Physicists reveal experimental verification of a key source of fast reconnection of magnetic fields

March 31, 2017, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Physicist Will Fox with Magnetic Reconnection Experiment. Credit: Elle Starkman/PPPL Office of Communications

Magnetic reconnection, a universal process that triggers solar flares and northern lights and can disrupt cell phone service and fusion experiments, occurs much faster than theory says that it should. Now researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) and Germany's Max Planck Institute of Plasma Physics have discovered a source of the speed-up in a common form of reconnection. Their findings could lead to more accurate predictions of damaging space weather and improved fusion experiments.

Reconnection occurs when the in plasma—the collection of atoms and charged electrons and atomic nuclei, or ions, that make up 99 percent of the visible universe—converge and forcefully snap apart. Electrons that exert a varying degree of pressure form an important part of this process as takes place.

The research team found that variation in the electron pressure develops along the magnetic field lines in the region undergoing reconnection. This variation balances and keeps a strong electric current inside the plasma from growing out of control and halting the reconnection process. It is this balancing act that makes possible fast reconnection.

"The main issue we addressed is how reconnection can take place so quickly," said Will Fox, lead author of a paper that detailed the findings in March in the journal Physical Review Letters. "Here we've shown experimentally how electron pressure accelerates the process."

The physics team built a picture of the gradient and other parameters of reconnection from research conducted on the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) at PPPL, the leading laboratory device for studying reconnection. The findings marked the first experimental confirmation of predictions made by earlier simulations performed by other researchers of the behavior of ions and electrons during reconnection. "The experiments demonstrate how the plasma can sustain a large electric field while preventing a large electric current from building up and halting the reconnection process," said Fox.

Among potential applications of the results:

  • Predictions of space storms. Magnetic reconnection in the magnetosphere, the magnetic field that surrounds the Earth, can set off geomagnetic "substorms" that disable communications and global positioning satellites (GPS) and disrupt electrical grids. Improved understanding of fast reconnection can help locate regions where the process triggering storms is ready to take place.
  • Mitigation of the impact. Advanced warning of reconnection and the disruptions that may follow can lead to steps to protect sensitive satellite systems and electric grids.
  • Improvement of fusion facility performance. The process observed in MRX likely plays a key role in producing what are called "sawtooth" instabilities that can halt fusion reactions. Understanding the process could open the door to controlling it and limiting such instabilities. "How sawtooth happens so fast has been a mystery that this research helps to explain," said Fox. "In fact, it was computer simulations of sawtooth crashes that first linked electron pressure to the source of fast reconnection."

Explore further: Physicists uncover clues to mechanism behind magnetic reconnection

More information: W. Fox et al, Experimental Verification of the Role of Electron Pressure in Fast Magnetic Reconnection with a Guide Field, Physical Review Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.125002

Related Stories

Studying magnetic space explosions with NASA missions

March 9, 2017

Every day, invisible magnetic explosions are happening around Earth, on the surface of the sun and across the universe. These explosions, known as magnetic reconnection, occur when magnetic field lines cross, releasing stored ...

Recommended for you

Hybrid device harvests both mechanical and magnetic energy

July 16, 2018

A new hybrid energy-harvesting device may one day replace the need for batteries in certain low-power electronics devices. The new device collects ambient wasted energy from both mechanical vibrations and magnetic fields ...

53 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

SlartiBartfast
Mar 31, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 31, 2017
1...2...3...
Reconnection occurs when the magnetic field lines in plasma converge and forcefully snap apart.

This statement regarding the process is utter pseudoscience.

691Boat
5 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2017
1...2...3...
Reconnection occurs when the magnetic field lines in plasma converge and forcefully snap apart.

This statement regarding the process is utter pseudoscience.


Then explain it better, or give actual evidence as to why it is utter pseudoscience.
Chris_Reeve
Mar 31, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (12) Mar 31, 2017
Magnetic field lines do not exist in reality, they are merely a mathematical visualization tool. Hence, reifying them into objects which move, break, and reconnect to create the observed energy release is delving into the pseudoscientists toolbox.
This needs to be understood from a circuit approach. An electric circuit creates the magnetic field, the circuit is interrupted and explosively releases it's energy. Then a whole new circuit and field is created by the remaining energy/matter.
Osiris1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2017
'Good thing if this research furthers fusion experiments toward self sustainment.
691Boat
5 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2017
Magnetic field lines do not exist in reality, they are merely a mathematical visualization tool. Hence, reifying them into objects which move, break, and reconnect to create the observed energy release is delving into the pseudoscientists toolbox.
This needs to be understood from a circuit approach. An electric circuit creates the magnetic field, the circuit is interrupted and explosively releases it's energy. Then a whole new circuit and field is created by the remaining energy/matter.

