Magnetic Reconnection

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby verisimilitude » Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:36 pm

I came across this thread while researching lcdm/eu/pc models for the solar wind (which all contradict themselves and eachother, sadly...)

Regarding MR, the lcdm model clearly does not argue that imaginary lines cause eathquakes, landslides and solar flares. The EU side is blatantly disengenuous is this regard. The lcdm "verbiage" defining MR reads like the interplay of oppositely moving plamas, aka a shear force. The attached images (in this thread on this page) confirm it: what "they" call MR, "you" call "diocotron instability." The sun is too busy in all wavelengths to see it happening, but Jupiter is happy to sort it out for us:

https://m.imgur.com/yhCL1Ov

That cannot be the full story, of course. I would never say "that" is the answer; I'm just pointing out that this is how lcdm definitions "read" in this regard, and that it coincides with EU narratives.

Cheers.
verisimilitude
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:49 pm

verisimilitude wrote:.. Regarding MR, the lcdm model clearly does not argue..
..The EU side...


Thanks for your reply.
I never heard about this instability.
It seems more the movement of fluids and gasses and plasma.

It seems very different to me than MR.
MR has nothing to do with any other theories.
People that believe in MR, believe that plasma often follows magnetic field lines.

It is just about plasma and electromagnetism.

In magnetic reconnection there are several assumptions made that are impossible in basic physics.
This definitely needs correction, whatever theory you want to support.

If I look deeper into the problem, it appears that the scientists involved have
no clue about electromagnetism.
Is the the E-field always zero? - No
Is electric current always in the same direction as the flow of plasma? - No
Do field-lines matter? -No
Etc.

With my scientific background in this area, I really cringe when they claim that
magnetic field lines breaking or connecting produce some kind of energy.
In basic EM, we know that changing B causes an E-field. But somehow they
missed that class.

This is not even about the EU or whatever.
It is about basic electromagnetism.
And that is what these astronomers got totally wrong.

I just try to point out the basic problems of this MR theory.

Above I explained why I think that these astronomers thought that magnetism
could behave that way. Probably due to the lines on the sun and the zeeman/stark effect.
To replace the false theory, I also added some simple corrections that do match with
actual observations and with actual physics.
This is again independent of any theory. :ugeek:

With a correct model of plasma we may replace magnetic flux-lines with birkeland currents.
And we may see a much more electrical sun.
Or maybe even an electrical Jupiter.

But for that to be true, we first need to remove the theories that are clearly false,
in whatever context.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby verisimilitude » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:26 pm

Zyz, First of all, I have read this entire thread twice and appreciate how measured you are in your responses. Thank you for that. I also enjoyed your "blasting" of 100 PhD students on page 3 of this thread. Very succinct. Moving forward...

Zyxzevn wrote:It seems more the movement of fluids and gasses and plasma.

Assuming the sun is a ball of plasma then we are on the same page. According to my understanding of EU, plasma is defined by an electron imbalance which gives it an electric charge. The charged particles by nature accelerate in the direction of the electric current, and, as a result of being charged particles in motion, they develop a dipolar magnetic field. So, by virtue of being a single charged body in motion, the sun also has a single, global magnetic field.

Zyxzevn wrote:It seems very different to me than MR

According to NASA (a major proponent of LCDM/MR):
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/science-of-magnetic-reconnection
Reconnection occurs wherever charged gases, called plasma, are present. It's rare on Earth, but plasma makes up 99% of the visible universe. Plasma fuels stars and fills the near vacuum of space...

Under normal conditions, the magnetic field lines inside plasmas don't break or merge with other field lines. But sometimes, as field lines get close to each other, the entire pattern changes and everything realign into a new configuration. The amount of energy released can be formidable...


*(I cannot blame them for subscribing to Alfven's "frozen in" theory. Whether the movement "creates" the field, or the field is created by the charge is ultimately semantic in my eyes because the field is clearly *there*.)

The lines themselves are not breaking. The overall field is changing in real time with the inclusion/removal of charged matter. That's what one would expect, right?

The assumptions:
1) The sun is comprised of plasma and is therefore a charged body with a global magnetic field.
2) The sun rotates faster at the equator than it does at the poles - and the rotation is slower in bands from the equator to the poles (inducing those diocotron instabilities as referenced to earlier).
3) The sunspots are electromagnetic in nature and as such have a magnetic field of their own *within* the global magnetic field.
4) Coronal holes are negatively charged pockets (with respect to the positively charted surface of the sun) and therefore have their own magnetic field *within* the global magnetic field.

