Merged: Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

This use of "pseudoscience" is just an example of Michael Mozina's inability to understand what Alfvén was actually talking about in his speech at the 1986 workshop on double layers.
Alfvén strongly stresses the danger of using the frozen-in concept (not MR)

The context implies that the 'pseudo-science' that Alfvén is using is not 'pseudoscience'!
It is any science that uses 'pseudo-plasma', i.e. plasma with frozen-in magnetic fields.

Alfven's double layer paper is *LIGHT YEARS* less confusing than 'reconnection' theory. You folks STILL think B field lines can begin and end in the absence of a monopole. You STILL believe that the rate of 'reconnection' is somehow detached from "current" through the NULL, but without it, equations 16, 17 and the total "reconnection" becomes "ZERO"!

The "reconnection" process is not, and never will be "plasma/current optional". Get real. Unless one of you has a monopole up your sleeve, FOREGETABOUTIT!

Aflven was right in the sense that it's "pseudo" correct, and therefore "pseudo-science". You're still all confused as hell because you still think "reconnection" is current optional, even though I've pointed out the equation in Priests paper that demonstrates that to be FALSE!

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

...complete lies and nothing but lies.

Tim seems to have done a fair job of exposing the actual source of the lies.

Quote:

I've lost count not how many times I've asked you to meet me in the middle and call it 'current reconnection'.

There is no rational reason to refer to magnetic reconnection by any other term. Science isn't about negotiating a desired but unsupportable explanation into existence by demanding that everyone use some alternative terminology.

Quote:

Priest demonstrated *CONCLUSIVELY* that CURRENT gets turned into "magnetic charge" between equations 16&17 in his source/sink paper. The whole 'reconnection' process requires current, otherwise equation 17 nets to ZIP/0/NADDA/NOTHING, and NOTHING reconnects.

Dance around the issue all you like but unless one of you folks has a monopole in your pocket, there is no "B LINE" reconnection going on in a vacuum. I do not deny that the *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE* process is a REAL physical process, it simply REQUIRES plasma, and REQUIRES currents. No current, equation 17 nets to zero and you've got NOTHING in terms of 'reconnection'.

It still looks like a dishonest equivocation is being made between the terms "magnetic reconnection" and "electrical discharge". Nobody in this discussion is using those terms synonymously, so it's a non sequitur to complain that an explanation of magnetic reconnection fails to demonstrate an electrical discharge.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Hardly the same thing. They guy has spent YEARS professing to be some sort of expert on this topic, yet he's never read a single textbook on the subject.

You are lying. I have never said that I am an expert on plasma physics.
My expertise is in solid state physics (and fairly outdated!).

Not that makes a difference:
tusenfem is an expert on plasma physics and you ignore what he says about plasma physics.
Tim Thompson has displayed a good knowledge of plasma physics and you ignore what he says.
Somov is an expert on plasma physics and you cannot understand the simple fact that he describes MR in vacuum (Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section)
Demoulin & Priest are experts in plasma physics and you are deluded about their paper (Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper!)
Priest & Forbes are experts in plasma physics and you cannot understand their introduction where they state why MR is considered the cause of solar flares.
Anthony Peratt is an expert in plasma physics and you cannot understand him (Michael Mozina's fantasy about Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge!).
Dungey was an expert on plasma physics and you cannot understand that his term for large current density is obsolete (Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma).
L. VAN DRIEL-GESZTELYI is an expert on plasma physic s and you are ignoring his review of Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003.

These are just citations in this thread. You are also ignoring every plasma physics expert in the world who has published anything on MR .

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Tim seems to have done a fair job of exposing the actual source of the lies.

No, Tim has just consistently avoided meeting me in the middle and accepting the fact that the process isn't "plasma/current optional" as demonstrated in Priests equation 16&17.

The only one "equivocating" here is you. You're still on the denial-go-round that electrical discharges occur in plasma, even though that is EXACTLY what *DUNGEY'S* paper describes. You folks want to LEAVE OUT the single most important feature of the process, *AND THE PLASMA* and still call it "reconnection". NOTHING happens in a vacuum, but magnetic flux changes over time, and NOTHING reconnects at equations 17.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You are lying. I have never said that I am an expert on plasma physics.

You're only lying to yourself RC, starting with you belief that electrical discharges cannot occur in plasma. Round and round you go on that hate-go-round, for YEARS now, and never once have you read a book on plasma physics.

