Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

Michael Mozina · Apr 19, 2011

Tim Thompson said:
Fair enough. So we can agree that (a) I have indeed read Alfven's Cosmic Plasma and that (b) I did not say that the circuit paradigm was false or invalid or the functional equivalent thereof. So, moving right along ...

FYI, I am sorry for my previous comments. They really were uncalled for and inappropriate, not to mention just plain ignorant and wrong.

In terms of the circuit paradigm however you are in fact refusing to meet me in the middle, and therefore you are in fact negating the circuit oriented approach in exactly the same way that Alfven negated the B oriented approach. If I have to chose between you and Alfven, sorry Tim.

The problem is that it's possible to add gates and resistors and anything and everything else necessary to circuit theory to essentially describe the same processes. The paper by Onel and Mann demonstrates that flares can be explained that way, and Alfven's writing about circuit theory and how that applies to magnetospheric activities has never been disputed to my knowledge. These are the two primary places the mainstream uses "magnetic reconnection" theory.

Whatever problems you have with Alfven's comment about no current being able to cross the surface to be examples of magnetic reconnection, you'll have to do a better job explaining your position. I don't care that the plasma doesn't care that current runs through it. I care that there is running current through it, and therefore I care to (prefer to) work with circuits in such cases, just like Alfven and just like Mann and Onel.

I think the basic problem is that you can't meet me in the middle because that means that "magnetic reconnection" really is "circuit reconnection" and of course every one of you knows that I can't possibly be right.

That leaves us with you and Alfven Tim, and I'm sorry Tim, but your beliefs don't hold up to scrutiny IMO. You're essentially putting the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse. Alfven, Mann and Onel use CHARGE SEPARATION to drive the flaring process, whereas as you're trying to claim the magnetic field does the work. It simply doesn't work like that in your own lab tests that you yourself has cited. The *CHARGE SEPARATION* and CURRENTS drive the process.

You'll have to bear with me a bit this week and next. I'll be out of town all next week on business and I'll be offline a bit this week as well. Things will return to normal for me in a few weeks. Until then my responses are likely to be a bit limited.

Michael Mozina · Apr 19, 2011

These two paragraphs reveal a serious weakness in Alfven's method, in the context of modern plasma physics, and reveal precisely why Alfven was in fact wrong to reject magnetic reconnection. His statement above was correct, and as far as I know remains correct to this day. He was right to reject magnetic reconnection in the context of the boundary conditions he laid out, but carefully note what Alfven actually says, in Alfven's own words: "All theories of 'magnetic merging' (or 'field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention." Alfven did not categorically reject the idea of magnetic reconnection, he only rejected it in cases where his boundary conditions apply. The problem, of course, is that his boundary conditions can be quite unrealistic and do not apply in most cases to real plasma in space, and this is where Alfven fails: Alfven's boundary condition requirements do not necessarily reflect the physical state of real plasmas, either in space, or in the laboratory.

Um, you'll note that the main reason he ultimately rejected MR theory is because no real life plasmas meet that criteria which is precisely why he then switched to a "circuit/double layer'' approach and preferred a circuit oriented approach in 'real life" situations. You're essentially ignoring the fact that light atmospheric solar plasmas do NOT meet a criteria that you just agreed was correct, and therefore justified his rejection of the MR concept inside of interplanetary space. He consistently used a "circuit" oriented approach *BECAUSE* it's a "better" approach under "real life' conditions.

Reality Check · Apr 19, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Um, you'll note that the main reason he ultimately rejected MR theory is because no real life plasmas meet that criteria which is precisely why he then switched to a "circuit/double layer'' approach and preferred a circuit oriented approach in 'real life" situations. You're essentially ignoring the fact that light atmospheric solar plasmas do NOT meet a criteria that you just agreed was correct, and therefore justified his rejection of the MR concept inside of interplanetary space. He consistently used a "circuit" oriented approach *BECAUSE* it's a "better" approach under "real life' conditions.

Um , you'll note that that you give no citation to this assertion that Alfven abandoned MR theory for all real life plasmas.
The quotations that you have given state the opposite, i.e. that there are conditions for which the use of MR theory of 30 years ago was valid and other condition where the use was invalid.

