NASA and Government Discuss EU

[mharratsc]

Seriously, APODNereid?

[Nereid]

Seriously, APODNereid?

I'm sorry mharratsc, I have no idea what you mean; can you please explain?

In particular, I don't see how your post answers my question, why do you think that I, Nereid, have the ability to erase material in Wiki?

[David Talbott]

For the sake of clarity here, Nereid, do you ever edit pages on Wikipedia?

[mharratsc]

Once again I offer my apologies to Nereid for the case of 'mistaken identity'... I had not yet read the post from Dave regarding this issue...

Very sorry about this, truly.

[Nereid]

For the sake of clarity here, Nereid, do you ever edit pages on Wikipedia?

No, I have never edited any pages on Wikipedia (WP).

I tried googling the text string 'nereid' on WP, but there are so many results that I could not possibly find any which reflect editing done by nereid; does anyone know how such a search could be done, to get mostly these sorts of results?

In at least one forum (BAUT, I think), I responded to a member's questions (on Pluto, I think); that member said they were compiling material in order to make WP edits. Whether any of my comments ever saw the light of a WP day, I do not know. As at least one forum member acted like this, openly, I assume others have too, but have not stated their purpose was to edit WP entries.

Why have I not even tried to edit WP entries?

There are many reasons; however, as I have a rather dim view of WP in general, it seems to me to be a rather unproductive and unrewarding way to spend my precious time. I mean, WP entries are, for the most part, ephemeral; further, they vary wildly in quality and accuracy - some are astonishingly clear, concise and accurate; others are vague, misleading, or downright wrong.

May I ask, of any Thunderbolts Forum member reading this post, why at least some think/thought that I did edit WP pages?

[Anaconda]

So-called "magnetic reconnection" supporters seem to have the ear of NASA at this point in time, but don't think NASA doesn't know there is disagreement in astropysics about the validity of so-called "magnetic reconnection".

So-called “magnetic reconnection” was a concept developed in the pre-space age (1946) to explain CME’s. The
observations were limited to magnetic fields, as magnetic fields were the only thing that could be observed & measured from ground observatories. Observing & measuring electric fields and electric currents requires in situ satellite probes.

Today, it’s apparent that what was called “magnetic reconnection” (and still is by one school of thought) is actually an Electric Double Layer, an electromagnetic process.

There is a controversy between two rival schools of thought (contrary to what some from the “magnetic reconnection” camp would have you believe):

From Interspace News (February 27, 2008):

There is a lot of excitement over this project [THEMIS] in the research community, [Dr. Vassillis] Angelopoulos [THEMIS principal investigator at University of California Berkeley’s Space Sciences Laboratory in Berkeley, Calf.] said. For more than three decades, scientists around the globe have been embattled about where these lights originate so brilliantly and suddenly. And like the two polar caps at opposite ends of the planet, there are also opposing viewpoints.

So, the THEMIS principal investigator for NASA knows there are opposing schools of thought.

In the Reconnection Theory camp, members say the magnetosphere on the night side is like two rubber bands that stretch, snap and then reconnect into “U” shape bands that release their energy — much like a slingshot. That action would then accelerate the particles toward Earth causing the light show.

On the other side of the hypothesis is the Current Disruption Theory, which says at the onset of a substorm, higher frequency instabilities are excited so that the plasma and electromagnetic field form a turbulent state, which then short circuits the current that is now forced to go directly into the atmosphere. This current accelerates the electrons that in return cause the light show.

http://www.interspacenews.com/FeatureAr ... spx?id=524

Current disruption encompasses the idea that Electric Double Layers can “explode”, thus, causing a disruption of current, which then releases energy expressed as kinetic acceleration of charged particles and radiation.

If Thunderbolts Forum members want to do independent research, my suggestion is to google "current disruption" and the astrophysical object or process the reader wants to research. Likely, there will be numerous scientific papers. I did and I found numerous papers that specifically discuss electric fields and electric currents.