[Michael Mozina]

Tim, the part that is "pseudoscience" is your (collective) belief that the "reconnection" process involves B LINE reconnection. It doesn't. Equation 16&17 relate to CURRENT, not MONOPOLES. B field *LINE* reconnection is pure PSEUDOSCIENCE unless you have a monopole in your pocket. Do you?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

In case you haven't figured it out, it doesn't matter how many times you call me a liar. Your opinions are meaningless to me. It's clear from our conversations and your repeated statements over the years about your lack of any kind of effort in this topic, that you simply do not know what you're talking about.

In case you haven't figured it out: MM: Try to get it right for once - I pity you, not hate you.
It is obvious that the science is meaningless to you, e.g. MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point.

And yes you are lying again !
I have made efforts to increase my knowledge of this topic. I have read many papers on MR and solar physics and are confident that I understand most of them because

• I have a good knowledge of physics.
• The more knowledgeable posters have not often corrected me.

And then there is you and your persistent displays of ignorance and inability to understand the corrections of the other posters. You have not been able to learn anything, not even high school science - Michael Mozina's ignorance of high school science (the right hand rule).

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I have a good knowledge of physics.

No. You have NO/ZERO/ZIP/NADDA knowledge of RELEVANT physics, specifically PLASMA PHYSICS. That's the whole problem in a nutshell. You can't accept that reality so you attack the individual. Haters are *SO* predictable. Yawn.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

BZZT. He doesn't say anything about B *LINE* reconnection.
...snipped idoicy about E fileds and an nonexistent equation in Somov's book)

BZZT. Learn to read:
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

Quote:

Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
| the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle or
| particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.

(emphasis added)
followed by the induction of an electric field and that this field can accelerate charged particles.

Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper!

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

BZZT. Learn to read:
Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

(emphasis added)
followed by the induction of an electric field and that this field can accelerate charged particles.

Yes, I know he has charged particles in his "vacuum" RC, otherwise "reconnection" and charged particle acceleration doesn't happen. Equation 17 is zero without some charged particles. Unlike you, I've also read AN ENTIRE BOOK by Somov, including chapter 16 where he relates it all back to Alfven's views. But you wouldn't know anything about that, since your knowledge is limited to a nifty quote mine here and there and devoid of any actual (plasma) physics.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Alfven's double layer paper is *LIGHT YEARS* less confusing than 'reconnection' theory.

That is rather dumb - you thinking that MR is confusiing makes it invalid !
Acually MR is quite clear if you have the background to understand it

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You folks STILL think B field lines can begin and end in the absence of a monopole.

MM: The definition of magnetic field lines = no lines at a neutral point.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You STILL believe that the rate of 'reconnection' is somehow detached from "current" through the NULL, but without it, equations 16, 17 and the total "reconnection" becomes "ZERO"!

Gibberish but maybe
Michael Mozina's delusion about "*RECONNECTIONS* per unit length" combined with
Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper!

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The "reconnection" process is not, and never will be "plasma/current optional".

Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Aflven was right in the sense that it's "pseudo" correct, and therefore "pseudo-science". You're still all confused as hell because you still think "reconnection" is current optional, even though I've pointed out the equation in Priests paper that demonstrates that to be FALSE!

Alfvén strongly stresses the danger of using the frozen-in concept (not MR)
Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Yes, I know he has charged particles in his "vacuum" RC, otherwise "reconnection" and charged particle acceleration doesn't happen.

Still deluded: Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section
He described MR in a vacuum then mentions that the induced E filed can accelerate any charged particles (obviously not a vacuum!).
and that equation 17 obsession raises its ugly head once again:
Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper!

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

That is rather dumb - you thinking that MR is confusiing makes it invalid !

It makes the conversion at equation 17 *UNNECESSARY* for starters.

Quote:

Acually MR is quite clear if you have the background to understand it

True, but then none of you have such a background or your wouldn't be claiming that actual B field lines "reconnect" in a vacuum without a monopole between you. No surprise. None of the four of you real EU haters even owns a book on plasma physics, let alone have read one. No wonder you're all confused as hell and think equation 17 is going to be anything other than ZERO in a vacuum.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Still deluded:

Not me. I've read his *ENTIRE* book, not one line from one book. When *IF EVER* did you intend to pick up and read a book on plasma physics? Aren't you even curious what's in them?

[Almo]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Clinger is correct, Mozina is wrong.

IMO, it's highly disappointing you chose "hate" over science Tim.

It's not hate. It's science. If Clinger's result can be replicated by someone else, he's right. It has nothing to do with Clinger at all, and everything to do with what we can argee upon observing. It's not Tim's fault you insist on your incorrect understanding of physics being what is real.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Almo

It's not hate. It's science. If Clinger's result can be replicated by someone else, he's right.