And read what you quoted:

Alfven did not categorically reject the idea of magnetic reconnection, he only rejected it in cases where his boundary conditions apply. The problem, of course, is that his boundary conditions can be quite unrealistic and do not apply in most cases to real plasma in space, and this is where Alfven fails: Alfven's boundary condition requirements do not necessarily reflect the physical state of real plasmas, either in space, or in the laboratory.

(emphasis added)

W.D.Clinger · Apr 19, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
If I have to chose between you and Alfven, sorry Tim.

The choice here is not between Alfvén and Tim Thompson. The choice is between Gauss/Faraday/Ampère/Maxwell and Michael Mozina's misinterpretations of what Alfvén wrote.

Michael Mozina said:
I think the basic problem is that you can't meet me in the middle because that means that "magnetic reconnection" really is "circuit reconnection" and of course every one of you knows that I can't possibly be right.

The basic problem is that you aren't right. As we have explained countless times, and as has been noted by some of the papers you yourself have cited, magnetic reconnection can occur without any accompanying change in circuit topology.

Until you accept that fact, the more complex situations in which magnetic reconnection is accompanied by changes in circuit topology will remain beyond your understanding.

GeeMack · Apr 20, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
In terms of the circuit paradigm however you are in fact refusing to meet me in the middle, [...]

I think the basic problem is that you can't meet me in the middle [...]

Where in the middle between right and wrong, correct and incorrect, supported by evidence and unqualified unsupported fantasy, should legitimate science meet? I think everyone, with the possible exception of the against-the-mainstream proponents, agrees that it would be foolish for science to meet anywhere between right and wrong, when we have objective quantitative evidence clearly separating them.

W.D.Clinger said:
The basic problem is that you aren't right. As we have explained countless times, and as has been noted by some of the papers you yourself have cited, magnetic reconnection can occur without any accompanying change in circuit topology.

Michael Mozina · Apr 20, 2011

Reality Check said:
Um , you'll note that that you give no citation to this assertion that Alfven abandoned MR theory for all real life plasmas.

Pick virtually *ANY* paper written by Alfven and you'll find a citation related to circuit theory and/or double layer behaviors. Show me even *ONE* paper authored by Alfven on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" RC. Just one will do.

Reality Check · Apr 20, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Pick virtually *ANY* paper written by Alfven and you'll find a citation related to circuit theory and/or double layer behaviors. Show me even *ONE* paper authored by Alfven on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" RC. Just one will do.

So you think he never published anything on magnetic reconnection. So what?

ETA
I will note that he did publish papers on waves in plasma (Alfven waves). These are impossible in circuit theory.
So at least one of his papers is about these waves and not related to circuit theory and/or double layer behaviors.

ETA2:
You'll note that that you still gave no citation to this assertion that Alfven abandoned MR theory for all real life plasmas.

Perpetual Student · Apr 20, 2011

GeeMack said:
Where in the middle between right and wrong, correct and incorrect, supported by evidence and unqualified unsupported fantasy, should legitimate science meet? I think everyone, with the possible exception of the against-the-mainstream proponents, agrees that it would be foolish for science to meet anywhere between right and wrong, when we have objective quantitative evidence clearly separating them.

Should we "meet" an anti-vaccination crackpot "in the middle" and say sometimes vaccinations cause autism? Should we meet an homeopathic wacko in the middle and say once in a while molecules can have memory? Should we meet an ID fanatic in the middle and agree that a deity is needed to explain evolution from time to time? Should we meet an astrologer in the middle and concede that occasionally the position of Mars can make good things happen for someone born in April? These examples would be the equivalent to meeting Mozina in the middle when discussing plasma physics, a field in which he has proven to be totally unqualified.

tusenfem · Apr 20, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
In terms of the circuit paradigm however you are in fact refusing to meet me in the middle, and therefore you are in fact negating the circuit oriented approach in exactly the same way that Alfven negated the B oriented approach. If I have to chose between you and Alfven, sorry Tim.

