Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

Also, from the part I quoted,: "stated " is poor phrasing. We tend to look for phrasing like "this set of experiments/observations/equations appear to demonstrate conclusively that...." followed by full descriptions with all appropriate and necessary documentation of the afformentioned experiments/observations/equations.

We tend to be funny that way. As do the respected journals.
 
I'm not dismissing the cluster observations of where the onset of "reconnection" occurs.

I am disputing its cause.

I am saying there is a current instability in the neutral sheet leading to the creation of a double layer facilitating a "reconnection" event. And I am saying this is all a consequence of Alfven's circuit model of the magnetosphere, which is part of a larger solar circuit.

Lessons from laboratory experiments on reconnection
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...892a7655a77fa009b6a8d5c5e9694a93&searchtype=a

Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/Older Publ. PDF/28. 1982_ Double Layer.pdf

Magnetic Field Line Reconnection Experiments, 5. Current Disruptions and Double Layers
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/Older Publ. PDF/29. JGR1983-Current Disrupt.pdf

Laboratory experiments on current sheet disruptions, double layers turbulence and reconnection
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985IAUS..107...47S
 
Last edited:
michaelsuede said:
I'm not dismissing the cluster observations of where the onset of "reconnection" occurs.

I am disputing its cause.

I am saying there is a current instability in the neutral sheet leading to the creation of a double layer facilitating a "reconnection" event. And I am saying this is all a consequence of Alfven's circuit model of the magnetosphere, which is part of a larger solar circuit.
Click to expand...

That's funny, that's not what you said in your original post:

Since a magnetic field is an infinite continuum, there can be no splitting and reconnecting of field lines. In order for a field line (which is a mathematical construct used to describe the location of a magnetic field) to “reconnect” it would first have to be spliced in half.
Click to expand...
 
michaelsuede said:
I'm not dismissing the cluster observations of where the onset of "reconnection" occurs.

I am disputing its cause.

I am saying there is a current instability in the neutral sheet leading to the creation of a double layer facilitating a "reconnection" event. And I am saying this is all a consequence of Alfven's circuit model of the magnetosphere, which is part of a larger solar circuit.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, you got it backwards.

From a quick scan from Walters papers I seem to get the impression that he talks about reconnection and in the associated current sheet between the magnetic field they are able to increase the current so much, that instabilities can start up, leading, amongst others, to double layers in the current sheet.

To be specific:
Look in the last link to figure 2 where the magnetic field in XZ is shown and the fluid velocity. Now, the current in the current sheet is flowing in the Y direction, out of the screen. Now what they do in the section "current disruption and double layers" is that they artificially increase the potential in the Y direction, thereby increasing the current in the current sheet, and, as expected, when crossing a critical limit, there will be instabilities. HOWEVER, note that the starting point is the general X-line configuration for reconnection as shown in Fig. 2. The current disruption and double layers only appear later. Therefore, the double layer is not facilitating or starting the reconnection, but rather is a possible structure that may or may not arise in the current sheet, depending on how hard the current is driven. And yes, that may be applicable in space plasmas, indeed I myself have written a paper on the stability of double layers and its application so solar flares.

No, it cannot be a consequence of Alfven's circuit model of the magnetosphere.
Again, a circuit model is good to look a things globally, there is no plasma physics in a circuit model, it is "only" electric circuit theory with batteries, resistances, inductances, capacitances. Anything that is going on at the scale of where things are getting interesting is swept under the carpet. That is a good thing, I have done circuit calculations myself, but look at this paper and see e.g. that in order to calculate the resistance of the accretion disk I really needed to go into the microscopic plasma physics. Then, when I got the answer, I could put that into the circuit.
 
Last edited:
semantics.

If you say reconnection starts at the onset of instabilities, then you would be right.

Of course, I don't see it that way because you can have instabilities without generating a double layer and initiating an explosive release.

From "Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment" it is clear that the double layer plays an important role in kinetic energy transfer.

The cause of a "reconnection" event is the formation of a DL and its associated energy transfer. That is what causes a reconnection event. The instabilities leading to a DL are a consequence of the circuit.
 
Last edited:
michaelsuede said:
semantics.

If you say reconnection starts at the onset of instabilities, then you would be right.

Of course, I don't see it that way because you can have instabilities without generating a double layer and initiating an explosive release.

From "Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment" it is clear that the double layer plays an important role in kinetic energy transfer.