Clinger's "result" involved a HUGE, GIGANTIC, GLARING, STUPENDOUS bait and switch at the end involving PLASMA, after he promised to replicate Dungey's reconnection process WITHOUT plasma. That's hate and bait and switch, not science.

I even pointed out the SCIENCE in equations 16&17 that makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for "reconnection" to occur without plasma and without current. Those folks don't care one iota about science. It's all about a hate-go-round with this crew.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It makes the conversion at equation 17 *UNNECESSARY* for starters.

Michael Mozina's delusions about the Demoulin & Priest 1992 paper!

Quote:

The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field

Quote:

3. Study of the particular case l=0
3.1 Singularity along the negative z-Axis
Equation (15) gives a singular field only on the negative part of the z-axis. Here both currents and magnetic charges are present:
Ampere's theorem gives a current along the z-axis of magnitude
[equation 16]
Gauss' theorem applied to a core starting from the origin gives a density for magnetic charges along the z-axis of
[equation 17]
while Gauss' theorem applied to a sphere of radius r gives a total magnetic charge in the volume of radius r of
[equation 18]

The paper is about linear force-free fields - not specifically about MR. The conclusion includes that this multipole expansion of a linear force-free field can be used to understand solar flares.
There is no "conversion" at equation 17. There is the derivation of the density of magnetic charges from a current along the z-axis (the l=0 component of the multipole expansion).

One more time for you MM:
Section 2 is the multipole expansion of a linear force-free field. This has an infinite number of components labeled with l which has values of 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. In a multipole expansion, l=0 is the monopole component (l=1 is the dipole, l=2 is the quadrapole, etc.). For example the CMB power spectrum has monopoles (the l=0 component) !

Section 3.3 is Demoulin & Priest explicitly proving that there can be no isolated magnetic charges (no actual monopoles) in a linear force-free field.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

None of the four of you real EU haters even owns a book on plasma physics, let alone have read one.

That is a great big lie, MM !
tusenfem works in plasma physics. He has definitely read books on plasma physics. He probably owns several books.
Tim Thompson has displayed a good knowledge of plasma physics and cited books on plasma physics, e.g. Priest & Forbes. He probably owns at least 1 book on plasma physics.
I have read books containing plasma physics but this was 25 years ago so my knowledge is outdated and my memory of it quite vague. I do not own any plasma physics books. That is why I am refreshing my knowledge.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

That is a great big lie, MM !
tusenfem works in plasma physics.

Neither Tim nor tusenfem are true "EU haters" RC. They both provide actual materials to read, and they've read the relevant materials. Whatever differences of agreement we may have are honest differences of agreement. The four official "haters" (the ones that don't own a plasma physics book between you) are you, GM, Clinger, and PS. The rest don't qualify as haters, because the rest have either:

A) read the material in question
B) do not engage in personal attacks

Tim and tusenfem take their shots, but at least I know they've read the material and they've provided useful references.

Now if I can just get either one of them to discuss equations 16 and 17 in Priests source/sink paper.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Neither Tim nor tusenfem are true "EU haters" RC. They both provide actual materials to read, and they've read the relevant materials.

Then you are at least lying about me because I have provided actual materials to read and I have read relevant material (just not the books that you demand that everyone read).

I will remind you that I have read books containing plasma physics.

You are persisting with the hater lie: MM: Try to get it right for once - I pity you, not hate you.

And talking about useful references: Have you rea Observational Signatures of Magnetic Reconnection as of 2003 yet?

After all if you can demand that I read another book on plasma physics then I can ask that you read a paper listing the evidence for MR on the Sun !

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I will remind you that I have read books containing plasma physics.

Which one(s)?

[Michael Mozina]

If you aren't a "hater", then lay off the loaded language, like "DELUDED", LIAR, BS like that. Otherwise you're behaviors are not congruent with your claims (hypocrisy).

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, ya, and accept that fact that CURRENT IS A REQUIREMENT IN EQUATIONS 16&17! The process called "reconnection" is not PLASMA OPTIONAL!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Now if I can just get either one of them to discuss equations 16 and 17 in Priests source/sink paper.

That will be a quite short discussion on The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field .

The l=0 component of the multipole expansion is nothing to do with acual monopoles as section 3.3 proves.

There nothing to discuss about equations 16 and 17. They are just the application of theorems to previous equations.

Quote:

3. Study of the particular case l=0
3.1 Singularity along the negative z-Axis
Equation (15) gives a singular field only on the negative part of the z-axis. Here both currents and magnetic charges are present:
Ampere's theorem gives a current along the z-axis of magnitude
[equation 16]
Gauss' theorem applied to a core starting from the origin gives a density for magnetic charges along the z-axis of
[equation 17]
while Gauss' theorem applied to a sphere of radius r gives a total magnetic charge in the volume of radius r of
[equation 18]

The 'magnetic charges' are computational aids, not real monopoles.

Tim Thompson has no intention of discussing this because it has little to do with current MR theory. It seems to an idea that has been abandoned (assuming that Invararity & Priest is actually Demoulin & Priest because the Invararity & Priest paper has no computation trick in it that I can see).

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

I have no intention of further discussing the Invararity & Priest paper because it is entirely irrelevant. The computational trick used in that paper has never appeared anywhere else, yet Mozina treats is as if it is some fundamental aspect of all magnetic reconnection arguments. In fact it was never a very good idea, it appears in two obscure papers, was never done before and has not been done since. It does not appear in any text book on plasma physics or magnetic reconnection, especially & including Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Priest (the same Priest) and Forbes. If it was such a hot idea and Priest used it in a paper, then why does it not appear in his textbook? Because it was not such a hot idea, that's why. It has nothing at all to do with any serious discussion of magnetic reconnection.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

That will be a quite short discussion on The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field .

The l=0 component of the multipole expansion is nothing to do with acual monopoles as section 3.3 proves.

Equations 16 & 17 also prove that CURRENT IS A REQUIREMENT.

I don't want to talk to you about it, I want to talk to THEM about it. I know they have some understanding of the topic whereas I know that you do not.

[Almo]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Ya, nice work LYING through his teeth when he said he would duplicate Dungey's reconnection process IN A VACUUM! Nothing like bait and switch advertizing.

Not a SINGLE magnetic line "begins or ends" in his experiment, either in a vacuum or in plasma. ORIGIN is neither a sink, nor a source of B field lines. All the lines simply traverse ORIGIN at a zero energy strength. Whatever kinetic energy occurs occurs due to the ELECTRIC field, not due to Origin the big fat zero.

No plasma, no DISCHARGE. No plasma, no INDUCED current. No CURRENT, no "magnetic charges" in Priests paper at equation 17, and no "magnetic reconnection". After BSing his way through the entire presentation, KLUDGING basic theory to hell in terms of B line sources and sinks, and then FINALLY doing a bait and switch at the end, yes indeed, he CAN come up with an 'electrical discharge' *IN PLASMA*.

Oy Vey. His *ENTIRE* presentation was pure BS. He accomplished NOTHING in his VACUUM in terms of the release of kinetic energy and he *STILL* thinks induction didn't do it. Pathetic.

In science, you either get with the program, or get left behind. It's your choice.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The 'magnetic charges' are computational aids, not real monopoles.

True. That's also why the PROCESS is not "current/plasma optional"!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Which one(s)?

I do not remember the names of my undergrad and postgrad textbooks.
They would have been ones that are read by scientists during their university education.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Almo

In science, you either get with the program, or get left behind. It's your choice.

Get with "what" program? The process called "reconnection" isn't plasma/current optional. That's fully demonstrated in equations 16&17. The "program" is called physics. I'm on it.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

True. That's also why the PROCESS is not "current/plasma optional"!

False. Giiberish and ignorance: Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I do not remember the names of my undergrad and postgrad textbooks.

I guess I have to let you slide on that one eh?

Quote:

They would have been ones that are read by scientists during their university education.

Something more modern (say by Somov) might be helpful. I like the book I own (not in front of me at the moment). You won't like chapter 16 (last chapter) of that book by the way. It relates the whole PROCESS back to Alfven's work.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

False. Giiberish and ignorance: Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

Somov's "vacuum" contains charged particles. I've read his book. You have not.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Equations 16 & 17 also prove that CURRENT IS A REQUIREMENT.

You are wrong (and becoming persistently wrong , i.e. deluded ).
Equation 16 is that a CURRENT EXISTS along the z-axis in a linear force-free field.
It is not a REQUIREMENT of anything. It is a CONSEQUENCE.
The properties of sources and sinks of a linear force-free field .

Quote:

3. Study of the particular case l=0
3.1 Singularity along the negative z-Axis
Equation (15) gives a singular field only on the negative part of the z-axis. Here both currents and magnetic charges are present:
Ampere's theorem gives a current along the z-axis of magnitude
[equation 16]
Gauss' theorem applied to a core starting from the origin gives a density for magnetic charges along the z-axis of
[equation 17]
while Gauss' theorem applied to a sphere of radius r gives a total magnetic charge in the volume of radius r of
[equation 18]

[Almo]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Have you read any books on plasma physics yet?