Unless you can point out exactly how this circuit paradigm can describe the microphysics, and the irreversable magnetic topology of MRx and point out exactly where in the Onel & Mann paper this is done, there is no middle ground.

Tim is NOT negating the circuit representation of plasma physical processes, just like I am not doing that. However, Tim understands, like I do, that circuit representation is a long wavelength approximation of plasma physics, even on larger scales than MDH. Unless you finally understand what a circuit representation means, there is no middle ground.

Michael Mozina said:
The problem is that it's possible to add gates and resistors and anything and everything else necessary to circuit theory to essentially describe the same processes. The paper by Onel and Mann demonstrates that flares can be explained that way, and Alfven's writing about circuit theory and how that applies to magnetospheric activities has never been disputed to my knowledge. These are the two primary places the mainstream uses "magnetic reconnection" theory.

The do it! Add frakking stuff, I started it for you, remember??? But when you found out that you had to do some real work, you quickly decided it would be safer to let it drop and came up with some silly discussion about finding middle ground again and citing some papers that we maybe better discuss.

Onel and Mann calculate that the energy in the system is equal to what can be released in a flare, which is no surprise, because when you do a correct circuit representation the total energy in that circuit is equal to the integral of the magnetoplasma energy. So to repeat what I wroten in post #200 in this thread

Onel & Mann use a circuit model of structures on the sun, and then come up with the various values for the R and the U and everything else. Then they find the power in photospheric motion in Eq. 9 and show that in the circuit there is a total energy that is comparable with what is released in solar flares. One would be surprised if they had found something else.

Then they use runaway electrons that are accelerated at a coronal electric field, that lose energy through coulomb collisions Eqs. 11/12/13 and find a value for the Dreicer field, above which electrons are basically collisionless.

Then basically, what they want to explain is the X-ray emission from flares, and find that the bremsstrahlung by accelerated electrons is the main cause and that electric fields, as described in their model, can explain the acceleration of the electrons.

Fine, it is a nice paper (which I have said already some time ago), however, has nothing to do with magnetic reconnection. Nothing about how the magnetic field changes etc.

Now I want from YOU mikey, a full discussion of the Onel & Mann paper!

tusenfem · Apr 20, 2011

Unfortunately, being busy with finishing two papers (one actually involves magnetic reconnection at the dayside magnetopause) and having had a conference, I have had no time to actually discuss the MRx experiment paper. Maybe after Easter.

Michael Mozina · Apr 20, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
The choice here is not between Alfvén and Tim Thompson. The choice is between Gauss/Faraday/Ampère/Maxwell and Michael Mozina's misinterpretations of what Alfvén wrote.

Oh, I've posted what Alfven wrote about "magnetic reconnect" theory. He called it pseudoscience and claimed all DL's put another nail in it's coffin. He claimed that all MR theories in plasmas with current running through them were "misleading". They were better looked at as 'circuits' and "double layers". He wrote *HUNDREDS* of papers on the topic of 'circuits' and double layers. You collectively can't come up with even *ONE* paper that he wrote on the topic of MR theory. Why is that?

The basic problem is that you aren't right. As we have explained countless times, and as has been noted by some of the papers you yourself have cited, magnetic reconnection can occur without any accompanying change in circuit topology.

But your lab tests don't actually demonstrate that. They typically *BEGIN* with "current flow', the one thing that Alfven explicitly *FORBID* in relationship to MR theory.

Until you accept that fact, the more complex situations in which magnetic reconnection is accompanied by changes in circuit topology will remain beyond your understanding.

The problem here is really quite simple. Alfven outright rejected and never once wrote about MR theory. He wrote HUNDREDS of papers and a whole book on the topic of "circuits" in space. That paper by Mann and Onel demonstrates that a 'circuit" orientation related to coronal loop activity works as well as any other orientation. When two or more "circuits/loops" do their "reconnection' process, it's simply "circuit reconnection". The moment you admit that the circuit orientation to plasma physics is valid, you lose this debate, not to me but to Alfven himself.

The single most telling aspect is the fact that not a single one of you can come up with even a single paper by Alfven on the topic of MR theory. Why not?

Michael Mozina · Apr 20, 2011

Perpetual Student said:
Should we "meet" an anti-vaccination crackpot "in the middle" and say sometimes vaccinations cause autism? Should we meet an homeopathic wacko in the middle and say once in a while molecules can have memory? Should we meet an ID fanatic in the middle and agree that a deity is needed to explain evolution from time to time? Should we meet an astrologer in the middle and concede that occasionally the position of Mars can make good things happen for someone born in April? These examples would be the equivalent to meeting Mozina in the middle when discussing plasma physics, a field in which he has proven to be totally unqualified.

It's really cute how the two of you haven't ever read nor commented on Alfven's books or papers on this topic, but somehow I'm the one that is "unqualified". Project much?

Michael Mozina · Apr 20, 2011

tusenfem said:
Unless you can point out exactly how this circuit paradigm can describe the microphysics, and the irreversable magnetic topology of MRx and point out exactly where in the Onel & Mann paper this is done, there is no middle ground.

Tim is NOT negating the circuit representation of plasma physical processes, just like I am not doing that. However, Tim understands, like I do, that circuit representation is a long wavelength approximation of plasma physics, even on larger scales than MDH. Unless you finally understand what a circuit representation means, there is no middle ground.

The middle ground between two 'circuits' in Onel and Mann's paper would be a "double layer" that forms between the two "circuits". That's the middle ground and Alfven himself wrote all about the behaviors of plasma inside that double layer. When the circuit topology eventually changes over time, the "circuit reconnection' process will be complete, the current will flow in a new pattern. The magnetic field topology will have changed as a result of the change in the direction of the current. There's plenty of middle ground here, but you can't go there because I've already staked out the high ground and you refuse to admit that I'm right.

It's really that simple.

Zeuzzz · Apr 20, 2011

Saw an exploding contour line on a hill the other day. Makes me wonder if magnetic reconnection could be a bit more plausible.

W.D.Clinger · Apr 20, 2011

Bertrand Russell would have loved this...

Michael Mozina said:
W.D.Clinger said:

The choice here is not between Alfvén and Tim Thompson. The choice is between Gauss/Faraday/Ampère/Maxwell and Michael Mozina's misinterpretations of what Alfvén wrote.

Click to expand...

Oh, I've posted what Alfven wrote about "magnetic reconnect" theory. He called it pseudoscience and claimed all DL's put another nail in it's coffin. He claimed that all MR theories in plasmas with current running through them were "misleading".

As I said, you are forcing us to choose between Maxwell's equations and your interpretation of Alfvén's unrefereed keynote address. Even if your interpretation were correct, it would just mean that Alfvén said some nonsense about magnetic reconnection.

Michael Mozina said:
They were better looked at as 'circuits' and "double layers". He wrote *HUNDREDS* of papers on the topic of 'circuits' and double layers. You collectively can't come up with even *ONE* paper that he wrote on the topic of MR theory. Why is that?

Because that's one of the many areas of science in which Alfvén had nothing useful to contribute.

Michael Mozina said:
The basic problem is that you aren't right. As we have explained countless times, and as has been noted by some of the papers you yourself have cited, magnetic reconnection can occur without any accompanying change in circuit topology.

Click to expand...

But your lab tests don't actually demonstrate that. They typically *BEGIN* with "current flow', the one thing that Alfven explicitly *FORBID* in relationship to MR theory.

Your first statement is false, as you would know if you had run the experiment I suggested.

Your second sentence has nothing to do with your first sentence or with anything I wrote, but it's a great example of intellectual rubbish. Alfvén is not a deity, so what he forbids is irrelevant. Whether he actually forbade any such thing is questionable, since we have only your word for it. Even if you were to come up with a proper citation in support of your allegation, it would mean only that Alfvén was talking about something other than magnetic reconnection or that Alfvén was talking nonsense.

Currents and magnetic fields often go together. The quantitative link between them is provided by Maxwell's equations. Once again, we must choose between Gauss/Faraday/Ampère/Maxwell and Michael Mozina's exegesis of Alfvén's sacred writings.

Michael Mozina said:
Until you accept that fact, the more complex situations in which magnetic reconnection is accompanied by changes in circuit topology will remain beyond your understanding.

Click to expand...

The problem here is really quite simple. Alfven outright rejected and never once wrote about MR theory. He wrote HUNDREDS of papers and a whole book on the topic of "circuits" in space.

The problem here is that you can't argue with Maxwell's equations, so you're resorting to a nonsensical argument: that some area of science is illegitimate because Alfvén's sacred texts say nothing about it.

Michael Mozina said:
The single most telling aspect is the fact that not a single one of you can come up with even a single paper by Alfven on the topic of MR theory. Why not?

Because Alfvén contributed nothing to that area of science.

There are zillions of things Alfvén didn't write about, and some of the things he did write are wrong.

Consider, for example, Alfvén's attempt to hand-wave away the cosmic microwave background radiation by appealing to E.L.Wright's conjecture that "needle-shaped conducting grains can provide sufficient opacity to produce the observed spectrum." In a nice bit of irony I noticed only today, E.L.Wright is the astronomer who wrote a widely cited rebuttal to Eric J Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened.

tusenfem · Apr 21, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
The middle ground between two 'circuits' in Onel and Mann's paper would be a "double layer" that forms between the two "circuits". That's the middle ground and Alfven himself wrote all about the behaviors of plasma inside that double layer. When the circuit topology eventually changes over time, the "circuit reconnection' process will be complete, the current will flow in a new pattern. The magnetic field topology will have changed as a result of the change in the direction of the current. There's plenty of middle ground here, but you can't go there because I've already staked out the high ground and you refuse to admit that I'm right. It's really that simple.

The please show a full fletched model of MRx using circuits. (and no citing O&M is not enough, because they do not discuss MRx).

Cuddles · Apr 21, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
The problem here is that you can't argue with Maxwell's equations, so you're resorting to a nonsensical argument: that some area of science is illegitimate because Alfvén's sacred texts say nothing about it.

This is the part I find strangest about MM's claims. The idea that modern physics must be wrong because one guy might have disagreed with it a few decades ago is just utterly bizarre. Einstein got things wrong. Newton most certainly got some things very wrong. Feynman got things wrong. Darwin got things wrong. Maxwell got things wrong. Everyone who has ever lived got at least some things wrong, and scientists are no exception to that, famous or not. There are no messiahs, only people.

Alfven may well have said magnetic reconnection is impossible. Even if he did, that does not mean he must have been right. He certainly didn't know everything that we know today, and even if he had he could simply have been wrong about it. Just because he did some good work doesn't mean everything he ever said must have been correct. Newton also did some great work, but that doesn't mean we should all start believing in alchemy. The insistence on relying on a single, often outdated, person's work above all else seems to be a very common attribute of crackpots.

Zeuzzz · Apr 21, 2011

May i refer some of the more competent readers here to the thread I started a long time ago on this subject: Magnetic reconnection and physical processes. Some of the original questions I asked have not been answered (either not fully or were rebutted later as the thread progressed). There is a lot of good information there and many links to numerous relevant publications.

Michael Mozina · Apr 21, 2011

Cuddles said:
This is the part I find strangest about MM's claims. The idea that modern physics must be wrong because one guy might have disagreed with it a few decades ago is just utterly bizarre. Einstein got things wrong. Newton most certainly got some things very wrong. Feynman got things wrong. Darwin got things wrong. Maxwell got things wrong. Everyone who has ever lived got at least some things wrong, and scientists are no exception to that, famous or not. There are no messiahs, only people.

Alfven may well have said magnetic reconnection is impossible. Even if he did, that does not mean he must have been right. He certainly didn't know everything that we know today, and even if he had he could simply have been wrong about it. Just because he did some good work doesn't mean everything he ever said must have been correct. Newton also did some great work, but that doesn't mean we should all start believing in alchemy. The insistence on relying on a single, often outdated, person's work above all else seems to be a very common attribute of crackpots.