So the issue you have is with the use of the word "line"?
If they said that reconnection occurs when the magnetic fields in plasma converge and forcefully snap apart, instead of the magnetic field lines, it wouldn't be pseudoscience? really?
691Boat
5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2017
@CD:
I know in the past you have complained about reconnection requiring monopoles or instantaneous magnetic fields to be produced as to being a reason why it is pseudoscience, but doesn't your electric circuit need the same? If it is "turned off" and has no magnetic field, where does your magnetic field come from when the circuit is "turned on"? I sure hope it doesn't magically instantaneously appear out of nowhere!

@ ChrisReeve: where is the evidence of your aether? I have seen lots of studies proving it doesn't exist, do you have other factual information?
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2017
Re: "where is the evidence of your aether? I have seen lots of studies proving it doesn't exist, do you have other factual information?"

Realize that the textbooks are very skewed on this topic ...

https://plus.goog...sfc=true

Of 16 Textbook Accounts of the Eddington Observations and their Significance to Relativity, 12 Were Misleading in their Reports of the Accuracy of the Experiment / Of the 26 Accounts of the Michelson-Morley Aether Experiment, 16 are Wrong on Matters of Fact, and 2 are Wrong on Matters of Significance / "Those Passages Help to Form the Cultural Background Against which an Understanding of the Nature of Science is Set"
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2017
I'd like to point out here that whether or not magnetic reconnection occurs is no longer a matter that is subject to dispute. This is not a simulation these guys are investigating here; this is an *experiment*. And it's not an experiment to *detect* or *prove* magnetic reconnection; it's one to *investigate its observed features*. Magnetic reconnection is an accepted fact demonstrated widely in the laboratory and directly observed in the Earth's magnetosphere by satellites flying through the zone where the reconnection is happening. That's the end of the story, there ain't no more.

So what is magnetic reconnection, really and exactly?

It's what happens when two fluctuating magnetic fields interact in such a way that parts of each magnetic field "snap over" from being connected to one field to being connected to the other.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2017
[contd]
Since the magnetic field propagates at the speed of light, not instantaneously (Faraday and Maxwell showed that by experiment), and since the field itself (which demonstrably exists, any school kid who has seen the experiment with the magnet, the iron filings, and the paper knows that) is a property of space, it exists in space as a separate entity from its source. What happens at the source cannot affect the field in space until it has had time to propagate. This means that on an instant-by-instant basis in space far from the source of the magnetic field, the field exists as a separate entity from its source.

When two fluctuating magnetic fields interact, there is a possibility for regions of magnetic field that are generated by the first field to be transferred permanently to the second field, and this is particularly likely for regions where the magnetic field's vector (the direction it points) is instantaneously similar between the two fields.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2017
[contd]
It's even more likely when the region in question is changing in its linkage to one of the fields to the other, as the varying field strengths and distances dictate.

What really happens is that a region of space shifts from being controlled by one source to being controlled by the other, because it is moving, and it has moved from a location where the strongest influence is from one source's field to the other source. This is made easier because in the region where which source controls it is uncertain, both sources align its vector in the same direction and with the same magnitude.

In this situation, because the local field is moving closer to one source and farther from the other, and the inverse square law applies, the local field reconnects from one source to the other.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2017
[contd]
When physicists describe this situation, they use the analytical construct of field lines, described originally by Faraday, but today understood as a mathematical construct that represents regions of equipotential to delimit the field. This is no more "real" than any other construct involving equipotential lines in the real world, for example lines of equal temperature, of equal concentrations of one gas spreading within another, or equal radiation pressure at various distances from the source of radiation. No one believes any of these "lines" actually exists in the real world, and anyone who claims scientists believe in the real material existence of magnetic lines of force is as dumb as someone who would claim that scientists believe in the real material existence of some sort of lines of temperature or lines of lines of little gas moleculies all in a row representing some sort of actual material object as they dissipate in a medium. It's idiotic.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2017
[contd]
So we're left with a physical situation where a magnetic field propagating at the speed of light has moved from the moiety of one source to the moiety of another, and this has been facilitated by similarity in the vector of the two fields at the moving location of a region of space affected by both fields, and by the changing distance of the moving region from the two sources.

This is magnetic reconnection. During such an event, the outside edges of the region "snap" from association with the first source to association with the second. It has nothing to do with "magnetic field lines;" they are merely the analytical tool that describes the fields, not something with real physical existence.

And none of this should be unknown to any modern competent electromagnetic physicist.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
[contd]
Now, can we start talking about reality, or will the idiots keep claiming that physicists "believe in" magnetic field lines as if the smartest people around are dumber than kids in grammar school? The real Hannes Alfven knew better than this BS, though he kept trying to avoid the Big Bang because of his anti-religious bias. (I'm an atheist myself, but I won't bend so far as to distort physical fact because the BB "looks like Genesis." I follow facts.)

I doubt it, but at least anyone else reading will have a clear understanding of exactly how stupid these trolls are.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2017
I'd like to point out here that whether or not magnetic reconnection occurs is no longer a matter that is subject to dispute.

Still this seems to be difficult for most to grasp, nobody is disputing whether or not an explosive event occurs, regardless of the unfortunate misleading name of the phenomena. When one resorts to reifying mathematical constructs to describe a physical event they are resorting to pseudoscience to describe the phenomena. An analogy would be to claim that two longitude lines move and break then reconnect as the mechanism that causes earthquakes. However ridiculous that sounds that is the same type of explanation given for magnetic reconnection. As such, pseudoscience.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
Magnetic field lines do not exist in reality, they are merely a mathematical visualization tool. Hence, reifying them into objects which move, break, and reconnect to create the observed energy release is delving into the pseudoscientists toolbox.
This needs to be understood from a circuit approach. An electric circuit creates the magnetic field, the circuit is interrupted and explosively releases it's energy. Then a whole new circuit and field is created by the remaining energy/matter.

Then... explain why a magnet passing by a coil creates electricity... :-)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
misleading name of the phenomena (sic)
It's a phenomenon, not "a phenomena," in English. Please try to keep your plurals and singulars well distinguished; this is a common feature of the English language.

And it's not misleading in any way; a region of space is abruptly (demonstrated by the explosion that occurs) moved from one source to another. Please demonstrate that there is some reason we shouldn't call this a change in the connection from one source to the other, which makes it re-connection.

Longitude lines are no more actual physical phenomena than equiconcentrational lines in a spreading cloud of gas in a medium. Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks. And good luck with that. Not to mention good luck with English comprehension.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2017
Edit;
Then... explain why a magnet passing by a coil creates electricity... :-)

creates electricity in the in the COIL...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2017
Then... explain why a magnet passing by a coil creates electricity... :-)
Careful @Whyde, you're not doing this well. You might be able to justify this but it will require more than a hand-wave at it like you did here.

Not saying you're wrong, just saying you haven't given enough detail to support your thesis.

creates electricity in the in the COIL...
Update: that was better but you still got a long way to go.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2017
The real Hannes Alfven knew better than this BS,


So much so he decided to write a paper about it;
https://www.resea...nnection

And oddly enough a 2015 paper discussing the misuse of moving field lines and frozen-in magnetic field nonsense.

https://www.resea...dynamics

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
@cantthink69, sorry but Alfven neglected to include speed-of-light propagation, and field vector alignment and moiety transfer in his analysis, in his incorrect dismissal of what are now called "frozen" magnetic fields. They are "frozen" by speed-of-light propagation. This was a serious analytical mistake. If Alfven had lived long enough or been mentally flexible enough he'd've recognized this.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
It's a phenomenon, not "a phenomena," in English.

Even your description involves a multistage process, but if you insist on changing the subject and discuss semantics again so be it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
@cantthink69, your attempt at redirection is as transparent as a child denying they raided the cookie jar.

There is no "multistage process" if you understand and accept the Maxwell Equations. There is the acquisition of a propagating field because it is propagating and its vector evolution is consistent with a different source than it was previously. There are numerous physical processes that follow this model, and your lack of understanding is not evidence to deny these observed physical processes.

Learn physics.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2017
Careful @Whyde, you're not doing this well. You might be able to justify this but it will require more than a hand-wave at it like you did here.

Not saying you're wrong, just saying you haven't given enough detail to support your thesis.

creates electricity in the in the COIL...
Update: that was better but you still got a long way to go.
The guidelines say "keep it short and to the point", so....:-)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2017
If Alfven had lived long enough or been mentally flexible enough he'd've recognized this.

Alfvén passed away in 1995, when exactly do you think your "discovery" took place?

They are "frozen" by speed-of-light propagation.

You're babbling incoherent now.

BTW, from the article;
"Magnetic reconnection occurs much faster than theory says that it should."
So much for your claims.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2017
@cantthink69
They are "frozen" by speed-of-light propagation.
You're babbling incoherent now.
So you deny that the magnetic force propagates at the speed of light?

Are you insane or merely a fool?

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2017
@cantthink69, your attempt at redirection is as transparent as a child denying they raided the cookie jar.


It's a phenomenon, not "a phenomena," in English.

LOL!
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2017
@cantdrive
Magnetic field lines do not exist in reality, they are merely a mathematical visualization tool.
They could consist of strings of virtual electron/positron particle pairs bound together with photons, similar to the strong force being strings of virtual pions held together with gluons. The connection would be as fast as the photons could connect the virtual particle pairs which seem to be already existing and bubbling up everywhere in space.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2017
@cantthink69, your attempt at redirection is as transparent as a child denying they raided the cookie jar.

So you deny that the magnetic force propagates at the speed of light?

Only denying any fields are frozen-in to plasma, something with which you apparently disagree
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2017
@cantthink69 If you deny frozen fields you deny speed-of-light propagation of the magnetic field, and deny Maxwell. And this leads inevitably to the same question: are you insane or an idiot?

Alfven didn't deny Maxwell. You pollute his memory.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2017
Change of subject in 3...

2...

1...
humy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2017
Magnetic field lines do not exist in reality, they are merely a mathematical visualization tool

cantdrive85

Yes, we all already know they are merely a visualization tool, thanks.
That doesn't mean they "don't exist" for they "exist" as a "visualization tool"; get it?
NOBODY claims or believes they are anything more than a "visualization tool" thus Magnetic field lines aren't pseudoscience but part of real science and useful as part of real scientific explanations of what is going on.
There are many other examples of "visualization tool" in real science.
Example; the two focal points of an ellipse.
So would you argue that focal points of ellipses are "pseudoscience" because there is no physical object corresponding to those focal points? No! because NOBODY claims or believes that. The same applies to magnetic field lines.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2017
When magnetic field lines are claimed to move, break, and reconnect which in turn causes the energy release is when pseudoscience enters the fray. The lines themselves are a tool yes, but the following quote from the article implies pseudoscience;
Reconnection occurs when the magnetic field lines converge and forcefully snap apart.

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2017
Re: "I'd like to point out here that whether or not magnetic reconnection occurs is no longer a matter that is subject to dispute. This is not a simulation these guys are investigating here; this is an *experiment*. And it's not an experiment to *detect* or *prove* magnetic reconnection; it's one to *investigate its observed features*. Magnetic reconnection is an accepted fact demonstrated widely in the laboratory and directly observed in the Earth's magnetosphere by satellites flying through the zone where the reconnection is happening. That's the end of the story, there ain't no more."

This explanation is epistemologically problematic insofar as it fails to describe magnetic reconnection as an inference.

Also, be aware that satellites have flown through regions of double layers in the Van Allen radiation belts, and yet double layers are still not classified as astrophysical objects.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2017
@cantthink69, please show where in the actual scientific paper, as opposed to this article which is directed to a general audience, magnetic lines are used. From reading the abstract, I think that would be nowhere. The abstract speaks only of field reconnection, which is exactly what I described above.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2017
@Hannes
This explanation is epistemologically problematic insofar as it fails to describe magnetic reconnection as an inference.
This is the same problem @Lenni has with black holes. "Magnetic reconnection" is a label for a phenomenon, and that label has a clear mathematical description using Maxwell's equations. I have given a field-based explanation of it and you can't deny that; no magnetic lines. Are you, like @cantthink69, denying Maxwell?

The label seems pretty good to me; one moving region of a magnetic field (they move at the speed of light, remember?) changes from being part of the field of one source to being part of the field of another source, and it can do so because at the point where the reconnection occurs they are aligned. As one analyzes the field farther from the aligned portion, they grow more and more out of alignment; in order for the part that's aligned to stay aligned, the farther parts must "snap" from one large field to the other.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2017
[contd]
This "snap" requires the dissipation of some of the energy from the moving region; this is taken from its own field. We have seen this release of energy happening both in space and in the laboratory.