So, in addition to having a global magnetic field, there are individual, isolated fields on the surface (sunspots/holes). These conflicting, Surface/Global fields need to be resolved. LCDM calls this resolution MR. EU describes it as the effects of charge separation. The layman calls it a CME and "likes" the videos.

I cannot help but believe all parties involved are missing a step or three (myself included). But fighting about it solves nothing because the LCDM side has more minions and more funding - they will always shout EU down. EU needs to either bide their time (LCDM is slowly acknowledging EM) or play semantics. Ultimately, the term "Magnetic Reconnection" is where EU has a problem. The actual process of MR is the semantic equivalent to processes the EU have been forwarding for a long time. Why not "talk up" these similarities?

Also, I was not arguing that diocotron instabilities *are* the cause of it all, but that they play a huge part of the process. All things being equal, the isolated surface-currents/fields would resolve themselves with the global-field according to Maxwell's Equations. But since the surface of the sun revolves at varying speeds from the equator to the poles, there are resulting instabilities that each throw wrenches into the equations. The *basic* resolution process is conflated to a *problem* by the inclusion of the instabilities in the form of massive amounts of charged matter being whipped into and out of those "resolution zones" seemingly at random.

No instabilities = pretty loops of matter. It's a slow, drawn out process of charge conservation in real-time.

Instabilities = filaments and CMEs. It's a rapid, near instant process of charge conservation in real-time.

Each instability is an itch the sun cannot scratch.

(If I am wrong I will own it - just let me know and back up your claims).

Cheers.
verisimilitude
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:55 pm

verisimilitude wrote:I came across this thread while researching lcdm/eu/pc models for the solar wind (which all contradict themselves and eachother, sadly...)


Well, considering that there are three different EU/PC solar models to choose from (anode, cathode, Alfven's relatively standard model), it's hardly surprising they'd have somewhat different solar wind models. I should add however that Birkeland's solar wind predictions came directly from observations from controlled laboratoryh experimentation, and they actually work in the lab, including the production of a full sphere hot corona, and planetary aurora.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

I'm not sure if SAFIRE has tested the solar wind predictions of an anode model yet, but at least one EU/PC solar model (cathode model) works properly in the lab and it produces solar wind flow which jives with actual observations.

Regarding MR, the lcdm model clearly does not argue that imaginary lines cause eathquakes, landslides and solar flares. The EU side is blatantly disengenuous is this regard.


Well, actually if you're talking about published work by Birn, Priest, Dungey or other published authors who actually included *plasma* in their models, no, they aren't suggesting that imaginary lines cause Earthquakes, but clueless Clinger and crew over at JREF/ISF tried to claim that "reconnection" occurs without plasma or plasma particle acceleration so they're definitely making that claim. It's disingenuous of the ignorant JREF crowd to try to claim that magnetic reconnection doesn't require plasma and plasma particle acceleration. You're barking up the wrong tree and blaming us for their sins and their bonehead errors I'm afraid. Go explain to Clinger over at ISF that he *needs* to include plasma and a transfer of energy to kinetic energy and then you can lecture me about being "disingenuous". I suspect you won't lecture them the way you're willing to lecture us, and I doubt they'd listen to you if you tried. "The Man" still claims (as of last week) that reconnection happens in air in a compass with a couple of refrigerator magnets and Clinger's FUBAR presentation doesn't include a single charged particle in his "vacuum".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... tcount=754
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/ ... zina0.html

The lcdm "verbiage" defining MR reads like the interplay of oppositely moving plamas, aka a shear force. The attached images (in this thread on this page) confirm it: what "they" call MR, "you" call "diocotron instability." The sun is too busy in all wavelengths to see it happening, but Jupiter is happy to sort it out for us:

https://m.imgur.com/yhCL1Ov


How do you figure? Shouldn't all these claims work in the lab, and why do all MR experiments in the lab start with E fields and "current" flows? Why does the kinetic energy come from E fields or induction in those experiments while they keep calling it "magnetic reconnection"? FYI, I realize that Maxwell's equations solve for both E and B, and I'd be fine with calling it "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection", but calling it "magnetic reconnection" only leads to all sorts of ridiculous misunderstandings, including Clinger's FUBAR presentation that includes no plasma at all, and includes no formula to express a non-zero rate of "reconnection" I might add.