While “magnetic reconnection” seems to have the upper hand, nobody has been able to quantify the “magnetic reconnection” process (magnetic field lines are not real), as opposed to the Electric Double Layer process, which has been fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively and reduced to the formalism of mathematical equations.

In situ observations & meaurements have identified and mapped what has been erroneously labelled “magnetic reconnection”, but the signature magnetic fields, electric fields, charged particle location, direction, velocity (electrical currents) and points of charged particle acceleration are indistinguishable from the Electric Double Layer process, which, as has been pointed out about plasma physics, has been observed & measured in the laboratory.

There is tremendous resistence in some quarters to the Electric Double Layer process, likely, because it opens up the door to explaining astrophysical processes and objects with an electromagnetic analysis & interpretation -- including astrophysical processes and objects observed beyond the solar system.

NASA certainly has been under the influence of the "magnetic reconnection" camp, but more and more, the in situ satellite probes are observing & measuring objects and processes which confirm the Current Disruption Theory.

But one thing is for sure: Never let anybody tell you the science is settled or that there isn't two rival schools of thought.

Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and a Theory of Solar Flares, Alfven & Carlqvist (1967):

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967SoPh....1..220A

Current Disuption Theory and Electric Double Layer study is alive and well... and NASA knows it.

[tolenio]

Hi,

The simple answer is "they know". The problem is no silo of bureaucrats allotted millions or billions of dollars will risk further millions or billions of dollars in thieir budget by indicating they were totally wrong in their basic understanding and even once they knew their error they perpetuated the mistaken belief.

NASA's only problem is that they put money ahead of truth to protect future money.

Government has done this since the first dominant chimpanzee swatted down a subordinate band member.

It is not about science, it is about power.

Tom

[Nereid]

What, then, have those studying plasmas in the lab been doing?

For example, The Magnetic Reconnection Experiment:

The Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) is a small laboratory experiment located at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL). This project is also affiliated with Center for Magnetic Self-Organization in Laboratory and Astrophysical Plasmas (CMSO). The goal of MRX is to investigate the fundamental physics of magnetic field line reconnection, an important process in magnetized plasmas in space and in the laboratory. Click here to learn more about magnetic reconnection.

They also have a pretty impressive Publications list; clicking on "pdf" will give you the actual papers too (i.e. no paywall).

[jjohnson]

Thanks for the links, Nereid. I've been following plasma research and papers when available at several of the U.S. schools dealing in plasma physics (Cal Tech, Colorado, Princeton, Iowa, others). I observe that they are running experiments and making progress. Many are more focused on training students for fusion energy reactors and like processes than on the implications for cosmic plasma phenomena, but they are observing and writing about plasma, which is an excellent step in laying a firm groundwork in a very difficult and complex subject, and should be able to be scaled up and adapted to astronomical observations.

Your link to "What is magnetic reconnection" is useful.

In plasma physics, it is well known that magnetic field lines are "frozen-in" to an infinitely conductive plasma... this means that infinitely conductive plasmas will not diffuse across field lines and mix.

Further down:

straightforward application of the theory would remove the possibility of ejected solar plasma penetrating the magnetosphere since the plasmas would not be allowed to mix. Nevertheless, based on observations and known technological disruptions, we know that they must mix, but how?

Mathematicians may like infinities, but I don't. They accord poorly to reality, I think, at least at the scale of the sensible universe. We read (in EU writings) that conducting plasmas operate in three radiating modes: dark, glow, and arc. In none of these modes is plasma conductivity infinite. That means that its resistance is >0 from the current relationship I = VR (voltage times resistance, in the DC case). Using "frozen in" field lines caused by "infinitely conductive plasma" is theoretically possible, but observations show that it simply is not the common case, and is used to simplify the handling of the mathematics of the model.

Today's plasma researchers in universities and solar and radio wavelength astronomers are aware of the observations and understand that more complex processes are at work. Note, too, in this link that:

when plasmas carrying oppositely directed magnetic field lines are brought together, a strong current sheet is established, in the presence of which even a vanishingly small amount of resistivity in a small volume can become important, allowing plasma diffusion and, thus, magnetic reconnection to occur.

While those of the EU persuasion are more interested in the current sheet phenomenon that results when oppositely directed plasmas (i.e., plasma currents) are brought close together (Lorentz short-range attractive in oppositely directed current carriers; long-range Biot-Savat repulsive), the standard viewpoint is to observe the magnetic phenomena, in particular what happens with the picture regarding the magnetic descriptors, or magnetic iso-value field lines.

I imagine everybody is interested in how the observed large amounts of energy are stored and released. I know I am. The behavior of contour lines is a derived aspect of the underlying phenomenon, I am thinking. It may be important to the understanding of what is going on, through observing what the magnetic field is doing as described by its field lines, but I think what is happening is that the magnetic field is storing up the energy, and the more energy is stored, the steeper its voltage gradient and therefore the closer together the magnetic field lines.

I suspect the EU vision and the standard vision of these inseparable aspects of dynamic electromagnetism may be separated more by terminology and focus (magnetism versus electrodynamics) than by anything else. Respected Russian physicist Sumov writes about magnetic reconnection in his 1994 Fundamentals of Cosmic Electrodynamics at some length, pp 36-45. But he relates it to cosmic phenomena, in his deep Russian way.

Looking at a field line diagram on paper, one loses track of the fact that plasma is nearly always a 3-D phenomenon, particularly in space, and that the vector components in and out of the board are not conveyed in such diagrams. But they must exist, as there are cross products in the applicable equations resulting in vectors normal to both the electric and the magnetic forces. The EU wants to know what the electric current results are (they change direction) while the standard research is directed at what the magnetic field line results are.

The results are complex, and the electric changes influence the magnetic field and therefore the field lines, and vice versa.

This behavior, which in the presence of a high density of charged particles dwarfs the vector components due to gravitational forces, makes the plasma behavior nearly unpredictable and complex and feedback-loop-controlled in a seemingly near-random manner. It is this "lifelike", self-organizing behavior that earned the appellation "plasma" from Irving Langmuir in the first place. It's probably why those pesky Tokomaks don't work very well.

I think gradually the fog of verbiage between the two perspectives may lift, as we learn to appreciate one another's perspectives and efforts of how to understand plasmas better. Dr. Paul Bellan at Cal Tech, author of Fundamentals of Plasma Physics (not to be confused with J.A. Bittencourt's book of the same title) has a good website at http://ve4xm.caltech.edu/bellan_plasma_page/ which has some beautiful photos of his plasma experiments. That Birkeland's Terrella preceded Bellan's chamber by a century or so does not take away from the fact that this modern researcher is still pushing the boundaries of plasma physics studies and mathematical characterization. Important work, IMHO.]

Jim

[Shelgeyr]

Wow, Nereid, thanks for the links to the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment!

I would consider them a target ripe for refutation, BUT they're a big, well-learned, and powerful target - which is actually the best kind. If those of us on the "there is no such thing as 'Magnetic Reconnection'" side of the house can convincingly and with sound science refute their publications to the contrary, well then in my opinion we'll have "won" hands-down. And if we can't, then we'd better keep at it until we can, or realize we've learned a tough lesson and maybe the "experts" were right all along. I'm still thinking they're wrong, largely because the "magnetic lines of force are things we draw as representations, not actual real things" and "the lines don't move, snap, or reconnect - because the lines themselves have to be recalculated as the magnetic field they represent changes" issues seem to be insurmountable obstacles to the "Magnetic Reconnection" models having any hope of accurately describing reality.

But nonetheless, I know far, far less than there is to know, or even what I hope to one day know, so speaking personally you've done me a big favor by (at least in this area) giving me a clear goal. There's a pretty high bar apparently over at Princeton, and I think we need to get over it or (to abuse the metaphor) knock it down.