This is what "magnetic reconnection" means. If you're going to argue against this you're arguing against Maxwell. Basically you're arguing against the label because you can't argue against the math or the experiments and observations, and that's silliness.
retrosurf
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2017
I can't read the paper, but the diagrams you can see are extremely illuminating. They made clear a deficiency of my understanding of solar plasma: I didn't understand that the plasma *itself* was magnetized.

I wish the trolls didn't find such sweet sustenance here in the comments section at phys.org. I think pretty much everyone has spent enough time with Cantdrive82 and HannesAlfven to understand what their intractable problems are.

It's one thing to disagree and discuss, but when it's the same disagreement and discussion over and over and Over and OVER again, it's more like incitement and inflammation.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
I'm actually not going to argue with your fields explanation, Da Schneib -- which I find reasonable and actually pretty informative (if accurate). Of the many arguments which are made on physorg, it's rare that somebody makes such a coherent argument that I'd consider forwarding it on to Don Scott. This is probably the exception.

But, I think you need to try harder to distinguish the phenomenon from its inference. Conflating the two and calling both facts is sloppy. Solar flares, for instance, can have differing explanations at the framework level.

And it's wrong to claim that the topic of magnetic reconnection is merely an electrodynamics concept because it is applied within the disciplines of the planetary and solar sciences as an inference to explain certain observations of plasmas.

Historically speaking, many theorists have attempted -- and failed -- to explain large-scale observations of plasmas from principles.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
Re: "I think pretty much everyone has spent enough time with Cantdrive82 and HannesAlfven to understand what their intractable problems are."

Realize that the only reason that cantdrive and I are here making arguments at all is because the textbook explanation of our universe is missing 95% of its "matter". Mainstream science has enough problems of its own to maybe consider listening a bit more to its various critics. The scientific community has had plenty of time by now to find all of this supposed matter. The fact that they cannot speaks to the very real possibility that the framework is in very serious jeopardy.

If you don't see the connection between the dark matter problem and all of these challenges to textbook theory, then you've failed to appreciate the larger meaning of this moment in time. This dark matter problem could very well be the end of this framework.

And what will you do then? There is no plan B here.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
@Hannes, fields are what is really happening. Lines of force are just a pedagogical device to aid visualization; nobody in the scientific community since Faraday has believed in their real existence, and that's going on 150 years now, I think.

As for whether it's an inference or not, we flew a constellation of four satellites through a reconnection event and measured it in very high detail in the Earth's magnetosphere. Whether it's part of what drives flares or not can be determined by detailed magnetic observations of the Sun. These have been done, admittedly at less resolution than the ones from the satellites, and everything we see is consistent with the interpretation that uses magnetic reconnection there too. To me this appears to be a hypothesis that already has some pretty good evidence for it; with more detailed investigation it will likely turn into a theory. I don't see any inference.

[contd]
humy
5 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2017
When magnetic field lines are claimed to move, break, and reconnect which in turn causes the energy release is when pseudoscience enters the fray. The lines themselves are a tool yes, but the following quote from the article implies pseudoscience;
Reconnection occurs when the magnetic field lines converge and forcefully snap apart.


cantdrive85

This is from the article's editor, not necessarily from the lips of the scientist.
Even if it was from the actual scientist, that would only mean that assertion is presumably to be taken metaphorically.
Even in the unlikely event of the actual scientist saying this and meaning it literally, most other scientists would disagree with that literal meaning but still will validly talk about magnetic field lines.
Either way, magnetic field lines aren't pseudoscience.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2017
[contd]
So I have to say that I think you're trying to play with philosophy when you should be paying more attention to science.

As far as magnetic reconnection in astrophysics, since we're obviously dealing with plasmas and that means we're obviously dealing with electrodynamics, it seems to me that it's not conflation to use electrodynamics to analyze observed plasma-based astrophysical phenomena, and in fact it's the only approach that's going to actually work.

We're still learning about plasmas, and really important stuff at that, so I'm not all that interested in what's gone before in this area. It's kinda difficult to explain anything when you don't know how it works in the first place.

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
Re: "Whether it's part of what drives flares or not can be determined by detailed magnetic observations of the Sun. These have been done, admittedly at less resolution than the ones from the satellites, and everything we see is consistent with the interpretation that uses magnetic reconnection there too."