That cannot be the full story, of course. I would never say "that" is the answer; I'm just pointing out that this is how lcdm definitions "read" in this regard, and that it coincides with EU narratives.

Cheers.


MR theory doesn't actually or at least it doesn't *exactly* coincide with EU/PC narratives however because EU/PC proponents would *never* try to leave out the plasma out of the process or call it "reconnection", and Alfven's double layer paper makes the term "reconnection" irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments. Alfven used *circuit* theory everywhere that the mainstream tries to use "magnetic reconnection" to explain high energy plasma events, and Alfven clearly explained the dangers of trying to dumb down the process to magnetism alone while trying to leave out all the circuit energy that's driving the process to start with. There's not really that much overlap frankly.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby verisimilitude » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:35 pm

Oh Mozina, ever the combatant. The term "magnetic reconnection" is the issue. The actual process coincides with EU theory and you know this. Please stop playing semantics.

I care nothing for the people you reference because they play semantics just like you. Either you understand "the process" and agree both sides are talking about the same issue "with differing terms" or you are intentionally being disingenuous.

I think EU is closer to the truth as much as I think both sides are saying the same thing in differing terms.

There is a profound difference between being an advocate and carrying a grudge...
verisimilitude
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby verisimilitude » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:56 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:FYI, I realize that Maxwell's equations solve for both E and B, and I'd be fine with calling it "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection", but calling it "magnetic reconnection" only leads to all sorts of ridiculous misunderstandings

I trust you realize that you just proved my point - the problem you have is *not* with the *process* but with the *semantic definition* of the process.

Arguing for the sake of arguing is a colassal waste of our time, especially in light of the fact that I lean toward the EU side of the equation (seriously, how the heck could anyone ignore the "electro" aspect of "magetism"?).

My whole point is that EU needs to play up the similarities between EU/LCDM. Again, your posts only prove my point.
verisimilitude
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:32 am

verisimilitude wrote:3) The sunspots are electromagnetic in nature and as such have a magnetic field of their own *within* the global magnetic field.


I found myself agreeing with everything you said until this particular statement which I think is a bit oversimplified, and sometimes (but not always) incorrect. I would urge you to go to helioviewer and overlay an SDO AIA 1600A or 1700A image on top of a magnetogram image from SDO-HMI during a timeframe that includes several sunspots. What you will notice is an alignment between the bright "hot spots" in the AIA images and the N/S alignments in magnetogram images. You'll also find that some sunspots have north dominated alignments whereas other sunspots will have south dominated alignments. The N/S alignments of the magnetogram images have to do with the direction of the flow of current inside the coronal loops as they flow through those specific points on the surface. If the sunspots were "always" negatively charged with respect to the rest of the surface of the photosphere, they'd always have the same N/S alignments, but that's not the case. The can be aligned either way, meaning that sunspot (umbra) region of the surface can be more positively charged *or* more negatively charged, depending on the specific sunspot in question. They always have a charge that is greater than the rest of the surface, but the variation in the N/S alignments suggests that the charge of the sunspot can be different in different sunspots.

https://helioviewer.org/

4) Coronal holes are negatively charged pockets (with respect to the positively charted surface of the sun) and therefore have their own magnetic field *within* the global magnetic field.


I would tend to agree that coronal holes (dark regions in high energy wavelengths (171,194,195A)) are typically areas where the cathode rays coming off the sun are the strongest.

So, in addition to having a global magnetic field, there are individual, isolated fields on the surface (sunspots/holes). These conflicting, Surface/Global fields need to be resolved. LCDM calls this resolution MR. EU describes it as the effects of charge separation. The layman calls it a CME and "likes" the videos.


I totally agree. The EU/PC method of describing such events includes "circuits" which flow along the magnetic field lines. The mianstream tries to ignore the circuit energy inside of coronal loops which is why their models don't work so well in terms of describing so called 'fast reconnection" events. If you don't include all the circuit energy inside the whole circuit, it's hard to explain how or why a single coronal loop reaches millions of degrees, and difficult to explain why two of them "touching" results in electrical discharges. Again, Maxwell's equations solve for B too, but it's important to include all the circuit energy, not just the magnetic field energy.

I cannot help but believe all parties involved are missing a step or three (myself included).


I'd agree that sometimes the B orientation allows one to get better "small definition" than using a simple circuit approach, so I would agree that both orientations (E and B) have a place at the table. Mainstreamers tend to miss the circuit energy of the whole circuit by using a B oriented approach to solar flare activity.

But fighting about it solves nothing because the LCDM side has more minions and more funding - they will always shout EU down.


I don't mind them having funding or taking "clean" shots as EU/PC solar models. It's obvious that not every EU/PC solar model can be correct, so picking on one or more of them is "fair game" as long as the criticisms are fair. The mainstream (like Brian Koberlein) however tend to take *cheap* shots by claiming things like EU/PC solar models predict "no neutrinos" and they make statements that are absurdly false and demosntrably false, and they refuse to correct their errors when they are pointed out to them. That is the kind of "shouting down" of EU.PC theory that is below the belt, unprofessional, and unethical in the extreme. Talk about disingenuous behavior.

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/

That page is total BS.

EU needs to either bide their time (LCDM is slowly acknowledging EM) or play semantics.


If you look at some of my conversations at JREF/ISF, you'll find that I was fine with using the terms "circuit reconnection", or "particle reconnection" to describe what happens when two coronal loops come together. Using the term "magnetic reconnection" however implies that that magnetic lines "disconnect" from, and "reconnect" to other magnetic lines and therefore it confuses people like Clinger. Clinger got "caught up" in terminology that led him in the wrong direction. AFAIK, he still thinks that magnetic lines are "real" and they disconnect and reconnect in null points no less. I feel sorry for him actually, but that's the danger of using a terminology that is less than ideal. The term "circuit reconnection" would be a whole lot better IMO. I'm happy playing with semantics, but claiming that magnetic lines disconnect and reconnect in NULL points no less is simply absurd. That's the kind of stuff that I complain about.

Ultimately, the term "Magnetic Reconnection" is where EU has a problem.


Yep, but only because it's led to so many arguments and so many misconceptions on various websites like ISF. Clinger and The Man *still* think that magnetic lines make and break connections. That's not what's actually happening. The whole *field* is changing and such changes inside of a conductor induce particle movement, but those "lines" aren't real in the first place, anymore than topology lines are "real", or capable of "reconnecting", so why on Earth would you call it "magnetic reconnection"?

The actual process of MR is the semantic equivalent to processes the EU have been forwarding for a long time. Why not "talk up" these similarities?


I have tried for *years* to get our friends over at JREF/ISF to accept the term "circuit reconnection" and to include plasma in the process, but for my efforts I was banned, and called every dirty name in the book. That tends to tick me off after awhile. On the other hand, I tend to agree with you 100 percent which is why I've always been willing to compromise, and I've never denied that Maxwell's equations solve for B as well as for E. The mainstream doesn't seem capable of compromise however.

We seem to agree on pretty much everything else you've said, so I'll just stop here.

By the way, welcome to the board. Your input is a wonderful breath of fresh air. I appreciate your efforts and your input to our community. Welcome.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:54 am

verisimilitude wrote:Oh Mozina, ever the combatant.


It's a tough job, but someone apparently has to do it, or change will *never* happen. :)

The term "magnetic reconnection" is the issue. The actual process coincides with EU theory and you know this. Please stop playing semantics.


You're absolutely right which is why I was happy calling it "circuit reconnection" or particle reconnection or something that didn't confuse the hell out of anyone with a basic EM field education, and "newbies" like Clinger. I didn't start that battle, a *bad* term started that battle.

I care nothing for the people you reference because they play semantics just like you. Either you understand "the process" and agree both sides are talking about the same issue "with differing terms" or you are intentionally being disingenuous.


I think you're being a little hard on me because I've been rather rude to a few folks over the years. I understand your concern, and I'm not being disingenuous. I've been willing to compromise on terms all along, I'm just not willing to try to let folks leave plasma and plasma particle acceleration out of the process and call it "magnetic reconnection". Can you really blame me for trying to correct those kinds of wrong ideas?

I think EU is closer to the truth as much as I think both sides are saying the same thing in differing terms.


I also accept that the B orientation of coronal loop activity has it's place. I do however think it's dangerous and ill advised to leave out the circuit orientation of that same coronal loop. It's the constant flow of current through that loop, and the resistance to that flow of current that sustains coronal loops at millions of degrees, not 'magnetic reconnection" throughout the loop. That's where things go south for the mainstream.