Wouldn't matter if he had. I've been through courses undergrad basic E+M, undergrad advanced E+M, graduate E+M (Jackson is a bitch of a textbook), undergraduate plasma physics, and graduate level plasma physics. I see the sense in Clinger's excellent 5-part series. And you will still ignore me.

So I fail to see how it would matter if RC had read some plasma physics texts.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

False. Giiberish and ignorance: Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section

Any parrot can repeat a word or two. In your case it's "reconnection" and "vacuum". You're in pure denial that equation 16&17 REQUIRE current, not a vacuum.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Almo

Wouldn't matter if he had. I've been through courses undergrad basic E+M, undergrad advanced E+M, graduate E+M (Jackson is a bitch of a textbook), undergraduate plasma physics, and graduate level plasma physics. I see the sense in Clinger's excellent 5-part series. And you will still ignore me.

I have no reason to ignore you. You're definitely no hater.

I see "sense" in it too. Reconnection won't WORK without plasma DESPITE Clingers claims to the contrary something like a year ago. In my world of commercial sales, that's called "bait and switch" advertizing. You can't claim something works without electricity, but "oh you have to plug it in, and it uses electricity".

Quote:

So I fail to see how it would matter if RC had read some plasma physics texts.

I don't think he'd be so darn hateful in his comments. He has no reason to use such loaded language and make it so personal in every post. Only haters engage in that kind of behavior. Most normal people stick to the topic. To my knowledge, you personally have always simply stuck to the topic.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

It is not a REQUIREMENT of anything. It is a CONSEQUENCE.

It's a *REQUIREMENT*, otherwise equations 16 and 17 are ZERO.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Somov's "vacuum" contains charged particles. I've read his book. You have not.

Michael Mozina's delusions about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section
Somov's vacuum is a vacuum .
Is this is another delusion of yours?
That a section on MR in vacuum that ends with mentioning the effect of the induced E field on chraged particles is not about MR in vacuum?

So lets add even more of the text that you are ignoring:

Quote:

Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field
4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
X-type points consist a topological peculiarity of a magnetic field. They are places where where redistribution of magnetic fluxes occurs, which changes the connectivity of field lines. Let us illustrate such a process by the simplest example of 2 parallel electric currents of equal magnitude I in vacuum as shown in Figure 4.17. The magnetic field of these currents forms three different fluxes in the plane (x,y). Two of them belong to the upper and the lower currents, respectively, and are situated inside the separatrix field line A, which forms the figure of the eight-like curve with zeroth X-point. The third flux belongs to both currents and is situated outside of the separatrix.

If the currents are displaced in the direction of each other, then the following magnetic flux redistribution will take place. The currents proper fluxes will diminish by the quantity dA, while their common flux will increase by the same quantity. So the field line A2 will be the separatrix of the final state.

This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line.

Magnetic reconnection is of fundamental importance for the nature of many non-stationary phenomena in cosmic plasma. We shall discuss the physics of this process more fully in chapters 16 to 22. Suffice it to say that reconnection is inevitable associated with electric field generation. The field is the inductive one, since
[equation 4.65]
where A is the vector potential of magnetic field,
[equation 4.66]
In the above example, the electric field is directed along the z axis. It is clear if that if dt is the characteristic time of the reconnection process shown in Figure 4.17 then according to (4.65)
[equation 4.67]
the last equality will be justified n Section 9.2

Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
| the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle or
| particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.

[Michael Mozina]

Every single one of your hater posts has to contain boatloads of hater language like:

Delusions, liar, crackpot, yada, yada, yada. You've never admitted to the fact that equation 17 becomes zero without current. No current, no "reconnection". Facts are facts.

[Michael Mozina]

Quote:

4.4.2 Reconnection in a Vacuum.
X-type points consist a topological peculiarity of a magnetic field. They are places where where redistribution of magnetic fluxes occurs, which changes the connectivity of field lines. Let us illustrate such a process by the simplest example of 2 parallel electric currents of equal magnitude I in vacuum as shown in Figure 4.17. The magnetic field of these currents forms three different fluxes in the plane (x,y). Two of them belong to the upper and the lower currents, respectively, and are situated inside the separatrix field line A, which forms the figure of the eight-like curve with zeroth X-point. The third flux belongs to both currents and is situated outside of the separatrix.

Congratulations on confirming that Somov's "vacuum" isn't a pure vacuum. His "vacuum" contains currents and plasma. He's using the term like "the vacuum of space". It contains plasma of course, but folks still refer to it as a "vacuum". His "vacuum" has currents in it. Its got particles.