Such inferences must be viewed from the perspective of the larger framework, which is a SYSTEM of ideas that are brought together to explain observations.

That SYSTEM makes certain crucial assumptions about the source of energy.

The statement above is only valid in the context of the consensus framework. A different system of ideas is not at all bound by these inferences.

The disagreements in the space sciences oftentimes boil down to framework disputes; they are usually arguments about what system -- what framework -- to apply to the observations.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2017
I repeat, @Hannes, it's not an inference. It's a hypothesis.

As for the source of the energy, it's fusion. We're talking about the Sun here. And that's not an assumption, it's a theory. And an extremely well supported one at that.

You're still doing philosophy, not science.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
Re: "it's not an inference. It's a hypothesis."

This is not an either-or situation. It's both.

Re: "As for the source of the energy, it's fusion. We're talking about the Sun here. And that's not an assumption, it's a theory. And an extremely well supported one at that."

Eddington ASSUMED no external sources of energy, and he did so at a time when space was generally assumed to be EMPTY. The actual quote is:

"Since we are limited to energy liberated in the deep interior of the star, extraneous sources of supply are ruled out, and it is scarcely possible to escape the conclusion that the supply of energy for future expenditure is already hidden in the star."

(The Internal Constitution of the Stars)

This was a pretty solid assumption prior to 1958, when we sent the first rockets to space. Since then, a new mechanism is available to theorists. The scientific community has yet to fully consider the implications of these new observations.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)

It's heartening that my urging you to be more constructive and less insulting is finally 'taking', mate. Kudos for your series of posts re Magnetic Field 'lines' etc. A very commendable attempt, but not yet 'complete'.

I also thank you for confirming what I have been pointing out to all 'sides' for ages now re the use of abstract magnetic field 'lines' as 'illustrative labeling/tools' not actual 'physically real entities' as such; and etc. Good job, mate! See what you can do when you drop the 'personal insults/attitude'! Much appreciated by all here. Keep it up. Thanks. :)

PS: For further insights into real entities/dynamics involved, you might like to consider analogous situations/equally abstract illustrative tools etc used for 'explaining/modeling' Gravitational Field 'lines' (insofar as Grav Field 'fronts' also propagate at 'c'; and also involve interaction 'zones' where one Grav field's effects 'contacted/overwhelmed' by other grav field(s). :)
Drjsa_oba
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2017
@RC

Now there is something I have not considered. What would a gravity re-connection explosion look like?
I wonder.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
@Hannes, you're seriously claiming the energy stars emit comes from someplace other than fusion?

60 years after Bethe defined the proton-proton chain using quantum mechanics? 50 years after we detonated the first hydrogen bomb, and 40 years after the patent on the Hirsch-Meeks fusor was granted?

You cannot possibly be serious. Before we continue this demonstrate that there is any need for any additional power source for the Sun.

Come on now.

As for calling it "inference," the rules are, the simplest explanation that fits the facts. Yours is bound to be baroque; that being the case I reject it on the basis that there is a simpler known explanation. Not only are you doing philosophy, but you're ignoring its tenets.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2017
@Drjsa, it would look like inspiral-ringdown-coalescence; the merger of two black holes. We detected it at LIGO. Or at least that's as close as you can come when trying to apply a concept that happens with a dipole force to a force with a different geometry.

@RC is a troll, but occasionally asks a mildly interesting question.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2017
Oh, and proper credit for inspiral-ringdown-coalescence to Ian Banks, although he got the order mixed up.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2017
Hi Drjsa_oba, Da Schneib. :)

@Drjsa_oba:
@RC

Now there is something I have not considered. What would a gravity re-connection explosion look like?
I wonder.
As I made clear in my suggestion (not question, as Da Schneib seems to have misconstrued it as), consideration was aimed at the 'energy-space' aspects which involve 'filed energies' in the surrounding space, and the effects of motions by the 'field generating' bodies concerned on the field re-arrangements rates etc. Ie, consider the 'energy-space' behavior itself, irrespective of the source energizing that space/dynamics. :)

@Da Schneib:
@RC is a troll, but occasionally asks a mildly interesting question.
It was a suggested 'exercise', not 'question'; to consider aspects relating to near/far 'energy-space' entities, dynamics etc aspects only; I never implied it was a directly/fully comparable situation 'otherwise'. Re your "troll" assertion: You have been CORRECTED by this 'troll' (too) many times. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.