The cause of a "reconnection" event is the formation of a DL and its associated energy transfer. That is what causes a reconnection event. The instabilities leading to a DL are a consequence of the circuit.
Click to expand...

Have you had a paper published on this subject?
 
michaelsuede said:
semantics.

If you say reconnection starts at the onset of instabilities, then you would be right.

Of course, I don't see it that way because you can have instabilities without generating a double layer and initiating an explosive release.

From "Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment" it is clear that the double layer plays an important role in kinetic energy transfer.

The cause of a "reconnection" event is the formation of a DL and its associated energy transfer. That is what causes a reconnection event. The instabilities leading to a DL are a consequence of the circuit.
Click to expand...

How can the reconnection be caused by the double layer when the double layer only appears after the reconnection is already started? (see Fig. 2) That is not semantics it is causality.

Secondly the double layer accelerates the plasma in the wrong direction i.e. in the Y direction, whereas the reconnection accelerates the plasma in the X direction (see Fig. 2).

Yes, instabilities will most likely be present in the current sheet near the neutral line as they are always present in plasmas.

And by the way, I hope you do understand that these double layers that we are discussing right now are completely differnt entities as the ones you claimed at the beginning of the thread? These are current carrying double layers, whereas at the beginning you were discussing non-current carrying double layers at the boundary between different plasmas.
 
I just knew we would have some people who could discuss this from a real knowledge base. Well done!!!!!:):)
 
dafydd said:
Comedy gold.
Click to expand...

I love the part where "magnetic reconnection is impossible" gets cited as proof that Einstein was wrong. Um? Was this even supposed to be a list of arguments relevant to trying to prove Einstein wrong? Or was it just another excuse to haul out the Plasma Cosmology link-shovel?

I prefer to imagine that it's just a tic. It's like, when you or I is getting onto an airplane, the gate agent takes our ticket and says "Have a good trip" and we accidentally say "you too"? Oops! Michael Suede gets onto the jetway, the agent says "Enjoy your flight" and Suede says "Alfven's circuit model proves that reconnection is impossible." Oops! Sorry! I figure the agents hear that so often they don't notice it any more.
 
ben m said:
I love the part where "magnetic reconnection is impossible" gets cited as proof that Einstein was wrong. Um? Was this even supposed to be a list of arguments relevant to trying to prove Einstein wrong? Or was it just another excuse to haul out the Plasma Cosmology link-shovel?

I prefer to imagine that it's just a tic. It's like, when you or I is getting onto an airplane, the gate agent takes our ticket and says "Have a good trip" and we accidentally say "you too"? Oops! Michael Suede gets onto the jetway, the agent says "Enjoy your flight" and Suede says "Alfven's circuit model proves that reconnection is impossible." Oops! Sorry! I figure the agents hear that so often they don't notice it any more.
Click to expand...

I've been having a good look at his site and it is absolutely hilarious. No chance of a Nobel prize,methinks.
 
Comments on Magnetic Reconnection V

michaelsuede said:
I shall, in this article, attempt to illuminate the problems with current magnetic reconnection theory.
Click to expand...

Oh, really?

michaelsuede said:
Make no mistake, the scientists don’t have any idea what is really going on, which is why there are so many competing theories of “reconnection" ...
Layman's Definition of Magnetic Reconnection and Why it Doesn't Really Exist.
Click to expand...

No, there are no competing theories of magnetic reconnection and no, they are not just modeling. As I have pointed out before, magnetic reconnection is observed directly to happen in laboratory plasmas.

Tim Thompson said:
Representative comments; clearly Mr. Mozina, and others no doubt, reject the concept of "magnetic reconnection" altogether. This is an uncomfortable position to take, since "magnetic reconnection" is directly observed in controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments (i.e., Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008; Cheng, et al., 2008; Yamada, et al., 2007; Yamada, Ren & Ji, 2007; Yamada, et al., 2006; Sarff, et al., 2005 & etc.; Yamada, 1999 reviews the previous 20 years of laboratory plasma studies of magnetic reconnection). ... Magnetic reconnection, as a physical phenomenon, regardless of the argument over words, is an integral & fundamental aspect of plasma physics. Denying the validity of magnetic reconnection is quite the same as simply denying the validity of laboratory plasma physics altogether.
Click to expand...