There is a profound difference between being an advocate and carrying a grudge...


I only carry a "grudge" against a few specific individuals like Brian Koberlein, Reality Check, etc. who go out of their way to simply *misrepresent the facts*. I don't hold a grudge against anyone else. I think there are probably maybe 5 or 6 such individuals on the whole internet, and something like 8000 professional astronomers. That's less than on tenth of one percent at best case, and probably some of those individuals aren't even astronomers to start with. My "grudge" comes from being lied about and lied to repeatedly, but such individuals are actually few and far between.

From your statements thus far, I'm sure that you and I will get along famously. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:11 am

verisimilitude wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:FYI, I realize that Maxwell's equations solve for both E and B, and I'd be fine with calling it "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection", but calling it "magnetic reconnection" only leads to all sorts of ridiculous misunderstandings

I trust you realize that you just proved my point - the problem you have is *not* with the *process* but with the *semantic definition* of the process.


I agree with you on that point and I'm happy that I could "prove" it for you. :) You don't have to convince me, in fact you're preaching to the choir.

Arguing for the sake of arguing is a colassal waste of our time, especially in light of the fact that I lean toward the EU side of the equation (seriously, how the heck could anyone ignore the "electro" aspect of "magetism"?).


I can't find much to argue with you about so far, with the possible exception of the charge of various umbras in various sunspots. I frankly don't know how or why anyone could ignore Birkeland's work on solar physics, but they have done so for more than a century now. I'm just doing my part to point out the numerous predictions that he made that have been shown to be true by satellites in space. In fact I stumbled onto his work (and EU/PC theory) by studying satellite images.

My whole point is that EU needs to play up the similarities between EU/LCDM. Again, your posts only prove my point.


In most cases I would agree with you, but there are so called "professionals" like Brian Koberlein and Tom Bridgman that have willfully and intentionally misrepresented the facts. I find that behavior to be rather unprofessional and highly offensive. What's the point of intentionally claiming that EU/PC solar models predict "no neutrinos", or claiming that Birkeland promoted three different solar models and erroneously claiming that Birkeland predicted that only electrons come from the sun and protons flow *toward* the sun? How is that erroneous nonsense helpful to science and how is ignoring those problems helpful to science?

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/

I think you'll find that I'm actually pretty easy to deal with as long as I'm not being personally attacked or lied to or lied about. There are some unprofessional behaviors that tick me off, but you'll find that I'm actually pretty easy going in most cases. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:36 am

More magnetic nonsense..

Study sheds light on turbulence in astrophysical plasmas
It models the movement of plasma like a gas.
Which is ok, but:

Magnetic reconnection is a complicated phenomenon that Loureiro has been studying in detail for more than a decade. To explain the process, he gives a well-studied example: “If you watch a video of a solar flare” as it arches outward and then collapses back onto the sun’s surface, “that’s magnetic reconnection in action. It’s something that happens on the surface of the sun that leads to explosive releases of energy.” Loureiro’s understanding of this process of magnetic reconnection has provided the basis for the new analysis that can now explain some aspects of turbulence in plasmas.


No magnetic reconnection is has nothing to do with it.
Connecting /disconnecting/ moving magnetic fields produce no energy at all.
We can see it in every real=world experiment.
We can see it all around us with all electronics.
Moving magnetic fields only produce energy in conducting matter, which is used in antennas.
It causes currents to flow.
And again it does not matter whether the field-lines connect or not.
Field lines have nothing to do with it. And magnetic fields are invisible on the sun.
That is because the sun is not made of ferro-magnetic material (below the curie temperature).

It is electric charges "connecting", which as we all know cause electric currents.

"something that happens on the surface of the sun that leads to explosive releases of energy"
Yes, that is an electric shortcut, which is as explosive as lightning.
Rings any bells?
It appears that you mistaken E for B.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:05 am

Michael Mozina wrote: I would urge you to go to helioviewer and overlay an SDO AIA 1600A or 1700A image on top of a magnetogram image from SDO-HMI during a timeframe that includes several sunspots.


It may be that you make a mistake here.
It seems to me that the "magnetogram image" is based on the zeeman effect.
The zeeman-effect is totally similar to the stark effect.
This means we can not see whether the magnetogram image is showing
electric or magnetic fields.

Image
Zeeman effect

Image
Stark effect

The "magnetogram" can show either of them.

But we can distinguish them:
1) magnetic fields are usually 1/r³ due to their dipoles, while electric fields are usually 1/r²
2) magnetic fields are usually weak, because they need strong electric currents to be sustained.
3) magnetic fields disappear when no current flows (unless we have cold ferro-magnetic material).
4) electric fields create shortcuts when connected with conducting material (which is now falsely
explained with "magnetic reconnection")
5) charged particles move very different in electric or magnetic fields. Electric fields form currents
and flares, magnetic fields form circles and spirals.

Addition:
From NASA's instruction video on Sun's magnetic field, it looks like
they made the same mistake.
NASA: Understanding the magnetic sun
The mark the dark spots, which have a strong zeeman/stark effect as purely magnetic.
And from there they model the magnetic field.
The speaker in the video itself says that the field-lines are not visible, but other astronomers will
claim that the lines that we see on the sun are such field-lines.
The speaker claims: "magnetic field lines interact with each other, causing big explosions".
They do not explain the source of the magnetic fields, which of course is a big mystery.

It should all be electric instead, which matches much more with known physics and
the observed movement of plasma.
We see the stark effect, instead of zeeman effect. (E instead of B)
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby verisimilitude » Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:04 am

Great data from both of you. I will take all of it back to my drawing board.

Mozina, I accept your point that some of my views are oversimplified. Thank you for reading between the lines for me.

Cheers.
verisimilitude
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby verisimilitude » Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:07 pm

Stark, Micro-level Zeeman and Z's Macro-level friend Paschen-Back were all interesting reads. I will admit, I check out when Normalization is intruduced; but I did read on until my eyes glazed over.

The terminology seems both unnecessarily complicated and unrelated to MR:
"Spin Angular Momentum and Orbital Angular Momentum couple more strongly to the external magnetic field than to each other, and can be visualized as independently precessing about the external field direction."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/paschen.html#c1

My takeaway is that sunspots should not exist - since the sun's magnetic field is stronger, any anomoly would adhere to the above quote. (Unless I completely failed to grasp the concept, which is probable).

I tried digging deeper but it all leads back to *Quantized Angular Momentum,* which leads back to *Normalization/Probability*, which leads back to *Equations Equalling One are True.*

Yes, that says more about me...

I will have to leave it at this: I cannot develop an understanding of the solar process commonly referred to as Magnetic Reconnection using the information readily available.

Cheers.
verisimilitude
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:50 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote: I would urge you to go to helioviewer and overlay an SDO AIA 1600A or 1700A image on top of a magnetogram image from SDO-HMI during a timeframe that includes several sunspots.


It may be that you make a mistake here.
It seems to me that the "magnetogram image" is based on the zeeman effect.
The zeeman-effect is totally similar to the stark effect.
This means we can not see whether the magnetogram image is showing
electric or magnetic fields.


I tend to believe that it's showing us the effect of both an electric field and a magnetic one due to the current flow inside the loops. If you envision the umbra as a area of the photosphere where large currents are passing through in the form of "bundled"/concentrated coronal loops, that current flow through the umbra is creating a magnetic field in it's wake. Admittedly the area under that umbra has a charge, and there''s an electrical component that's probably more significant than the magnetic component as you surmise, but IMO it's a "combo" deal, not just an effect of electric fields or magnetic fields.

I think we should be careful not to oversimplify the process. Clearly the electric field is doing the real work, but anytime we start running current through a coronal loop (Birkeland current), we're creating field aligned currents that create magnetic fields in their wake.

I do believe that you're probably correct that the lion's share of splitting is more likely due to Zeeman effect rather than the Stark effect, but I wouldn't try to oversimplify the process to suggest it is *only* a Zeeman effect related observation. It's not an either/or proposition IMO, it's a combo effect.

verisimilitude wrote:Mozina, I accept your point that some of my views are oversimplified. Thank you for reading between the lines for me.


My pleasure. FYI, I"m *really* enjoying your input here at Thunderbolts and I hope to enjoy many wonderful conversations with you.