[Shelgeyr]

On this page (http://mrx.pppl.gov/Physics/physics.html) you can find this quote:

In plasma physics, it is well known that magnetic field lines are "frozen-in" to an infinitely conductive plasma.

Man, there are so many things wrong with that statement that it looks like the old saying “You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts” hardly applies. Or it needs to be firmly enforced. Whatever. From what I can tell, the two sides – both armed with “good scientists”, come to the table with their own facts.

Here’s my take:

“…it is well known” – No, “it is commonly accepted”, or “it is generally theorized”, but to be more accurate should probably be written “…it is often hypothesized”. There is little if any evidence to justify moving the following statement from the status of "hypothesis" to "scientific theory" (since a real scientific theory is supposed to have a very firm evidentiary basis), so it is certainly not deserving of the bold assertion that it is “well known”, i.e. positing it as a proven fact. Already we're starting down the road to what Prof. Richard Feynman referred to as "Cargo Cult Science".

“…that magnetic field lines are ‘frozen-in’” – No, this is certainly not “known”, but rather deduced from the circular logic of it “having to be this way, never mind how” if plasma is assumed to be infinitely conductive (see next).

“…to an infinitely conductive plasma” – No, there is no real, actual (non-theoretical or non-computer-model-derived) evidence for, and plenty of hard, concrete laboratory evidence against, the position that electrified plasmas are infinitely conductive. They are “very” conductive, but they are not “superconductive”. I’m going to be lazy here and not look up exhaustive examples and instead take the easy out because I really like how solrey explained it in this post:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 463#p40787

Enjoy! And thanks, solrey, for the footwork!

[Anaconda]

Your link to "What is magnetic reconnection" is useful.

In plasma physics, it is well known that magnetic field lines are "frozen-in" to an infinitely conductive plasma... this means that infinitely conductive plasmas will not diffuse across field lines and mix.

Nereid:

Do you subscribe to the "frozen-in" to an infinitely conductive plasma..." hypothesis?

[Nereid]

Nereid:

Do you subscribe to the "frozen-in" to an infinitely conductive plasma..." hypothesis?

I'm not sure I'd call it a hypothesis; but, 'frozen in' is a good way to describe a characteristic of one particular classical plasma (one that has zero resistance/is infinitely conductive).

However, real plasmas are not classical, nor do they have zero resistance, so 'frozen in' can only be an approximation.

As an approximation, I'm sure this is quite useful, just as it's very useful to NASA and the ESA to approximate gravity as Newtonian when designing, monitoring, and changing the orbits of the spacecraft they launch (beyond Earth's orbit), even though they know full well that this approximation is inconsistent with observations such as the 'anomalous advance of the perihelion of Mercury'.

[Anaconda]

Nereid:

If it's not a hypothesis, what is it?

Do you agree that "the Electric Double Layer process...has been fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively and reduced to the formalism of mathematical equations"?

[mharratsc]

Prof. Don Scott gives some solid information below, and how he sees it applying to solar plasma:

The first plot shows the energy per unit (positive) charge of an ion as a function of its radial distance out from the solar surface. The units of Energy per Unit Charge are Volts, V. The second plot, the E-field, shows the outward radial force (toward the right) experienced by such a positive ion. The third plot shows the locations of the charge densities that will produce the first two plots. The chromosphere is the location of a plasma double layer (DL) of electrical charge. Recall that one of the properties of electric plasma is its excellent (although not perfect) conductivity. Such an excellent conductor will support only a weak electric field. Notice in the second plot that the almost ideal plasmas of the photosphere (region b to c) and the corona (from point e outward) are regions of almost zero electric field strength.

The first graph shows that plasma is is never superconductive, and thus a resultant magnetic field can never be 'frozen in' to a plasma. There must be a generating current.

his also buries the notion that "magnetic fields are thrown out in the plasma jets" of extragalactic plasmas ejected from galaxies. Those jets are, in fact, resultant from current flow also, by the same principle.