Recovered: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:21 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "earls"

regardless, you can crush their articulate language of the description all you want, but I believe from my pov that when magnetic fields are transfered, they release energy and that's how they're understanding it.

they might not acknowledge them (yet) but, you and I both know that the magnetic fields = current flow and transfer of magnetic fields = current flow (release of energy). and the specific order of the cart and the horse....

making anecdotes to the current paradigm instead of erasing and re-establishing it is the way to go.

besides, it's not the failure of the students - its the teacher's.

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:38 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

I think I'll have to take up my critique of this paper a bit later and wait for some feedback from you guys to see If I'm missing something. Every time they talk about "stored magnetic energy", I want to hurl. There is no stored magnetic energy that would sustain a CME sort of event. If we turn off the plasma ball, the magnetic fields certainly do dissipate, but that dissipation energy release is small potatoes compared to the emissions from the electrified plasma thread that was there before the power was turned off. The magnetic field in our light plasma ball is thicker than what we find in the corona. In no way could that residual magnetic field result in huge releases of energy. Whatever energy is "stored" in the magnetic field before the power it cut is "stored" as kinetic energy in the flow of ions and electrons. The primary energy event happens when the power is turned on, not when the electron flow is turned off, and the *electro-magnetic* field begins to dissipate.

That was where I ended my attempts at discussing reconnection with tusenfem from BAUT.

He kept telling me frozen in field stored magnetic energy.

I could not get him to admit that when you turned off the current that the magnetic field would collapse.

There is no magnetic field in a plasma anywhere in space that is going to last with the power turned off.
It will collapse at the speed of light.
So if you have a magnetic structure that is light weeks wide, if you turn off the power, thats how long it will last.
And you will see a progressive collapse....

So when they tell you that the stored magnetic energy will last millions of years, they are full of sh*t.
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Raphael"

I think I'll have to take up my critique of this paper a bit later and wait for some feedback from you guys to see If I'm missing something. Every time they talk about "stored magnetic energy", I want to hurl.

Michael can we disuss analogies?
Are objects within the electrified plasma field capable of storing magnetic energy?
Like the 4 inner planets composed of rock containing metal?

There is no stored magnetic energy that would sustain a CME sort of event. If we turn off the plasma ball, the magnetic fields certainly do dissipate, but that dissipation energy release is small potatoes compared to the emissions from the electrified plasma thread that was there before the power was turned off.

How would we turn off the plasma ball?
If the analogy is that the plasma ball is the sun?
Does the plasma ball ever get turned off in an Electric Universe?
How would the Grand Architect flip the switch?

The primary energy event happens when the power is turned on, not when the electron flow is turned off, and the *electro-magnetic* field begins to dissipate.

What does this mean Michael.
...He kept telling me frozen in field stored magnetic energy.

There is no magnetic field in a plasma anywhere in space that is going to last with the power turned off.
It will collapse at the speed of light.
So if you have a magnetic structure that is light weeks wide, if you turn off the power, thats how long it will last.
And you will see a progressive collapse....

Are you suggesting if the power is turned off, we would witness a weakening electro- magnetic field, dissipating, and presenting itself as a progressive collapse?

Less radiation from the Sun is called 'Global Dimming' ... the flip side to 'Global Warming'.
And a dissipating electro-magnetic flip would help explain the disappearance of the Bees worldwide.

What happens to the metal ball (Earth) and its stored energy if the plasma ball (Sun) shuts down operations in the year 2012?

Does a massive transfer of magnetic energy take place in 2012?
Could our Sun Sol be intersecting with its galactic Soul-mate, it's binary companion?


Mad ideas, I know.

namaste

Raphael
_________________
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/about/

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

What does this mean Michael.
...He kept telling me frozen in field stored magnetic energy.

There is no magnetic field in a plasma anywhere in space that is going to last with the power turned off.
It will collapse at the speed of light.
So if you have a magnetic structure that is light weeks wide, if you turn off the power, thats how long it will last.
And you will see a progressive collapse....

Are you suggesting if the power is turned off, we would witness a weakening electro- magnetic field, dissipating, and presenting itself as a progressive collapse?

Yes that is what I am saying. And not may not collapse at the full speed of light due to some inductance. Michael did not write that I did.

Frozen field condition...

Comments on the motion of magnetic field lines

Carl-Gunne Fälthammar
Division of Plasma Physics, Alfvén Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

(Received 24 August 2005; accepted 3 February 2006)

Belcher and Olbert recently showed that the concept of the motion of magnetic field lines can be helpful in teaching classical electromagnetism. Although this concept holds in many situations, it has important limitations. It is shown that the most common definition, v=E×B/B2, which is the one used by Belcher and Olbert, is not appropriate when an electrostatic field is present, unless the field satisfies special conditions. In an infinitely conducting medium where the electric field has no component parallel to the magnetic field, E×B/B2 is still a meaningful definition of the motion of magnetic field lines (which follow the plasma motion as if "frozen-in"). It used to be assumed that space plasmas could be treated as infinitely conducting and therefore the concept of magnetic field line motion was used extensively. But local nonvanishing values of E·B can "cut" magnetic field lines and invalidate the frozen-in condition. ©2006 American Association of Physics Teachers
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet ... s&gifs=yes

What happens to the metal ball (Earth) and its stored energy if the plasma ball (Sun) shuts down operations in the year 2012?

Does a massive transfer of magnetic energy take place in 2012?
Raphael

Well, unless you are a fortuneteller, I would not put too much into the speculation of 2012.

The energy storage of the earth depends on its inductance. It does not matter because I certainly would not expect it to last for years if the current was shut off..
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:44 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

That was where I ended my attempts at discussing reconnection with tusenfem from BAUT.