That was originally posted on 13 February 2009. It is not exactly "news". I find in an amusing michaelsuede has the capacity to declare that which we actually see before our very eyes as "impossible". There is a huge literature available on magnetic reconnection, both in theory and in practical application (i.e., as observed controlled laboratory experiments). Only in the ravings of the internet lunatics do we find anyone who thinks that all of this physics must be impossible. So I suggest that the attentive reader graduate from the webpages of the illiterati and try on literature intended for adults instead. See, for instance, Magnetic Reconnection - MHD Theory and Applications by Priest & Forbes, Cambridge University Press 2000, a book I have repeatedly recommended and use myself as my standard reference. And for more advanced plasma physics, try Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics by Dieter Biskamp, Cambridge University Press 1993 & 1997, especially chapter 8, "Magnetic Reconnection". Or perhaps I might even humbly suggest some of my own many posts on magnetic reconnection in this forum; e.g., Electric Sun: Reconnection vs Induction II (25 Jan 2011), Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection X (18 Jan 2011), Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection VIII (13 Jan 2011), Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection I (30 Nov 2010), Magnetic Reconnection Redux V (30 Dec 2009) & etc.

Mr. Suede's dismissal of magnetic reconnection is based on profound ignorance, not on profound knowledge, and is void of merit.
 
ben m said:
I love the part where "magnetic reconnection is impossible" gets cited as proof that Einstein was wrong. Um? Was this even supposed to be a list of arguments relevant to trying to prove Einstein wrong? Or was it just another excuse to haul out the Plasma Cosmology link-shovel?

I prefer to imagine that it's just a tic. It's like, when you or I is getting onto an airplane, the gate agent takes our ticket and says "Have a good trip" and we accidentally say "you too"? Oops! Michael Suede gets onto the jetway, the agent says "Enjoy your flight" and Suede says "Alfven's circuit model proves that reconnection is impossible." Oops! Sorry! I figure the agents hear that so often they don't notice it any more.
Click to expand...

There are at least 6 bullet points on that page which have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Einstein.
 
Tim Thompson said:
Oh, really?



No, there are no competing theories of magnetic reconnection and no, they are not just modeling. As I have pointed out before, magnetic reconnection is observed directly to happen in laboratory plasmas.
Click to expand...

No, DISCHARGES are directly observed in laboratory plasmas. PARTICLES AND CIRCUITS do the "reconnecting", not *JUST* the magnetic field topology! That's the whole problem with your claim. You can't even produce the process without *CURRENT* and "circuits".
 
Michael Mozina said:
Tim Thompson said:
No, there are no competing theories of magnetic reconnection and no, they are not just modeling. As I have pointed out before, magnetic reconnection is observed directly to happen in laboratory plasmas.
Click to expand...

No, DISCHARGES are directly observed in laboratory plasmas. PARTICLES AND CIRCUITS do the "reconnecting", not *JUST* the magnetic field topology! That's the whole problem with your claim. You can't even produce the process without *CURRENT* and "circuits".
Click to expand...


It seems those denying the existence of magnetic reconnection missed some of these...

Tim Thompson said:
Representative comments; clearly Mr. Mozina, and others no doubt, reject the concept of "magnetic reconnection" altogether. This is an uncomfortable position to take, since "magnetic reconnection" is directly observed in controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments (i.e., Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008; Cheng, et al., 2008; Yamada, et al., 2007; Yamada, Ren & Ji, 2007; Yamada, et al., 2006; Sarff, et al., 2005 & etc.; Yamada, 1999 reviews the previous 20 years of laboratory plasma studies of magnetic reconnection).
Click to expand...


If someone disagrees with the above references, maybe some quantitative objective analysis is in order. Maybe it's time those arguing against the existence of magnetic reconnection point out where all that research has failed, specifically, quantitatively, and objectively. For some reason contemporary research seems to be off limits to the crackpots, and no such legitimate refutation is ever offered.

Why should the entire world of legitimate physicists concede to the ranting of a half dozen cranks who obviously don't understand math and offer nothing more than arguments from incredulity and ignorance? Why should folks engaged in real science pay any heed to those who dishonestly misrepresent the research of a handful of dead scientists? How is it the against-the-mainstream proponents believe they are smart enough to know something that genuine scientists don't know, but are wholly incapable of communicating those ideas in a way that is compelling and understandable?

It does seems to come down to this...

Tim Thompson said:
[The magnetic reconnection deniers'] dismissal of magnetic reconnection is based on profound ignorance, not on profound knowledge, and is void of merit.
Click to expand...


It's 2011, and that's how it is in the world of real science. That is also, no doubt, how it will continue to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom