I do think your industry has an emotional attachment to what Alfven called "pseudoscience" and you have not desire to bring your theories into alignment with A) particle physics theory or B) electrical engineering principles. That part is kinda sad from my perspective, and there is a stubbornness related to the fixation on the field orientation of MHD theory IMO. At no time did I claim you or anyone else was a "fraud". Anyone can just be wrong without any sort of malicious intent.
Alfvén also invested all his money in a a kind of pyramid scheme and lost it, should we do that too? Alfvén also describe a current system with outflowing currents at the poles of the sun, and lo-and-behold Ulysses did not measure anything that confirmed this, after having crossed the solar poles several times during different stages of the solar cycle. Alfvén can also be (dare I say it?)
wrong.
If you would actually read up on REAL papers on reconnection then you would find that particles play an important role. That the de-magnetization of the ions, which lets them move across the magnetic field and creates so called Hall magnetic fields through the Hall
currents was predicted by theory (not MHD because in MHD reconnection cannot happen) and subsequently, when we had the possibility with Cluster actually measured. See e.g.
Runov et al. 2003, you can't get any more empirical than that.
We have hybrid codes describing reconnection, where the ions are real particles etc. etc. It is just in your fantasy world that things don't happen as you would like them to happen. In the real world we have moved much farther already than you can imagine.
And please, answer me this, why can't circuit theory describe reconnection?
What everyone got sick of was the fact you *COULD NOT* differentiate MR theory from induction or collisions. Somehow it's all my fault it requires "circuits" to change their flow patterns to make your theories work in the lab.
Induction does NOT change the topology. Let's take a simple example of the Earth's tail or of a solar flare:
Code:
<------------------------<
<------------------------<
*********************
>------------------------->
>------------------------->
gets changed into
<-------\ /-----------<
<------\ \ / /----------<
*******| | | | *******
>------/ / \ \--------->
>------/ \--------->
where the --- are the magnetic field lines and the *** show the current sheet needed for this magnetic field reversal.
Please, show me exactly how induction (or whatever you understand under induction) changes the top topology in the bottom topology.
Why? Birkeland described and even simulated the process in the lab. What's the big enigma of "current flow"?
Birkeland did none of this, he did his experiments long before reconnection was even thought about and his terrella experiments did not model anything remotely related to reconnection. He just had a sphere with a voltage and had electrons emitted from a cathode and created an impression of the aurora. That is all he did. He also played around with variations on this and got some loops on his terrella, but never ever did he simulate topological changes of the magnetic field as are seen in reconnection events.
There is no enigma of current flow, current flows from one side to the other.
Er no. I'm "gung-ho" on the idea because Alfven used a "circuit" orientation when describing events in space and they make sense.
And prithee, what are the
limitations on circuit theory? Care to answer that? (or look it up in another thread because I have already told you before).
tusenfem said:
The particle acceleration comes from the tension of the magnetic field which is released.
That already has a proper scientific name. It's called "induction".
Well maybe your quoted "induction" which probably is something different from regular induction (like in the electric field generated by a time varying magnetic field). Please show us in detail how your "induction" is the same as releasing magnetic tension, although I must admit that that release will induce an electric field in the frame where the field is moving, naturally not in the co-moving frame. Induction would go around the circuit, will move the electrons and ions around the "wires" (which would be the magnetic field lines here, therefore the " "), however, this process, the release of magnetic tension accelerates the plasma perpendicular to the wires, and moves along with the wires.
So please, present to us your detailed particle-current-circuit reconnection model, that at least can explain the observations by the paper by Runov et al. mentioned above.
Otherwise, this whole discussion is moot and your "model" of what reconnection is is just a figment of your imagination.
!