He kept telling me frozen in field stored magnetic energy.

Note that whoever tusenfum is from BAUT, they consider him the resident "expert" on all things "electromagnetic" in that bunch. He seem surprised when I presented Alfven's explanation of the magnetosphere, and never considered even simple ideas like induction in the plasma as part of the electromagnetic process. Everything had to be labeled "magnetic reconnection".

I could not get him to admit that when you turned off the current that the magnetic field would collapse.

Raphael asked the right question IMO. Either the magnetic fields are actually "frozen" as they claim or whatever energy is stored is stored as kinetic energy in the moving plasma (which is what you and I seem to assume).

I think they're all completely ignorant of the basic physics behind plasma physics. It is the flow of electrons that establishes the magnetic field in it's wake. One does not exist without the other. The proof that there is a basic disconnect between theory and reality is obvious. They can't explain the physics atomic process that leads to energy release in "magnetic reconnection". There is no way to falsify their theory, because there is no way to distinguish plain ol' electrical reconnection and magnetic reconnection. It's the ultimate ruse. As long as we don't require them to identify the mechanical process that leads to energy release, they will attempt to hide behind mathematical theories and they'll never get themselves into a lab to demonstrate any of this. The public attitude toward magnetic reconnection should be "show me the physical process that leads to energy release" (show me the money!). If they can't identify the physical energy release process, there is no way to know that they aren't misconceiving the whole idea of electrical reconnection with magnetic reconnection. It is quite obvious that there is no actual (Physically different) difference between electrical reconnection and magnetic reconnection. I can demonstrate that point by demonstrating that they can't identify the physical release mechanism at an atomic level. The only way that energy releases like this can occur is from fast moving electrons (in the current stream) running into more dense layers, or by powerful kinetic pinches in the plasma. There is no other possibility. Their ruse about "magnetic reconnection" is absurd. Since they can't identify the physical energy release process they're talking about, there is no way they can distinguish it from standard electrical interactions in plasma.

There is no magnetic field in a plasma anywhere in space that is going to last with the power turned off.
It will collapse at the speed of light.
So if you have a magnetic structure that is light weeks wide, if you turn off the power, thats how long it will last.
And you will see a progressive collapse....

The kinetic pinch will start to dissipate the moment the current stops flowing. The flow motions might take a while to fully dissipate, but we're talking seconds at worst case, the same time it takes for current filaments to end their kinetic flow once the current is turned off. There is no excess energy released in this process, in fact it starts to cool the moment the currents stop flowing.

So when they tell you that the stored magnetic energy will last millions of years, they are full of sh*t.

Precisely. That's like claiming that the energy stored in a plasma ball filament will last millions of years. The whole thing is one hollow theory. They can't even identify the physical energy release process, so there is no way they can even know if they are really talking about electricity or not. It's hollow mythology because there is no physical model. Since they can't describe the physical energy release process, they cannot know that "magnetic reconnection" is in any way different than ordinary electrical reconnection. The whole thing is a house of cards.

The other key point here has to do with density. The density of the plasma in the corona is very low. There is no way to "store" magnetic energy in light plasma. The kinetic energy in the plasma flows will dissipate rapidly the instant the currents terminate or "reconnect" with other electrical flows closer to the surface.

[bboyer]

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

I think I'll have to take up my critique of this paper a bit later and wait for some feedback from you guys to see If I'm missing something. Every time they talk about "stored magnetic energy", I want to hurl.

Michael can we disuss analogies?
Are objects within the electrified plasma field capable of storing magnetic energy?
Like the 4 inner planets composed of rock containing metal?

I'm nowhere near qualified to answer this one, but I suppose I might interject that some solid objects can be "magnetized" (others generally can't).

See various Wikipedia articles (I know, I know; imperfect, but what can you do? Take it with a grain of salt.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromagnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrimagnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiferromagnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramagnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superparamagnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdiamagnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamagnetism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_magnet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-molecule_magnet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_glass

I seem to recall there was an article on materials that can't generally hold on to being "magnetized," but I can't find the article. Unless I skimmed one of the above articles too quickly and missed mention of it.

Is the term "magnetic energy" a technical term, or something fictitious invented in the process of inventing the purportedly fictional process of "magnetic reconnection?"

There is no stored magnetic energy that would sustain a CME sort of event. If we turn off the plasma ball, the magnetic fields certainly do dissipate, but that dissipation energy release is small potatoes compared to the emissions from the electrified plasma thread that was there before the power was turned off.

How would we turn off the plasma ball?
If the analogy is that the plasma ball is the sun?
Does the plasma ball ever get turned off in an Electric Universe?
How would the Grand Architect flip the switch?

How does one turn off a plasma ball? Well, in human terms, by flipping the switch (or in many cases, clicking the rotary dial located on the cord to "off"). In technical terms. Cut off the flow of current to the device. No current ~== no glow mode, no filaments, no action going on. Take away the current, and the electrical activity mentioned above subsides pretty much immediately. It's the "current" that's sustaining the hop up from "inactivity" to "glow mode." Take it away, and there's nothing left to sustain the glow, and the glow dies a quick death, so to speak.

Can a central electrode (such as the sun, in a plasma globe analogy) ever be turned off in an Electric Universe? Well, if one consider the sun to be part of a circuit, receiving power along one or more filaments through interstellar space, then I'd think that it would be possible to alter the sun's behavior by altering the input.

IE, if there was a surge in the galactic circuit (assuming one accepts for the sake of argument that there are one or more circuits powering the galactic magnetic field), what would happen to things located along the circuit? Would they transition from one discharge phase to another? Say from dark mode into glow mode, or glow mode into arc mode? If there were enough current, one might expect it, yes.