FYI, if you overlay a 171a image with 1600A and a magnetogram image, you'll be able to see that the largest coronal loops are rising up and through those sunspots, and back down through that same surface in other regions of the surface of the photosphere. It's the current inside the loops that generates those magnetic/electric field signatures on the surface of the photosphere IMO, and the SDO images seem to confirm that analysis. Helioviewer is a wonderful tool for studying solar atmospheric physics, and I really like the running difference features they've added recently. It's a great tool in terms of being able to overlay various wavelengths to see how they all work together in terms of the physics. I'll try to post some Helioviewer images later today to show you what I'm talking about.

IMO where the mainstream is "missing the boat" is the fact that the current that flows through the coronal loop, and specifically the resistance to that flow of current is what is actually heating the plasma in the loop to millions of degrees, not "magnetic reconnection' all along the loop. Why invent a new term and a whole new process when ordinary resistance to electrical current can explain that heating process, and explain how a loop sustains those high temperatures for hours and days on end?

The mainstream also seems to think that the "footprints" of those coronal loops begin in the upper atmosphere of the sun, when in fact they begin far below the surface of the photosphere. Those loops leave their heat signature on the surface of the photosphere in 1600A and 17000A images. They also leave their EM signature on the surface in magnetogram images as well. Only the *largest* loops rise up through the surface of the photosphere IMO.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Magnetic Reconnection

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:02 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:I do believe that you're probably correct that the lion's share of splitting is more likely due to Zeeman effect rather than the Stark effect, but I wouldn't try to oversimplify the process to suggest it is *only* a Zeeman effect related observation. It's not an either/or proposition IMO, it's a combo effect.

Whether the field is mostly electric (stark effect) or mostly magnetic (zeeman effect) will probably depend
on the phenomenon that we look at.
Electric currents will likely have a strong magnetic field, as the electric field goes down
due to the opposing charges merging together.
The electric field might be stronger at places where the currents have not started yet,
and I currently think that the black spots on the sun are charged electrically.
In the flares I often see currents flowing from or towards a black spot.

Basic EM tells us:
Electric charges cause electric force.
The electric force will cause electric currents, which again cause magnetic fields.
And changing magnetic fields can again cause electric fields, as explained with maxwell laws.

It seems that the mainstream has neglected the electric part and tried to formulate
a formula without any electric fields at all. (and with some fancy lines).

With electric fields and electric currents, the existence of a magnetic field suddenly becomes obvious.
The bright plasma lines on the sun are most likely electric currents, becoming bright in the plasma.

These lines go from one charge spot to another.
The currents again cause magnetic field, causing pinches or curves. They also rise in the plasma
due to heating and expanding of the nearby plasma.
The magnetic fields again cause electric fields, but I do not think they are very strong compared
to the electric fields that are present. They do separate the negative and positive particles.
If the electric currents through the plasma create a lot of ionization, the currents can
suddenly short-cut. This causes the explosive like behaviour that we see in many flares.
This is all repeatable in the laboratory.

Mainstream version:
If I would try to explain this starting with just magnetic fields, I run into theoretical problems..
Magnetic version: We have north and south poles.... The End.
Because magnetic fields do nothing to plasma, unless we have electric currents.
I can not even explain where the magnetic fields come from.
So let met try to complicate it with something extra:
Magnetic version 2: we have changing north and south poles...
These changes causes currents that oppose the changes (Faraday)... The End.
So that did not work either.
Now let's go full retard and add magnetic field lines:
Magnetic version 3: we have changing north and south poles..
These poles causes magnetic field lines to change and to collapse into each other...
The lines, which represent zero-magnetic field or N times 1micro-Tesla move around.
Maxwell: nothing happens... The End.

It seems like Maxwell is the big winner here and not the mainstream.
And that means that the source of the electric currents and magnetic fields is electric.

FYI, if you overlay a 171a image with 1600A and a magnetogram image, you'll be able to see that the largest coronal loops are rising up and through those sunspots, and back down through that same surface in other regions of the surface of the photosphere. It's the current inside the loops that generates those magnetic/electric field signatures on the surface of the photosphere IMO, and the SDO images seem to confirm that analysis. Helioviewer is a wonderful tool for studying solar atmospheric physics, and I really like the running difference features they've added recently. It's a great tool in terms of being able to overlay various wavelengths to see how they all work together in terms of the physics. I'll try to post some Helioviewer images later today to show you what I'm talking about.

I look forward for some Helioviewer images. I could not find any good ones yet.
Maybe we can do some calculations on the images, and see where that leads us. :ugeek:
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest