization. Again however since we do see persistent and pervasive magnetic fields in and around the plasma threads of space, it's quite likely that the whole physical matrix of the universe is actively carrying current even as we speak.

I'm going to stop here since I'm out of time at the moment, and this sort of completes one aspect of our discussion. I'll try to get to the rest of that post a bit later in the day.

It seems to me that a CME is not obligated to spew proton and electrons in exactly the same direction so your belief that all plasma clouds are neutral is highly suspect. Unless you figure CME's align all the proton and electrons up in exactly the same direction, it's highly unlikely that any particularly part of the solar wind is "exactly" a net zero charge.

[ManInTheMirror]

tusenfem is an astronomer.

tusenfem understands that "magnetism and electricity go hand in hand"*.

Ergo, MiTM's assertion is shown to be inconsistent with reality.

*For further evidence, please consult his PhD thesis.

Alfven was also an astronomer with a Nobel Prize under his belt. Alfven agreed with MiTM's assertion, ergo tusenfum is wrong.

[Nereid]

As usual, you completely miss the point. I even put the reason for my asking in and you missed the point. Tusenfem explains why physicists usually go for a magnetic view on magnetic effects and you miss the point. At least 2 physicists tell you that electricity IS considered in space effects, and you miss the point.

Let me explain the point as I see it based on statements from Alfven himself as quoted from the book "Cosmic Plasma":

Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of 'magnetic merging' or of 'magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration. In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).

Page 33, Chapter 2

Is this the book you are quoting from?

What are "the particles" he is referring to, in this quote?

What "region of acceleration"?

What "double layer"?

What "explosive transient phase"?

What energy is required?

From my perspective, Alfven literally wrote "The Book" on plasma cosmology from the perspective of an electrical engineer. He also wrote the book on MHD theory. If there is any expert on plasma physics that I look up to, it's Hannes Alfven. He studied high energy discharge problems in real life situations. He knew how energy was being released and moved around in plasma. He understood plasma at a mathematical level and from years of laboratory experimentation.

But science is not dogma, as I'm sure all skeptics would agree.

The relevant question, wrt the words of Alfvén that you quote, is surely whether those words are accurate wrt astronomical observations of the solar wind, of the Earth's magnetosphere, etc?

One good reason to think that your faith in Alfvén may be misplaced (in terms of the words you quote) is "there is no possibility" ... unless there is much more to the part of the chapter you are quoting from, a bald assertion doth not science make (as any skeptic will avow).

If you wish to convince me that Alfven was wrong about this statement, you will need to give a much better explanation than I have heard so far. I can see that Alfven was not a fan of magnetic reconnection, and he was also familiar with Maxwell's equations and used them regularly.

The shoe is on the other foot ... you are citing Alfvén in support of an ATM claim concerning magnetic reconnection; it is up to proponents of such an idea to answer questions about the claim, and to defend it against challenges.

IMO a test is worth a thousand expert opinions. Alfven tested his theories in the lab. He checked his math against his laboratory experiments to make sure they worked. They worked. Simply pointing me to Maxwell's equations doesn't really help me since the electrical equations all express the magnetic field as a continuum. There is no "magnetic reconnection" in Maxwell's equations.

I want to be quite sure that I have understood what you write here ... are you claiming that magnetic reconnection is inconsistent with Maxwell's equations?

I have no wish to attack anyone, but I do want to participate in the conversation, and I would like to represent Alfven's views as it relates to the topic of magnetic reconnection. He did not believe that such a thing existed, and he studied plasma his whole life. Why should I believe you rather than the guy that wrote the book on MHD theory, and who also wrote the book on cosmic plasmas?

Hmm ... to me this seems like an appeal to authority (Alfvén in this case), is it?

[Nereid]

tusenfem is an astronomer.

tusenfem understands that "magnetism and electricity go hand in hand"*.

Ergo, MiTM's assertion is shown to be inconsistent with reality.

*For further evidence, please consult his PhD thesis.

Alfven was also an astronomer with a Nobel Prize under his belt. Alfven agreed with MiTM's assertion, ergo tusenfum is wrong.

Let's check the original MiTM claim, that was (conveniently?) omitted from the post, shall we?

Here it is:

Astronomers do not seem to understand that magnetism and electricity go hand in hand. They want to fixate on *only* the magnetism, and they completely neglect the electrical aspect of the energy transaction.

(my bold)

So, if "Alfven was [...] an astronomer", then (per the MiTM claim) he "[did] not seem to understand that magnetism and electricity go hand in hand".

Ergo, MiTM's assertion is shown (again) to be inconsistent with reality (using an example of MiTM's own choosing).

Oh, and as MiTM made the assertion in 2007, and as Alfvén died in 1995, I'm curious to know how he could have "agreed with MiTM's assertion" - could you clarify please?

[ManInTheMirror]

Let's check the original MiTM claim, that was (conveniently?) omitted from the post, shall we?

Here it ismy bold)

So, if "Alfven was [...] an astronomer", then (per the MiTM claim) he "[did] not seem to understand that magnetism and electricity go hand in hand".

Ergo, MiTM's assertion is shown (again) to be inconsistent with reality (using an example of MiTM's own choosing).

What? Evidently you missed the point I was trying to make. Appeals to authority aren't "scientific". That's called a "fallacy", not science. I trust that Alven knew more about plasma physics than anyone else. It's not even personal.

Oh, and as MiTM made the assertion in 2007, and as Alfvén died in 1995, I'm curious to know how he could have "agreed with MiTM's assertion" - could you clarify please?

Have you read through this thread at all? I quoted him (twice) from from the book Cosmic Plasma, page 33, chapter 2.

[tusenfem]

It was clear at the onset of this thread there is considerable confusion over what 'magnetic reconnection is', so I went scurrying through my old texts to see what I was missing.

My 1981 Able Astronomy does not even contain the word plasma. The interstellar medium is said to contain only gas and dust. The solar wind is made up of 'corpusals'; which was a turn-of-the-20th century term for ions and cations. There is no mention of deb's lengths, sheaths and layering.

At that time, astrophysicists seemed to be going out-of-their-way to avoid terminology that would imply there could be electrical charge and potential in the inter stellar medium. The terminology that has evolved since, which emphasizes magnetism is indeed confusing. Dated students of astronomy have no idea what is being talked about, electrical engineers have a clue; but the real bottom line is, the whole topic - on both sides - is loaded with a lot of handwaving about a very complex phenomenon that is still poorly understood.

It may have helped, if astro-physicists would have adapted terminology from established fields rather than inventing a whole new set of definitions. Because when we look into the vacuum of space, we are looking into a very efficient valve, or vacuum tube - It seems the Brits and Americans could have come to terms on this as well.

Well, I guess your able book does not discuss any plasma astrophyiscs, because the solar flare model by Van Tend and Kuperus was published in solar physics in 1978 and its follow up paper bz Kuperus and Van Tend in 1981, and you will see charges that move and currents and potentials and reconnection in those models.

I think corpusals (I think you mean corpuscules) is a very outdated term and the solar wind was already measured in the early sixties and if I am correctly it was already found that is consisted of mainly protons and electrons.

I don't see what is wrong with the term reconnection, because that is the perfect description of what is going on.

[ManInTheMirror]

Is this the book you are quoting from?

Yes!

What are "the particles" he is referring to, in this quote?

I'd like this to stay focused if you don't mind. Do you own a copy of his book? I'm sure he could do a *far* better job explaining these things to you than I could ever hope to do.

Hmm ... to me this seems like an appeal to authority (Alfvén in this case), is it?

Yes, and so were your prior comments. That exactly what I was trying to point out to you.

[tusenfem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29

I'm comfortable with this description. We seem to be arguing about the flow conditions *within* the plasma, not the nature of plasma.

