Michael Mozina wrote:
It's worth keeping in mind that Maxwell's equations mathematically solve for E or B, and the "flux tube" is ultimately where the rubber meets the road with respect to physics. Alfven described "flux ropes" as "Bennett Pinches" in plasma, and he modeled them using circuit theory. We need to include all the circuit energy too if we expect to understand how they really work.
Flux ropes do connect the sun to the planets, and they are in fact 'current carrying' devices which can be "mathematically modeled" using magnetic fields alone, but in "physical" reality they are driven by E fields.
I assume that you mean the same thing: the lines are in reality electric currents driven by E-fields.
Yes. I would say it's a mistake to even allow them to call them "lines", they're current carrying magnetic ropes, or flux tubes, just like we see inside of any ordinary plasma ball. The E field does all the work as the switch on the side of the plasma ball will quickly demonstrate.
It's really the E field that provides the kinetic energy and particle motion. There is some amount of *induction* occurring, but the term "magnetic reconnection" has no scientific meaning in current carrying plasma after Alfven's double layer paper.
I do think that we need to embrace the term 'magnetic rope"/"magnetic flux tube" because that's really where the E and B sides of Maxwell's equations meet up in terms of plasma physics.
As I understand it Alfven describes electric currents,
whereas many astronomers describe (non-existing) magnetic field lines.
You can't really have moving charged particles and not get magnetic *fields*. You're right of course about the "lines" thing. If JREF/ISF taught me anything, it's the fact that the mainstream is pretty much clueless about EM field theory in general, not just plasma physics. The engineers might know what their talking about with respect to EM field theory and plasma physics, but the "astrophysicists" and math professors are clueless.
It's hard to believe it, but some of them actually believe that tiny little "lines" like topology lines "reconnect" and release energy in the process *without plasma* no less. Hoy Vey.
I'm pretty sure that's why Alfven flat out rejected the whole use of the term "magnetic reconnection". It simply misrepresents the physical facts. It's actually "circuit reconnection", or "particle reconnection" that occurs inside that current sheet, but it's not "magnetic line reconnection". The whole topology of the field changes and *induces* current in *plasma* perhaps, but magnetic lines have no source and no sink and no way to "disconnect from", nor 'reconnect" to any other discrete lines. Even the concept of "lines" is a gross oversimplification of EM field theory. It's a whole field. The lines just note the *topology* in various places.
I agree that there is a whole circuitry here.
The currents cause a magnetic field, and this field causes currents to follow a curve instead of a straight line.
It can more complex when there are multiples of layers involved.
Dr. Scott also demonstrates that bi-directional current flow can occur in many concentric layers. It's get complicated and messy in plasma in terms of the math and physics, but not so much in terms of pure circuit theory. I think that's another reason Alfven stuck to circuit theory in space.
But by examining solar flares carefully, we can identify how the current might flow
and what the magnetic field would be.
And as far I can see, this is exactly the opposite from what the "magnetic reconnection" astronomers
say about these flares.
They mixed up the E field with the B field, which are both polar fields.
And mistaken currents for (non existing) flux-lines.
The "flux tubes" do exist, just like they exist inside of any ordinary plasma ball. They are tornado like filaments of moving plasma, not tiny little "magnetic lines" as the mainstream seems to think. They are field aligned "currents" as you noted.
So from very clear examples we can already see that many astronomers have it wrong.
It was already clear from the "reconnection" bullshit that they came up with.
This error also appears in the maths that these astronomers use, where almost each step
can be refuted with practical known physics (e.g. the super-conductor).
I think the mainstream has a complete aversion to the lab because the moment they try to create million degree plasma, and sustain it over time, they'll need (drum roll please) "electricity" to do the job. They'll certainly need more than just 'magnetic lines".
The mainstream relies heavily on math, but they really haven't a clue about real kinetic energy and real physics. That's why 95 percent of LCMD amounts to placeholder terms for human ignorance, and the remaining 5 percent of their math is based upon "pseudoscience" according to the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory. They really don't have a clue about plasma physics as my conversations at JREF/ISF made painfully clear.
FYI, somewhere in my travels someone handed me a paper by an author named "Bern", or 'Birn' I believe. The author of that paper on "reconnection" clearly acknowledged the current flowing through the "magnetic line"/flux tube that he was describing, and his helped me to understand how to orient the flux tube process by both circuit theory and by the B or "magnetic" orientation in terms of the math. The math isn't "equal" however. As Alfven noted in his book Cosmic Plasma, some types of plasma behaviors can *only* be understood in terms of the entire circuit and the whole circuit energy. E oriented or circuit oriented descriptions of flux tubes are more useful in describing "resistance" and "heat" inside those "flux ropes". Solar physics is *lost* without acknowledging the electric fields that drive the atmospheric processes.
It's really only useful to look at solar physics in terms of electricity and the E field. The moment you do so, all satellite imagery makes perfect sense.