Likewise, if there were to be some fault in the circuit that diverted power from the circuit (a "short," so to speak), would we expect the circuit to lose power and for items along the circuit to likewise lose power and step down one or more phases to a lower discharge setting. Say, dropping from glow mode, to dark mode? Could be.

Some recent articles have come out with discoveries of at least one star only "half-way" covered by bright hot spots. (Anyone have a reference? I seem to have misplaced the link; too much going on lately to keep track of it all.) Astronomers have been baffled by it, since they assume an internal fusion dynamo and are unsure how only one half or less of a star could be covered in a hot spot...

Cold it be that this particular object is receiving sufficient power to go into a partial glow mode (super-aurora?), but not sufficient to be fully immersed in a glow mode (as is our yellow sun's photosphere)?

I don't know whether there's a "Grant Architect," so to speak and I don't think that the Electric Universe makes any claims one way or the other on metaphysical concepts such as that. But I'd say that, if an object were to enter or exit a current, double layer, filament, etc., then it might be possible that it would exhibit a phase transition (Dark Mode -> Glow Mode, or Glow Mode -> Arc Mode), such as one of those mentioned above.

On the up side, we might be able to monitor our local environment for signs of upswings or downswings in our neighbors. If we see a wave of supernovas happening over time, we might predict that naughty things are afoot and brace for a bad time. Likewise, if we see a bunch of local stars suddenly start snuffing out. We might also predict bad / dark time ahead. However, from what I hear, we've not heard of any such ominous rumblings in our neighborhood. So we're probably safe for the time being...?

The primary energy event happens when the power is turned on, not when the electron flow is turned off, and the *electro-magnetic* field begins to dissipate.

What does this mean Michael.
...He kept telling me frozen in field stored magnetic energy.

From a prior thread, Mozina quote Alfven as saying something to the effect that Alfven studied plasmas in the lab and came to the conclusions that there were basically two types of plasma: dense plasma and light plasma.

Likewise, each type of plasma behaved slightly differently. Dense plasma could be approximately modeled in shorthand by treating it as a fluid (though I don't know if this works in all cases and under all conditions). The light plasma was a somewhat different beast and didn't behave quite like the dense plasma. It was seemingly more prone to electrical / magnetic effects, instabilities, etc.

Now, early on, Alfven had put forth the idea of "frozen in" field lines. IE, somehow the materials (plasma) were "dragging" a specific magnetic field configuration along with them. In some ways the plasma itself he had considered to be "magnetized" (sort of a fluid permanent magnet; I don't know if that's quite what he meant, but pretty close?)... However, he later realized and vocally advocated that field lines COULD NOT be "frozen in" to (at the least) light plasma. Instead, where magnetic fields were seen, and especially when seen to change, it was NECESSARY to consider the underlying currents that gave rise to the magnetic fields. Neglecting the currents would basically make models that made no sense and would set back physics a few decades, and probably lead to an impasse in the field of astrophysics (Bingo! here we are today with black holes, dark matter, dark energy, inflation, and a bajillion other bad things based on ignoring currents in interplanetary, interstellar & intergalactic space).

I'd tend to say (not knowing off hand whether Alfven himself said it) that in addition to considering currents in "light" plasmas, it probably wouldn't hurt to consider them in "dense" plasmas as well. Just to be safe, mind you.

So, when Mozina says "...He kept telling me frozen in field stored magnetic energy." The above is the debate he's referring to. IE, does the plasma "carry" a pre-existing magnetic field with it, or do currents in the plasma generate the magnetic fields dynamically, as well the energy releases, etc. from collapsing double layers and various discharges.

There is no magnetic field in a plasma anywhere in space that is going to last with the power turned off.
It will collapse at the speed of light.
So if you have a magnetic structure that is light weeks wide, if you turn off the power, thats how long it will last.
And you will see a progressive collapse....

Are you suggesting if the power is turned off, we would witness a weakening electro- magnetic field, dissipating, and presenting itself as a progressive collapse?

I think that's the idea. IE, if we're seeing magnetic fields in space, we need to consider that there's a current powering them. If the current flow stops, so goeth the magnetic field in the light plasma of interplanetary, interstellar or intergalactic space.

That said, again, there haven't been a spate of either waves of supernovas or waves of stars suddenly winking out, nor magnetic fields suddenly collapsing. So it seems that for the moment, whatever power source is "out there" is still flipped "on."

But, certain oscillations of various features (the solar cycle for instance, polar aurorae, the banded patterns of Io in eclipse) may give us hints about the local environment and its oscillatory nature (especially the solar cycle, which is the most obvious feature; what with the migratory bands of solar activity, like prominences, flares & CMES over the course of the solar cycle).

Less radiation from the Sun is called 'Global Dimming' ... the flip side to 'Global Warming'.
And a dissipating electro-magnetic flip would help explain the disappearance of the Bees worldwide.

What happens to the metal ball (Earth) and its stored energy if the plasma ball (Sun) shuts down operations in the year 2012?

Well, I don't want to prognosticate on "doomsday" theories. We made it past 2000 / 2001 without the world ending. Much as we did 1000/1001. Much as we did in the several millenia before that. Though going back a ways you get into some heavy catastrophes (if certain theories, I won't personally go into them here, are to be believed)...

I'm not particularly impressed by the record on "doomsday predictions" by various groups. Inevitably it seems they come and go. No doubt, when 2012 rolls around and the world doesn't go kaboom it still won't be the end of doomsday predictions. Someone will find some novel way to interpret some ancient text that gives a new "doomsday clock" to instill fear in the hearts of the masses.

If the sun were to transition to some other mode, be it dark mode, glow mode or abnormal glow mode, or a heavier duty arc mode than current prominences / solar flares, it would undoubtedly have repercussions one way or the other. Dropping out of glow mode could potentially mean the end of plant life and other processes dependent on receiving radiated visible spectrum light. If it hops up a notch or two into a heavy duty arc mode or something more, then it could knock out satellites, space stations, and possibly wreak havoc on Earth with flares & CMEs. It's not a friendly thought to think that these transitions could occur without some level of warning, or with warning signs we miss because we're not looking for the right things in the right places.

But, again, I console myself (as do some others) with the fact that our local neighborhood does not appear to be fading or going out, and likewise does not appear to be brightening or exploding in any particularly alarming fashion. So, we're probably safe for the time being. That's not to say that smaller scale events can't happen, such as an extended solar minimum, or a magnetic flip of some kind (don't know what triggers 'em yet). But, hopefully, the bigger nastiness(es) are off the table for the time being. At least they're not on the radar, so to speak (from my position, albeit not an official one).

Does a massive transfer of magnetic energy take place in 2012?
Could our Sun Sol be intersecting with its galactic Soul-mate, it's binary companion?


Mad ideas, I know.

namaste

Raphael

Dunno 'bout any binary companions, etc. So, I don't think I'll speculate on that.

Sorry if any of the above was too "shoot from the hip," just some meandering thoughts on the spur of the moment. Hope they all made sense?

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Last edited by mgmirkin on Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:14 am; edited 1 time in total

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:15 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Pluto"

Hello All

What's a resident eggspert?

I have these links

Can someone give an opinion on them

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neustars00/fryer/

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neustars00/chernoff/

Vortex Pinning in Neutron Star Crusts
Dr. Noriaki Shibazaki, ITP & Rikkyo University
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neus ... shibazaki/
_________________
Smile and live another day

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:44 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

Hello All

What's a resident eggspert?

I have these links

Can someone give an opinion on them

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neustars00/fryer/
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neustars00/chernoff/

Vortex Pinning in Neutron Star Crusts
Dr. Noriaki Shibazaki, ITP & Rikkyo University
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neus ... shibazaki/

Well, I'm not an expert, but I still have some questions. Amateurish or otherwise.

Sadly, I'm also not familiar with oriental languages... But does the second item below look like a diagram of a plasma "pinch" to anyone else?

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neus ... oh/05.html
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neus ... oh/06.html

Why do I still want to see the top left of this image in conjunction with the central diagram as the cross section of two current filaments pinching down, while still co-rotating (entwined, one might say) and developing a torus or plasmoid around the central bit?

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neus ... oh/12.html

Perhaps my mind has been warped. *Wink*

And what of this next one? Faraday disk anyone? Spinning mass w/magnetic field creating current outflow along the axis. Isn't that was a Faraday disk does? Either input current along the axis to change the rotational rate of the magnetized disk, or spin the magnetic disk to create output current along the axis?

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neus ... oh/14.html

Who's up for a cross-sectional Birkeland current pair?

Ooh, ooh! I am! How 'bout this? Good candidate?

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neus ... oh/16.html

Versus plasma galaxies... Do we have a winner?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... galaxy.htm

I think we do! At least a pretty darn good correspondence, taking into account "real world conditions." The above "neutron stars" *cough* appear to look a lot like the "plasma galaxy" evolution...

The first "double neutron star" image is appx equivalent to frame 4 of the "plasma galaxy" simulation. The second image from the "double neutron star" image is appx frame 5-6 of the "plasma galaxy" simulation, and the 3rd "double neutron star" image is appx equivalent to frame 8 of the "plasma galaxy" simulation.

Boy, those "neutral plasmas" and "neutron stars" sure do a great job of "simulating" an electrical interaction in plasma. *Chuckle*

What of this relating to GRB sources?

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/neus ... oh/23.html

Aside from the fact they call one of the stages "mass transfer," I wonder if the "mass" happens to be fully or partially ionized plasma? If so, might this "mass transfer" be a form of "discharge" between adjacent charged bodies in close proximity (overlapping roche lobes)?

Just wondering...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Last edited by mgmirkin on Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:17 pm; edited 2 times in total

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:52 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

I am an EU purist. I use these models to explain most everything.

Polarization in Gamma-Ray Bursts Produced by Pinch Discharge
Abstract
Large-voltage, high-temperature plasma columns produced by pinch discharge can generate γ-ray flashes with energy spectra and spectral evolution consistent with what are observed in γ-ray bursts (GRBs), and the inverse Compton scattering (ICS) during the discharge process can produce high linear polarization. Our calculation indicates that the observed polarization depends on the angle between the line-of-sight to the GRB and the direction of the pinch discharge, but only weakly depends on observed γ-ray energy.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... 22c9c03905

Cosmic ray spectrum above 1015 eV (a new approach)
A.A. Petrukhin
Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow 115409, Russia
Presenter: A.A. Petrukhin (petruhin@nevod.mephi.ru), rus-petrukhin-AA-abs1-og12-oral
A new approach to cosmic ray description based on the model of particle generation and acceleration in plasma pinches and on supposition that a new state of matter appears in cosmic ray interactions above 1015 eV is considered. Consequences for various aspects of cosmic ray physics and some possibilities to check this hypothesis are discussed.
http://icrc2005.tifr.res.in/htm/Vol-Web ... 2-oral.pdf

MECO are identified as having a magnetic field. If thats that case then blackholes are definitely out. You dont need them as a component to the universe anyway. Neutron stars appear to be a plasma focus.
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:50 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

Now, early on, Alfven had put forth the idea of "frozen in" field lines. IE, somehow the materials (plasma) were "dragging" a specific magnetic field configuration along with them. In some ways the plasma itself he had considered to be "magnetized" (sort of a fluid permanent magnet; I don't know if that's quite what he meant, but pretty close?)... However, he later realized and vocally advocated that field lines COULD NOT be "frozen in" to (at the least) light plasma. Instead, where magnetic fields were seen, and especially when seen to change, it was NECESSARY to consider the underlying currents that gave rise to the magnetic fields. Neglecting the currents would basically make models that made no sense and would set back physics a few decades, and probably lead to an impasse in the field of astrophysics (Bingo! here we are today with black holes, dark matter, dark energy, inflation, and a bajillion other bad things based on ignoring currents in interplanetary, interstellar & intergalactic space).

I think that's exactly what's going on here. Alfven regretting using the term "frozen" in relationship to magnetic fields in plasma. It was a mistake IMO to ever suggest they are "frozen" into plasma because unlike a solid, a plasma is mobile, and it won't hold a magnetic configuration for very long once you remove the EM source. It's certainly not going to convert a basic north-south alignment of plasma atoms into a super duper release of energy of any sort.

Upriver and I are very close on most aspect of plasma cosmology theory with the possible exception of "neutron stars" which I tend to entertain as a possible dense form of matter (that acts like a dense plasma).

There would be some residual kinetic energy in that plasma ball filament that must dissipate once the power is turned off, but a simple north-south alignment of plasma atoms is not an energy source, it is simply an alignment of atoms, nothing more, nothing less.

The key issue here IMO is the fact that the mainstream cannot explain the physical (not metaphysical) mechanism of energy release. They cannot explain how "magnetic reconnection" turns into an energy release at the atomic physics level. It is therefore impossible to know if there is a unique energy release mechanism associated with "magnetic reconnection" that can be distinguished from ordinary electrical reconnection, or electrical current flow.

Magnetic reconnection looks to be the mainstream's "Waterloo". The mainstream is used to being able to dream up "dark forces" out of nothing and then stuffing them into mathematical models without ever justifying their existence. Most of their ideas not not "testable" in a lab.

In this particular instance however, this idea of "magnetic reconnection" *is testable* here on Earth. To test their theory requires that they actually come up with a real physical process to explain this energy release. As it stands, they are trying to play the same game with "magnetic reconnection" that they have played with inflation and dark energy and dark matter. It won't work this time however because there is nothing special about the conditions on the sun's magnetic fields that could not be tested here on Earth, at least in short durations.

This issue comes back to some basic "properties" of plasma. Plasma is not rigid like a solid, so it can't possess "frozen in" magnetic fields like a solid. Because the atoms move around, no plasma will maintain a magnetic field indefinitely. Moreover, there is no legitimate scientific way to explain these very large magnetic fields in light plasma in the absence of current flow within the plasma. The plasma in the corona isn't dense enough to even "store" (maintain) it's own magnetic alignment for more than a fraction of a second without a current flow.

The only legitimate way to explain magnetic fields of these strengths within very light plasma is to accept the role of electron flow in that process.

Just as electron flows through a copper wire will generate magnetic fields around the wire, so too, the electron flows within the plasma create powerful magnetic fields around the current flow. There is nothing significant that is "stored" in the magnetic field. The magnetic field will simply collapse the moment we turn off the flow of electrons, and the collapsing magnetic field isn't going to release x-ray jets. The whole idea of "magnetic reconnection" is rotten to the core. There is no great amount of energy stored in magnetic fields. There is a kinetic flow of electrons and plasma inside the filaments that will ultimately dissipate over time, but the kinetic energy that is "stored" (if you look at it that way) in the filaments was "created by" the electrons flowing through the plasma.

I do think that the mainstream is particularly weak on this point, and therefore it's a point that I intend to harp on publicly.

Light plasma like we find in the corona is completely incapable of "storing" any significant amount of energy. Even electrical currents will not really be stored in the plasma, but rather they will pass through the plasma. The only thing you might "store" in such light plasma is a charge.

The fundamental problem here is pretty obvious. We know that the sun gets energy from the universe. They are trying to make the sun get energy from thin air, or in this case thin plasma by violating the energy conservations laws. I'm sorry, but that's not a legitimate scientific answer. Answers about the source of the energy release cannot be "answered" by violating long standing *laws* of physics.

There is only one known force of nature that has been shown to create these effects in plasma, namely electrical current. The mainstream cannot and will not ever duplicate these discharge effects within "magnetics". It's not going to happen. I think we should be leaning on them to show us that it happens in a real lab in real controlled tests. We should also require them to describe the physical energy release process that occurs at the atomic level and explain how it is uniquely different from simple (already known) electrical interactions in plasma. They can't provide such a thing, because magnetic reconnection is simply astro-slang for "current flow".

All areas of science have one thing in common. The onus of responsibility always fall to the one making the claim. Birkeland demonstrated in his lab that he could generate x-ray jets and sustained "coronal loops' over a sphere using electrical current. It is now beholden upon the mainstream to demonstrate their claim as well. Let's see them reproduce a coronal loop in lab as Birkeland did, using only magnetic forces. We all know that is never going to happen. They can't demonstrate that claim one bit. We know it, and they know it. We just need to point it out for them in public.

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

This issue comes back to some basic "properties" of plasma. Plasma is not rigid like a solid, so it can't possess "frozen in" magnetic fields like a solid. Because the atoms move around, no plasma will maintain a magnetic field indefinitely. Moreover, there is no legitimate scientific way to explain these very large magnetic fields in light plasma in the absence of current flow within the plasma. The plasma in the corona isn't dense enough to even "store" (maintain) it's own magnetic alignment for more than a fraction of a second without a current flow.

<snip>

The whole idea of "magnetic reconnection" is rotten to the core. There is no great amount of energy stored in magnetic fields. There is a kinetic flow of electrons and plasma inside the filaments that will ultimately dissipate over time, but the kinetic energy that is "stored" (if you look at it that way) in the filaments was "created by" the electrons flowing through the plasma.

I do think that the mainstream is particularly weak on this point, and therefore it's a point that I intend to harp on publicly.

Light plasma like we find in the corona is completely incapable of "storing" any significant amount of energy. Even electrical currents will not really be stored in the plasma, but rather they will pass through the plasma. The only thing you might "store" in such light plasma is a charge.

Yes, its pretty much that simple. The moving charge creates the magnetic field at that moment in time. A "frozen in" magnetic field in a solid is a bar magnet. Plasma cant do that.
As far as energy storage in the form of inductance, which is the parameter that the mainstream is talking about for energy storage in a plasma, even if they dont know it, if you look at this Hyperphysics webpage
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... acind.html, you can see it really is more like a delay that changes the current/voltage phase relationship. So I imagine that if you were really good at measuring Alfven waves you could determine this relationship and determine the local inductance. I have read of inductance of 1 Henry for a large filament. Take it from there.
A small(1uH) ferrite(solid) inductor can introduce a delay of microseconds, and plasma is many times thinner so your total inductance is much less........Thats part of the reason why plasma is a great conductor...
To imagine that you would have enough inductance in a thin plasma to last for even thousands of years is fools errand....

And here is the other important thing.

The idea that the kinetic energy in a neutral plasma does nothing is not tenable. Take a species neutral plasma. With a probe you can detect ions and electrons. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....

There is only one known force of nature that has been shown to create these effects in plasma, namely electrical current. The mainstream cannot and will not ever duplicate these discharge effects within "magnetics". It's not going to happen. I think we should be leaning on them to show us that it happens in a real lab in real controlled tests. We should also require them to describe the physical energy release process that occurs at the atomic level and explain how it is uniquely different from simple (already known) electrical interactions in plasma. They can't provide such a thing, because magnetic reconnection is simply astro-slang for "current flow".

All areas of science have one thing in common. The onus of responsibility always fall to the one making the claim. Birkeland demonstrated in his lab that he could generate x-ray jets and sustained "coronal loops' over a sphere using electrical current. It is now beholden upon the mainstream to demonstrate their claim as well. Let's see them reproduce a coronal loop in lab as Birkeland did, using only magnetic forces. We all know that is never going to happen. They can't demonstrate that claim one bit. We know it, and they know it. We just need to point it out for them in public.

There needs to be an electrical Apple to fall and pop them on the head.

The Emperor wears no clothes?
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

[bboyer]

osted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

Langmuir Probe theory at Wiki....

Magnetized plasmas

The theory of Langmuir probes is much more complex when the plasma is magnetized. The simplest extension of the unmagnetized case is simply to use the projected area rather than the surface area of the electrode. For a long cylinder far from other surfaces, this reduces the effective area by a factor of π/2 = 1.57. As mentioned before, it might be necessary to increase the radius by about the thermal ion Larmor radius, but not above the effective area for the unmagnetized case.

The use of the projected area seems to be closely tied with the existence of a magnetic sheath. Its scale is the ion Larmor radius at the sound speed, which is normally between the scales of the Debye sheath and the pre-sheath. The Bohm criterion for ions entering the magnetic sheath applies to the motion along the field, while at the entrance to the Debye sheath it applies to the motion normal to the surface. This results in a reduction of the density by the sine of the angle between the field and the surface. The associated increase in the Debye length must be taken into account when considering ion non-saturation due to sheath effects.

Especially interesting and difficult to understand is the role of cross-field currents. Naively, one would expect the current to flow parallel to the magnetic field along a flux tube. In many geometries, this flux tube will end at a surface in a distant part of the device, and this spot should itself exhibit an I-V characteristic. The net result would be the measurement of a double-probe characteristic, in other words, electron saturation current equal to the ion saturation current.

When this picture is considered in detail, it is seen that the flux tube must charge up and the surrounding plasma must spin around it. The flow of current into or out of the flux tube must be associated with a force that slows down this spinning. Candidate forces are viscosity, friction with neutrals, and inertial forces associated with plasma flows, either steady or fluctuating. It is not known which force is strongest in practice, and in fact it is generally difficult to find any force that is powerful enough to explain the characteristics actually measured.

It is also likely that the magnetic field plays a decisive role in determining the level of electron saturation, but no quantitative theory is as yet available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langmuir_probe

You would have to assume that this is interpreted using MHD.
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:55 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

Now, early on, Alfven had put forth the idea of "frozen in" field lines. IE, somehow the materials (plasma) were "dragging" a specific magnetic field configuration along with them. In some ways the plasma itself he had considered to be "magnetized" (sort of a fluid permanent magnet; I don't know if that's quite what he meant, but pretty close?)... However, he later realized and vocally advocated that field lines COULD NOT be "frozen in" to (at the least) light plasma. Instead, where magnetic fields were seen, and especially when seen to change, it was NECESSARY to consider the underlying currents that gave rise to the magnetic fields. Neglecting the currents would basically make models that made no sense and would set back physics a few decades, and probably lead to an impasse in the field of astrophysics (Bingo! here we are today with black holes, dark matter, dark energy, inflation, and a bajillion other bad things based on ignoring currents in interplanetary, interstellar & intergalactic space).

I think that's exactly what's going on here. Alfven regretting using the term "frozen" in relationship to magnetic fields in plasma. It was a mistake IMO to ever suggest they are "frozen" into plasma because unlike a solid, a plasma is mobile, and it won't hold a magnetic configuration for very long once you remove the EM source. It's certainly not going to convert a basic north-south alignment of plasma atoms into a super duper release of energy of any sort.

Would it be correct (in some analogy or another) to say that plasmas have passed their "Curie point" as which the velocity and random motion of the constituents basically breaks or cancels out the the usual "magnetization" of a well-ordered system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_point (I know, I know... Grain of salt, got it.)

The Curie point of a ferromagnetic material is the temperature above which it loses its characteristic ferromagnetic ability. At temperatures below the Curie point the magnetic moments are partially aligned within magnetic domains in ferromagnetic materials. As the temperature is increased from below the Curie point, thermal fluctuations increasingly destroy this alignment, until the net magnetization becomes zero at and above the Curie point. Above the Curie point, the material is purely paramagnetic.

At temperatures above the Curie point, an applied magnetic field has a paramagnetic effect on the magnetization, but the combination of paramagnetism with ferromagnetism leads to the magnetization following a hysteresis curve with the applied field strength. The destruction of magnetization at the Curie temperature is a second-order phase transition and a critical point where the magnetic susceptibility is theoretically infinite.

I realize that the above applies generally to ferromagnetic materials, but I wonder if much the same can be said for other modes of magnetization?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Néel_temperature (Yeah, yeah... WP is imperfect!)

The Néel temperature, TN, is the temperature at which an antiferromagnetic material becomes paramagnetic — that is, the thermal energy becomes large enough to destroy the macroscopic magnetic ordering within the material.

The Néel temperature is analogous to the Curie temperature, TC, for ferromagnetic materials. It is named after Louis Néel (1904-2000), who received the 1970 Nobel prize in physics for his work in the area.

Seems to me it's reasonable to say that it's the fact that the plasma may be in an unordered state or that its temperature may preclude the order required to display "permanent" magnetism. Such that if a magnetic field is seen, one must consider that it is from an electro-magnetic source. IE, a current is required to induce magnetism.

Come to think of it, that makes me wonder what the ACTUAL mechanism for electro-magnetism is? Is it simply that applying a current in some way causes the dipoles of the individual charged particles to align, during the time domain in which the current is applied? Thus removing random motion and instill some sort of "order" on the particles? But once the current is gone the particles go back to random motion? I'm not yet familiar enough with electricity to answer that question. Perhaps someone else can...

Perhaps the Wikipedia article can shed some light?

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

Though I've not yet gotten to the explanation of how the magnetic field itself is created via particle flow (they do note that it's the electric current that somehow creates the magnetic field; I just haven' gotten to the "somehow" yet), I did find this snippet of the current article interesting!

While preparing for an evening lecture on 21 April 1820, Hans Christian Ørsted developed an experiment which provided evidence that surprised him. As he was setting up his materials, he noticed a compass needle deflected from magnetic north when the electric current from the battery he was using was switched on and off. This deflection convinced him that magnetic fields radiate from all sides of a wire carrying an electric current, just as light and heat do, and that it confirmed a direct relationship between electricity and magnetism.

At the time of discovery, Ørsted did not suggest any satisfactory explanation of the phenomenon, nor did he try to represent the phenomenon in a mathematical framework. However, three months later he began more intensive investigations. Soon thereafter he published his findings, proving that an electric current produces a magnetic field as it flows through a wire. The CGS unit of magnetic induction (oersted) is named in honor of his contributions to the field of electromagnetism.

So much for the typical argument "the math must precede the conceptual work" that pseudo-skeptic sometimes use to dismiss new "ideas." Often, the observation must come first, then the idea, only then the more rigorous observations and mathematical framework.

Myth busted. Ya' hear that Nereid? Probably not... C'est la vie.

Anyway, back to the article. It doesn't seem to say much more than the following about the actual mechanism of how the magnetic field is generated:

The magnetic field is produced by the motion of electric charges, i.e. electric current.

Would be nice to know if physicists know the actual mechanism that generated the magnetic field when a current is passed through a conductor. IE, is it simply that the charged bodies (charged particles) become properly aligned while in transit, such that their collective dipoles create the apparent "magnetic field?"

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

Langmuir Probe theory at Wiki....

Magnetized plasmas

The theory of Langmuir probes is much more complex when the plasma is magnetized. The simplest extension of the unmagnetized case is simply to use the projected area rather than the surface area of the electrode. For a long cylinder far from other surfaces, this reduces the effective area by a factor of π/2 = 1.57. As mentioned before, it might be necessary to increase the radius by about the thermal ion Larmor radius, but not above the effective area for the unmagnetized case.

The use of the projected area seems to be closely tied with the existence of a magnetic sheath. Its scale is the ion Larmor radius at the sound speed, which is normally between the scales of the Debye sheath and the pre-sheath. The Bohm criterion for ions entering the magnetic sheath applies to the motion along the field, while at the entrance to the Debye sheath it applies to the motion normal to the surface. This results in a reduction of the density by the sine of the angle between the field and the surface. The associated increase in the Debye length must be taken into account when considering ion non-saturation due to sheath effects.
Especially interesting and difficult to understand is the role of cross-field currents. Naively, one would expect the current to flow parallel to the magnetic field along a flux tube. In many geometries, this flux tube will end at a surface in a distant part of the device, and this spot should itself exhibit an I-V characteristic. The net result would be the measurement of a double-probe characteristic, in other words, electron saturation current equal to the ion saturation current.