Well, I will accept that it can be thought of that way, but in an ionized state, it's only "quasi"-neutral. At an atomic interaction level however, it's ionization state has significant implications for molecular bonding. Plasma acts as a "near" perfect conductor, though it isn't a perfect conductor. Those imperfections show up in coronal loop activity as heat.

I feel a terrible misconception here "it can be thought of that way".
MITM is it your opinion that when we say that a plasma is (quasi)neutral we mean that there are no charged particles? (you would not be the first one)

Quasi neutrality means that over the whole volume of the plasma (which consists of positively charged protons and negatively electrons) the number of positive charge is equal (with a minus sign) to the number of negative charge.

Apart from that, you can read in Alfven's book, on smaller scales, specifically on the deBye scale, there can be small inequalities. Just follow the deBye theory, and you will see that if you put an extra charge in a neutral plasma yzou will find that that charge will be screened off over the deBye distance.

So there is absolutely no discussion of the ionization state (because most plasmas in astrophysics are fully ionized) and molecular bonding.

[ManInTheMirror]

I feel a terrible misconception here "it can be thought of that way".
MITM is it your opinion that when we say that a plasma is (quasi)neutral we mean that there are no charged particles? (you would not be the first one)

I frankly don't know what was meant by that idea, I just know I don't fully agree with it.

Quasi neutrality means that over the whole volume of the plasma (which consists of positively charged protons and negatively electrons) the number of positive charge is equal (with a minus sign) to the number of negative charge.

That might be fine in "theory" on paper, with no current flow involved, but I have a hard time believing that coronal mass ejections distribute protons and electrons evenly. Whatever "charge" might be present in any given CME "cloud" will be directly related to the distribution pattern of protons and electrons. I would not expect it to be "evenly distributed" in all circumstances, and I don't think you expect that either.

Apart from that, you can read in Alfven's book, on smaller scales, specifically on the deBye scale, there can be small inequalities. Just follow the deBye theory, and you will see that if you put an extra charge in a neutral plasma yzou will find that that charge will be screened off over the deBye distance.

I think you're missing the point I was trying to make. I see no evidence in any of Alfven's works that would suggest that he believed that magnetic reconnection played an important role in the energy emission patterns associated with plasma physics. I quoted you the most relevant passage I could find on this topic so there are no misconceptions.

In all of Alfven's theories related to *light* plasmas, kinetic energy and current flow play a much larger role in the energy releases associated with plasma physics than "magnetic reconnection". I'm still not convinced that "magnetic connection" even happens. If Alfven never ran across such a thing in all his work with plasma, what makes you think plasma physics will ever support that idea? Alfven's closest students certainly do not support that idea.

[Nereid]

Argh! This is like having someone run their nails down a chalkboard. I do not want to rain on your parade here, but you can't use a transformer as a example of magnetic reconnection! There is no such thing as magnetic reconnection in a transformer. A transformer transforms *electric current*!

If you going to use analogies, how about trying an induction analogy where that solid magnet of yours passes by some fixed coils. At least that makes your analogy a valid analogy. Even then however *electricity* is created!

Astronomers do not seem to understand that magnetism and electricity go hand in hand. They want to fixate on *only* the magnetism, and they completely neglect the electrical aspect of the energy transaction.

Jerry is right. This became really confused, and it became confused because astronomers do not know enough about electrical engineering. The universe is one giant electrical engineering problem.

Alfven was right, the energy does not come from the magnetism, the magnetism is an effect of the current flow and the current flow provides the energy to the system.

As usual, you completely miss the point. I even put the reason for my asking in and you missed the point. Tusenfem explains why physicists usually go for a magnetic view on magnetic effects and you miss the point. At least 2 physicists tell you that electricity IS considered in space effects, and you miss the point.

Let me put this as bluntly as possible. The starting point for ALL EM effects is Maxwells Equations. ALL of them. Especially the one with the curl of B equals a current plus the time rate of change of the electric field.

As for the entire universe being an electrical engeneering problem, where exactly do you think electrical engineering came from? Electrical engineering is a specific SUBSET of physics, which does not use all the effects based on first priciples that physics does. Do not say again that I am ignoring things, or I will start considering it an ad hom attack.

A pre-condition for communication is that the parties involved are 'speaking the same language'.

In this case, it may be worth the effort to go back to basics, and establish, step by step, that the parties have the same understanding of at least the standard, basic terms. By 'step by step' I suggest an unambiguous 'yes/no' question, and where there appears to be a gulf in common understanding, immediately revert to a lower level of understanding.

It is likely that such a process, should you choose to adopt it, will take a great many posts.

Even when you have established common understanding of at least the basic terms, you may consider embarking on a similar step by step process to establish common understanding of the logical framework.

[Nereid]

Let's check the original MiTM claim, that was (conveniently?) omitted from the post, shall we?

Here it ismy bold)

So, if "Alfven was [...] an astronomer", then (per the MiTM claim) he "[did] not seem to understand that magnetism and electricity go hand in hand".

Ergo, MiTM's assertion is shown (again) to be inconsistent with reality (using an example of MiTM's own choosing).

What? Evidently you missed the point I was trying to make. Appeals to authority aren't "scientific". That's called a "fallacy", not science. I trust that Alven knew more about plasma physics than anyone else. It's not even personal.

So it would seem ... or perhaps one of several other interpretations may be more consistent.

In any case, would you please state your point again? Please be sure to quote your original post(s), in full, and clarify what it is you are trying to say.

Oh, and as MiTM made the assertion in 2007, and as Alfvén died in 1995, I'm curious to know how he could have "agreed with MiTM's assertion" - could you clarify please?

Have you read through this thread at all? I quoted him (twice) from from the book Cosmic Plasma, page 33, chapter 2.

That may be so.

However, here is the first post, which has MiTM as the author, in full:

Not an anwser. You have stated that there is no energy in a magnetic field. So, how does energy pass between the two electrically isolated portions of a transformer?

Argh! This is like having someone run their nails down a chalkboard. I do not want to rain on your parade here, but you can't use a transformer as a example of magnetic reconnection! There is no such thing as magnetic reconnection in a transformer. A transformer transforms *electric current*!

If you going to use analogies, how about trying an induction analogy where that solid magnet of yours passes by some fixed coils. At least that makes your analogy a valid analogy. Even then however *electricity* is created!

Astronomers do not seem to understand that magnetism and electricity go hand in hand. They want to fixate on *only* the magnetism, and they completely neglect the electrical aspect of the energy transaction.

Jerry is right. This became really confused, and it became confused because astronomers do not know enough about electrical engineering. The universe is one giant electrical engineering problem.

Alfven was right, the energy does not come from the magnetism, the magnetism is an effect of the current flow and the current flow provides the energy to the system.

Here is the second post, in full:

tusenfem is an astronomer.

tusenfem understands that "magnetism and electricity go hand in hand"*.

Ergo, MiTM's assertion is shown to be inconsistent with reality.

*For further evidence, please consult his PhD thesis.

Alfven was also an astronomer with a Nobel Prize under his belt. Alfven agreed with MiTM's assertion, ergo tusenfum is wrong.

(my bold)

The paragraph in question ("Astronomers do not seem to understand that magnetism and electricity go hand in hand. They want to fixate on *only* the magnetism, and they completely neglect the electrical aspect of the energy transaction.") has no indication associated with it, to say that it is a quote from Alfvén.

Did you quote him, without attribution?

[Nereid]

Is this the book you are quoting from?

Yes!

Thanks.

Can you clarify one thing for me please (since you have a copy of this book and I don't)?

Amazon states: "Publisher: Springer; 1 edition (January 1, 2001)". Yet Alfvén died in 1995. Has this book been published posthumously?

What are "the particles" he is referring to, in this quote?

I'd like this to stay focused if you don't mind. Do you own a copy of his book? I'm sure he could do a *far* better job explaining these things to you than I could ever hope to do.

You have introduced this material into this thread, in support of an ATM claim.

I have asked some very simple questions about this material.

Please answer the questions.

Hmm ... to me this seems like an appeal to authority (Alfvén in this case), is it?

Yes, and so were your prior comments. [snip]

Which comments were these?

There are also several direct, pertinent questions in the post you are quoting from that you did not answer*.

Please answer all the questions.

*For example: "are you claiming that magnetic reconnection is inconsistent with Maxwell's equations?"

[upriver]

A pre-condition for communication is that the parties involved are 'speaking the same language'.

In this case, it may be worth the effort to go back to basics, and establish, step by step, that the parties have the same understanding of at least the standard, basic terms. By 'step by step' I suggest an unambiguous 'yes/no' question, and where there appears to be a gulf in common understanding, immediately revert to a lower level of understanding.

It is likely that such a process, should you choose to adopt it, will take a great many posts.

Even when you have established common understanding of at least the basic terms, you may consider embarking on a similar step by step process to establish common understanding of the logical framework.

You might be on to something.....

[upriver]

Quote:
Originally Posted by upriver
I dont even know where to begin.
Why would there be a current in a permanent magnet?
Are you saying that plasma is like a permanent magnet?
Do permanent magnets vary their field strength?
There is no such thing a variable permanent magnet.
In order to have a variable magnetic field you must have a variable current flow in a conductor.
Plasma has a variable magnetic field so it cannot be a permanent magnet, so it must be an electromagnet, which requires an electric current.
Is that clear enough?

If you search upriver and bar magnet, you could probably find my comments on that.

This is not an answer. You have repeatedly stated that magnetic fields cannot exist without currents, so where are the currents in a permanent magnet?

I'm sorry. You are asking a serious question.
There are only 2 kinds of magnets.
Permanent and electromagnets.
When I said that magnetic fields need electrical currents, I though your level of understanding was such that you automatically knew I was talking about electromagnets. That I didn't have to specify that I was not talking about permanent magnets.
Of course permanent magnets have no current flow.

Quote:
Morse Code?

Not an anwser. You have stated that there is no energy in a magnetic field. So, how does energy pass between the two electrically isolated portions of a transformer?

I said magnetic fields dont "store" (kinetic)energy for flinging plasma around.
They do store electrical energy, although the magnetic field collapses as soon as soon as you remove the current returning a pulse of electricity.

Quote:
Electrically via photon waves.

What is a photon wave?

Here.
Basic Aetherometric Definition

A photon is a swing (a particle, a conjunction of waves, and an energy packet) of electromagnetic energy. Its particulate aspect relates to its linear momentum (its existence as a particle) and the pressure it exerts upon adjacent matter. Its quantization relates to its constant of angular momentum, and its quantized energy forms two distinct spectra - blackbody and ionizing. Photons do not travel through space, nor do they have a fibrous structure. Photons are globular, not fascicular, and they are created and destroyed on the spot - ie local productions. Rays are simply a probabilistic way of approximating the physical reality of the phase or excitation wave that transmits 'across space' the indirect stimulus for the production of light. In the case of blackbody photons, a mediating term must always intervene between the phase wave and the production of photons, or light; the mediating term is always a massbound charge. "
http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/...thMetry/Photon

http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/..._Equations.pdf

Quote:
The solar wind (mostly)does not recombine. It's a "neutral" plasma. Plasma means it ionized, neutral means equal number of species.
And we all know recombination is a femtosecond process.

How do you know that recombination is a femtosecond process? reference please.

Sorry, 300-400 picoseconds for some materials.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes

Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy
http://www.piacton.com/Spectroscopy/libs.aspx

Quote:
My point was this.
Where is the 149490k heat source that keeps the H and He ionized all the way to the heliosphere?

In my experiment, the D2 ionization went away immediately when I turned off the current. Are you saying that H, D2 are different out in space?

How do you measure 'went away immediately'? reference please. I do know that in my experiment we get D plasma up to 30kps drift velocities which means that the chamber is empty of plasma in microseconds just from hitting the walls. I also know that the 30kps plasma also lasts the microseconds needed to go the meter to reach my probe in a rather high background neutral environment. Both of these seem to indicate that the recombination takes longer that femtoseconds.

The ionization went away in less than a second that was visible to my eye.
Now if I had used a PMT I would probably come up with a longer time.
Sorry, 300-400 picoseconds for some materials.

If you do plasma physics, how do you not know that temperature is not a well defined concept in a plasma?

I'm sure its well defined. And I never said it was not well defined.

If you wish to correct any thing below, please do so.

1eV = 11000K.

13eV is the first ionization level for Hydrogen.

That equals 149490 degrees kelvin.

There is no flame that gets that hot.

There are no flames(thermal) above the surface of the sun.

Ergo all plasma above 10000 degrees Fahrenheit plasma is electrically driven.
At least on planet earth. (except nukes but its not like they last a long time or you can control them)

[ManInTheMirror]

You might be on to something.....

She is certainly onto something, but there is an inherent problem with that idea.

Since their side cannot even offer us a clear physical description of the energy release mechanisms of "magnetic reconnection", it's hard to speak their language scientifically. If they could actually describe the physical energy release process fully, then one might be able to setup a few scientific tests to make sure this process is actually uniquely different from standard electrical interactions related to plasma physics. As it is, there is no way to even test their theory via science. It's another of those "believe me because I say so" deals.

[iantresman]

A pre-condition for communication is that the parties involved are 'speaking the same language'.

Astronomers           | Plasma physicists
Hot gas               | Plasma
Ionized gas           | Plasma
Dust                  | Dusty plasma
Plasma                | Pseudo-plasma
(Solar) hydrogen      | Electrons/protons (charged particles)
Gravity               | Gravitoelectrodynamics
Magnetic              | Electromagnetic
Magnetic field?       | Electric (current)
Neutrality            | Quasineutrality
Stringy things        | Birkeland currents
Knots                 | (Electromagnetic) Pinch
Non-thermal radiation | Synchrotron radiation
Distance              | Red shift
Filamentation         | Electromagnetic Filamentation / Pinched Filamentation 
Big Bang / Black hole | Fudge factor
Neutron star          | Fudge factor
Dark Matter           | Fudge factor
(Unknown)             | Double layers / Particle beams

[Nereid]

A pre-condition for communication is that the parties involved are 'speaking the same language'.

In this case, it may be worth the effort to go back to basics, and establish, step by step, that the parties have the same understanding of at least the standard, basic terms. By 'step by step' I suggest an unambiguous 'yes/no' question, and where there appears to be a gulf in common understanding, immediately revert to a lower level of understanding.

It is likely that such a process, should you choose to adopt it, will take a great many posts.

Even when you have established common understanding of at least the basic terms, you may consider embarking on a similar step by step process to establish common understanding of the logical framework.

You might be on to something.....

Good.

Since you have introduced Aetherometry, we should probably start with Maxwell's equations.

Do you agree that Maxwell's equations are, in modern (astro)physics (including plasma physics) the starting point for all macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena? Please answer yes or no.

If you answer no, then please state what the starting point is.

[Nereid]

A pre-condition for communication is that the parties involved are 'speaking the same language'.

Astronomers           | Plasma physicists
Hot gas               | Plasma
Ionized gas           | Plasma
Dust                  | Dusty plasma
Plasma                | Pseudo-plasma
(Solar) hydrogen      | Electrons/protons (charged particles)
Gravity               | Gravitoelectrodynamics
Magnetic              | Electromagnetic
Magnetic field?       | Electric (current)
Neutrality            | Quasineutrality
Stringy things        | Birkeland currents
Knots                 | (Electromagnetic) Pinch
Non-thermal radiation | Synchrotron radiation
Distance              | Red shift
Filamentation         | Electromagnetic Filamentation / Pinched Filamentation 
Big Bang / Black hole | Fudge factor
Neutron star          | Fudge factor
Dark Matter           | Fudge factor
(Unknown)             | Double layers / Particle beams

I think this post is very much OT, if only because most of your list is irrelevant to (magnetic) reconnection.

However, it is, I think, a serious ATM claim, and I will split it out, to start a new ATM thread, if you would like to defend the claims made here.

In the meantime, I will ask the same question that I asked upriver:

Do you agree that Maxwell's equations are, in modern (astro)physics (including plasma physics) the starting point for all macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena? Please answer yes or no.

If you answer no, then please state what the starting point is.

Please note the opening sentence of the OP (my bold): "I opened this thread because I'm not really introducing an ATM idea, but it is ATM in that I believe there are some misconceptions in the MS view of reconnection."

IOW, upriver's claim directly concerns the standard, textbook astrophysics treatment of reconnection.

[Nereid]

She is certainly onto something, but there is an inherent problem with that idea.

Since their side cannot even offer us a clear physical description of the energy release mechanisms of "magnetic reconnection", it's hard to speak their language scientifically. If they could actually describe the physical energy release process fully, then one might be able to setup a few scientific tests to make sure this process is actually uniquely different from standard electrical interactions related to plasma physics. As it is, there is no way to even test their theory via science. It's another of those "believe me because I say so" deals.

I will ask you the same question that I asked upriver and iantresman:

Do you agree that Maxwell's equations are, in modern (astro)physics (including plasma physics) the starting point for all macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena? Please answer yes or no.

If you answer no, then please state what the starting point is.

[iantresman]

I think this post is very much OT, if only because most of your list is irrelevant to (magnetic) reconnection.

Sorry about that, it seemed relevant to your comment on speaking the same language'.

However, it is, I think, a serious ATM claim, and I will split it out, to start a new ATM thread, if you would like to defend the claims made here.

Not necessary, I don't think there is much to defend, it was a provocative gross over-simplification.

In the meantime, I will ask the same question that I asked upriver:

Do you agree that Maxwell's equations are, in modern (astro)physics (including plasma physics) the starting point for all macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena? Please answer yes or no.

If you answer no, then please state what the starting point is.

I think that few people will dispute Maxwell's equations. However, they say little about how plasmas behave.

[upriver]

Good.

Since you have introduced Aetherometry, we should probably start with Maxwell's equations.

Do you agree that Maxwell's equations are, in modern (astro)physics (including plasma physics) the starting point for all macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena? Please answer yes or no.

If you answer no, then please state what the starting point is.

I guess I have to answer no.
Boy, I hope people don't run from this thread now.

It still the same universe on a large scale, its just now the underlying aether is taken into account. With a greater understanding of underlying processes comes more precise definitions of constants.

"AS2-12 AToS theory of the volt and the electron volt
- an aetherometric perspective on longitudinal electric waves"

"The microfunctional formulations are rigorously derived with aetherometric tools, and they put into evidence the common misconceptions of electric functions harking back to Maxwell."
http://www.aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v...abstractAS2-12

I purchased this monograph.
As I read it for the 5th time to try to get a clearer understanding because the math gets clearer every time I do. And soon I think I will be able to explain it clearly.
It doesnt talk about magnetism generally.

This one does but I do not have it yet.
AS2-15 The aetherometric approach to solving the problem of magnetism
http://www.aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v...abstractAS2-15


Here are the constants involved. As you can see alot has been redefined based on the annunciation of the properties of the aether.
http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/..._Equations.pdf

This is really about reconnection, plasma and electricity, not about theories of the universe. The only reason I introduced the Aetherometric photon was because it was a direct question. I thought that people would leave it at waves since photons are "somewhat" considered waves in the MS model.

[upriver]

Nice website, Ian.