When this picture is considered in detail, it is seen that the flux tube must charge up and the surrounding plasma must spin around it. The flow of current into or out of the flux tube must be associated with a force that slows down this spinning. Candidate forces are viscosity, friction with neutrals, and inertial forces associated with plasma flows, either steady or fluctuating. It is not known which force is strongest in practice, and in fact it is generally difficult to find any force that is powerful enough to explain the characteristics actually measured.

It is also likely that the magnetic field plays a decisive role in determining the level of electron saturation, but no quantitative theory is as yet available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langmuir_probe

You would have to assume that this is interpreted using MHD.

The flow of current into or out of the flux tube must be associated with a force that slows down this spinning.

This statement is pure baloney. The flow of electrons in the electron stream *causes* the plasma to begin to spin and form filaments, which we can verify with our ordinary plasma ball by turning on and off the current flow. The flow of current will manifest itself as a moving stream of ions that form moving filaments. The moment we switch off the electrical current, the spinning and the filamentation process terminates. This isn't just written from an MHD theory perspective, it's written from an *improper* understanding of MHD theory. The flow of electrons is the driving force of kinetic energy, and that current stream is what generates the magnetic fields. As you noted, the charge in the plasma can affect the strength of the EM field, but a simple north-south alignment of atoms won't release any excess energy, or any high energy particles. Only moving electrons and moving ions could do that.

The whole idea of "storing" magnetic energy in light plasma is absurd. You can't store magnetic energy in light plasma, but you can pass current through the plasma and generate strong magnetic fields around the threaded currents that result from the electron flow. The moment we turn off the current, the kinetic energy inside the thread dissipates and the magnetic fields collapse.

The two key points as I see them are the notion of plasma density, and magnetic storage. There is no "storage" of magnetic fields in plasmas as light as a corona.

There is no such thing as a "frozen" magnetic fields in light plasma. Light plasma can't "store" much of anything. It can carry powerful currents, and the currents create large magnetic fields, but the large magnetic fields are directly related to the current flowing inside the plasma, not the density of the plasma, or anything that is actually being "stored" in the plasma. The plasma is simply a conductor. The analogy here that blows their case is suggesting that the stored energy in the copper wire is somehow creating the high energy discharges we see in an arc welder. That is baloney. The current flows create the high energy discharges and they create the strong magnetic fields around the copper wire.

The mainstream definitely has the tail waging the dog on this "magnetic reconnection" theory. Nothing is "stored" in the copper wire of an arc welder. The electrons flow through the copper wire, and that flow creates the powerful magnetic fields to form around the wire. Just so, the current flow through the plasma cause filaments to form and the currents in the filaments create powerful magnetic fields around them. The process is driven by current flow, and the kinetic energy is created by the current flow, including the spinning effects.

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:35 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

So much for the typical argument "the math must precede the conceptual work" that pseudo-skeptic sometimes use to dismiss new "ideas." Often, the observation must come first, then the idea, only then the more rigorous observations and mathematical framework.

Myth busted. Ya' hear that Nereid? Probably not... C'est la vie.

The mainstream belief that all scientific knowledge comes through math is false. They always insist on 'quantifying' everything, but they refuse to "qualify" any of their ideas in a lab under controlled laboratory conditions.

Birkeland understood the electrical nature of our solar system, even if he could not explain the math. That put him 100 years of where Nereid has her head buried at the moment, math or no math. The math side of mainstream astronomy has been abused because they do not "qualify" anything using the standard scientific method. They simply 'quantify' the number of faeries that fit on the head of the pin and then claim any theory that can't come up with the same number of faeries or pins must be false. The whole thing is absurd. They "assume" a 'creation event' and then *insist" that EU theory comply and conform to that creation assumption. It's absurd behavior to expect EU theory to conform to their creation mythos, but that is exactly what they expect.

Would be nice to know if physicists know the actual mechanism that generated the magnetic field when a current is passed through a conductor. IE, is it simply that the charged bodies (charged particles) become properly aligned while in transit, such that their collective dipoles create the apparent "magnetic field?"

The point is this: Even in a solid magnetic, there is no excess energy release from the magnet that is due to the magnetic alignment of atoms in the solid. There is no high energy particle emission from the magnet as a result of it's magnetic north-south alignment of particles. Unlike a solid, a plasma, particularly one as thin as the corona, could never hold a magnetic orientation without a current flow, and it would not release any high energy particles by virtue of it's temporary magnetic orientation. The only way to generate magnetic fields of this strength in light plasma is to pass strong currents through it. That's it. There are not any other "magnetic" options to explain high energy emissions from light plasma. Alfven was clear about the cause of high energy particle emissions. He stated clearly that this was a phenomenon related to electrical activity, not "magnetic reconnection".

They're stuck now between a rock and a hard place. They can't generate powerful magnetic fields in light plasma without electrical current and they can't "store" any magnetic energy in "frozen" magnetic fields. The whole thing is a house of cards that is based on a misconceived idea, and the proof of that statement is found in the fact that they can't describe the physics behind the energy release of magnetic reconnection at the atomic level. They don't know, and cannot know if there is a unique form of energy release called "magnetic reconnection" that is distinguishable from standard electrical interactions in plasma because they don't have a physical model to explain magnetic reconnection. They can't describe the process, so they can't test their theory in a lab, nor distinguish "magnetic reconnection" from typical discharge behaviors of current carrying plasma.

The electric apple is Alfven's work. They're stuck now trying to claim that Alfven was wrong about the validity of "magnetic reconnection" theory, but they have to use his work to attempt to validate the idea and they still can't demonstrate it in a lab. It's a catch 22 for them.