In terms of supporting discharge and circuit theory, it's a good thing I've cited a whole lot of other papers from other authors, now isn't it?

The "crackpot" comments seems a wee out of place for a moderator IMO. You're entitled to your opinions of course, but as moderator, aren't you supposed to play by a higher set of standards?

IMO Alfven's rejection of MR theory comes from the fact that the charge separation does the real work in all 'discharge' events, not really the magnetic field. The magnetic field is just a function of the current flow in most cases. In terms of the transfer of EM field energy into particle kinetic energy, Alfven consistently used the "standard scientific terminology", specifically he used the term "induction". Without creating anything "new" Alfven could explain these behaviors in plasma using standard circuit theory and standard particle physics theory. He saw no need to 'invent' a new and really "silly" title (he called it "pseudoscientific actually). He understood that the circuit energy was more important than the local magnetic field conditions at the point of 'reconnection'. It's the entire circuit energy that can be released as a result of that "short circuit".

You'll note however that I absolutely, positively did not and have not misrepresented Alfven on the topic of MR theory. I've quoted him directly. He had the absolute audacity to stand before a room full of plasma physicists and call MR theory "pseudoscience" more than a dozen times in a single keynote speech. He put *strict* limits on the conditions of the plasma in terms of whether or not MR could even considered.

Essentially I don't have to demonstrate that Alfven was wrong about MR theory because I personally have already accepted that the MATH is correct. I simply lack belief that anything other than charge separation and current flow generates those million degree coronal loops. You folks aren't just trying to claim that Alfven was wrong about MR theory, you're tying to claim his whole circuit approach is wrong and unrelated to the very same observations where you're using MR theory. Good luck with that.

Michael Mozina · Apr 21, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
As I said, you are forcing us to choose between Maxwell's equations and your interpretation of Alfvén's unrefereed keynote address. Even if your interpretation were correct, it would just mean that Alfvén said some nonsense about magnetic reconnection.

Because that's one of the many areas of science in which Alfvén had nothing useful to contribute.

You accused me of *MISREPRESENTING* Alfven on this topic, or not UNDERSTANDING Alfven on this topic. You however have provided absolutely *NO* evidence to support that accusation, not even a single paper on the topic. IMO you owe me an apology.

Michael Mozina · Apr 21, 2011

Reality Check said:
So you think he never published anything on magnetic reconnection. So what?

So you have crystal clear evidence that I have never misrepresented Alfven on this topic, not ever! He consistently preferred a "circuit" orientation to such events. Whatever "reconnection" happens, happens between two "circuits" according to Alfven, not just two "magnetic lines". You folks have essentially mathematically "dumbed down" a current carrying Bennett Pinch "circuit" to a "magnetic line" so that you can call it 'magnetic reconnection'.

Michael Mozina · Apr 21, 2011

tusenfem said:
Unless you can point out exactly how this circuit paradigm can describe the microphysics, and the irreversable magnetic topology of MRx and point out exactly where in the Onel & Mann paper this is done, there is no middle ground.

The middle ground is the DL that forms between the circuits and Alfven wrote *ALL ABOUT DL's*. Where was the error in his DL paper?

Tim is NOT negating the circuit representation of plasma physical processes, just like I am not doing that. However, Tim understands, like I do, that circuit representation is a long wavelength approximation of plasma physics, even on larger scales than MDH. Unless you finally understand what a circuit representation means, there is no middle ground.

You aren't limited to a single circuit, a single resistor, or single switch/gate, or anything of the sort. You both are negating Alfven's circuit oriented approach when you claim this same event is not 'circuit reconnection'. Onel and Mann demonstrated how coronal loops can be expressed as current carrying "circuits". If two or more of the circuits touch, and their circuit topology changes over time, it's "circuit reconnection" every bit as much as it is "magnetic reconnection."

GeeMack · Apr 21, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
You accused me of *MISREPRESENTING* Alfven on this topic, or not UNDERSTANDING Alfven on this topic.

Yes. And it is demonstrably true as recorded here on the JREF forum as well as on several other forums on the Internet.

Michael Mozina · Apr 21, 2011

GeeMack said:
Yes. And it is demonstrably true as recorded here on the JREF forum as well as on several other forums on the Internet.

Only in your dreams.

W.D.Clinger · Apr 21, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
You'll note however that I absolutely, positively did not and have not misrepresented Alfven on the topic of MR theory. I've quoted him directly. He had the absolute audacity to stand before a room full of plasma physicists and call MR theory "pseudoscience" more than a dozen times in a single keynote speech.

That's a clear misrepresentation of Alfvén's keynote address. I count only 7 occurrences of the word "pseudo-science" within that address.

Alfvén uses that word only in section III.B., which warns against "the danger of using the frozen-in concept" and stresses "the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen-in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma." On my reading of that section, Alfvén is only condemning the invalid theories of magnetic reconnection that use the frozen-in approximation and/or the fictitiously ideal plasma. My reading of that section has been confirmed by several members of JREF who are far more expert in this area than Michael Mozina or myself.

According to Michael Mozina, however, Alfvén was condemning all theories of magnetic reconnection. If Michael Mozina is right about that, then Alfvén was wrong about magnetic reconnection.

And so, for those who are too sensible to investigate this as fully as I have, it may come down to this: Who is more likely to be wrong, Michael Mozina or Hannes Alfvén?

No matter how we answer that question, Michael Mozina's "more than a dozen times" was a misrepresentation of Alfvén's keynote address. I could give less trivial examples of Michael Mozina's misrepresentations, but that particular misrepresentation is indisputable.

Michael Mozina said:
Essentially I don't have to demonstrate that Alfven was wrong about MR theory because I personally have already accepted that the MATH is correct.

Yet you continue to deny the facts about magnetic reconnection as demonstrated in terrestrial laboratories. You did that again just yesterday, in post #331.

Michael Mozina said:
You accused me of *MISREPRESENTING* Alfven on this topic, or not UNDERSTANDING Alfven on this topic. You however have provided absolutely *NO* evidence to support that accusation, not even a single paper on the topic. IMO you owe me an apology.

No. For evidence that you have misrepresented Alfvén on this topic, see your "more than a dozen times" remark quoted earlier.

Michael Mozina said:
So you have crystal clear evidence that I have never misrepresented Alfven on this topic, not ever!

No. For evidence that you have misrepresented Alfvén on this topic, see your "more than a dozen times" remark quoted earlier.

Michael Mozina said:
He consistently preferred a "circuit" orientation to such events. Whatever "reconnection" happens, happens between two "circuits" according to Alfven, not just two "magnetic lines". You folks have essentially mathematically "dumbed down" a current carrying Bennett Pinch "circuit" to a "magnetic line" so that you can call it 'magnetic reconnection'.

No. You must not know anything about mathematics, Bennett Pinches or magnetic lines, or perhaps you are lying about what we "folks" have been saying.

Michael Mozina said:
GeeMack said:

Yes. And it is demonstrably true as recorded here on the JREF forum as well as on several other forums on the Internet.

Click to expand...

Only in your dreams.

For evidence that you have misrepresented Alfvén on this topic, see your "more than a dozen times" remark quoted earlier.

Michael Mozina · Apr 22, 2011

Ok, it should have read "half dozen". My bad. The rest I'll deal with later.

Perpetual Student · Apr 22, 2011

Cuddles said:
This is the part I find strangest about MM's claims. The idea that modern physics must be wrong because one guy might have disagreed with it a few decades ago is just utterly bizarre. Einstein got things wrong. Newton most certainly got some things very wrong. Feynman got things wrong. Darwin got things wrong. Maxwell got things wrong. Everyone who has ever lived got at least some things wrong, and scientists are no exception to that, famous or not. There are no messiahs, only people.

Alfven may well have said magnetic reconnection is impossible. Even if he did, that does not mean he must have been right. He certainly didn't know everything that we know today, and even if he had he could simply have been wrong about it. Just because he did some good work doesn't mean everything he ever said must have been correct. Newton also did some great work, but that doesn't mean we should all start believing in alchemy. The insistence on relying on a single, often outdated, person's work above all else seems to be a very common attribute of crackpots.

Of course, we also have to deal with the astonishing claim that a software technician with little mathematics and physics training knows more about this subject than thousands of extremely well trained and often brilliant professionals throughout the world.
If anyone believes that one, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

Michael Mozina · Apr 22, 2011

Perpetual Student said:
Of course, we also have to deal with the astonishing claim that a software technician with little mathematics and physics training knows more about this subject than thousands of extremely well trained and often brilliant professionals throughout the world.

Actually all you have to believe is that someone who's actually bothered to read Alfven's book on this topic and dozens if not hundreds of his papers for themselves, actually knows more about Alfven's work than people like you that have not. The fact you have to resort to a pathetic debate tactic of fixating on the individual in a scientific debate is a direct result of your scientific laziness IMO.

mike3 · Apr 22, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
The basic problem is that you aren't right. As we have explained countless times, and as has been noted by some of the papers you yourself have cited, magnetic reconnection can occur without any accompanying change in circuit topology.

(emphasis mine)

So what do you make of that, MM?

mike3 · Apr 22, 2011

Perpetual Student said:
Of course, we also have to deal with the astonishing claim that a software technician with little mathematics and physics training knows more about this subject than thousands of extremely well trained and often brilliant professionals throughout the world.
If anyone believes that one, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

Heck, even the "lesser" that he knows as much about it as even one would be an astonishing claim, no?

Also, I'm curious: does this mean you absolutely cannot get a large knowledge of this stuff without being rich enough to afford a formal education program in it, no matter how much work you do or how much dogmatism you refuse to fall into (like MM is doing)?

Michael Mozina · Apr 22, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
That's a clear misrepresentation of Alfvén's keynote address. I count only 7 occurrences of the word "pseudo-science" within that address.

Oh my! I really, really, really misrepresented him then didn't I? Ok, I didn't go back and count, but so what if it was 7 or 12 times? He called it pseudoscience 7 times at a keynote speech at a conference for plasma physicists! What more evidence could you possibly need to understand that Alfven didn't like the concept? That was the same conference where he presented his paper on Double Layers and he claimed that all DL's were another "nail in the coffin" of MR theory. He never wrote about the concept and he preferred a circuit oriented approach.

I guess you're right though, I didn't go back and actually count. I was *SO* bad.

My reading of that section has been confirmed by several members of JREF who are far more expert in this area than Michael Mozina or myself.

Your "reading" of Alfven's position on this topic is not supported by even one single solitary paper on that topic written by Alfven. You're wrong. If he had embraced the idea of MR theory, he would have written dozens of his own papers on the "right way' to go about it. Since he never did any such thing, your whole post is related to fixating on "Mozina", not Alfven and his writing on a topic that you *STILL* claim that he believed in.

According to Michael Mozina, however, Alfvén was condemning all theories of magnetic reconnection.

I explained the criteria he used didn't I? He rejected the idea in ANY current carrying scenario. He never wrote a single paper about a single version of MR theory that he liked did he? Why not?

If Michael Mozina is right about that, then Alfvén was wrong about magnetic reconnection.

Alfven explicitly rejected MR theory on numerous occasions. You can claim he was right, or claim he was wrong about MR theory, but blaming me for his choice is not an option.

And so, for those who are too sensible to investigate this as fully as I have, it may come down to this: Who is more likely to be wrong, Michael Mozina or Hannes Alfvén?

This isn't about me vs. Alfven, it's about Alfven vs. MR theory, and your claim that I have somehow misrepresented him on this topic. He called iMR theory pseudoscience and never wrote a single paper about it. You can't provide even *ONE* paper on ANY variation of MR theory that Alfven promoted. Why is that? He didn't just have nothing to say about it, he said plenty about it, all of which was negative.

Yet you continue to deny the facts about magnetic reconnection as demonstrated in terrestrial laboratories. You did that again just yesterday, in post #331.

I have only denied that none of them meet Alfven's criteria. You refuse to even acknowledge the criteria he used!

The only person who has grossly misrepresented Alfven is you. Yes, you're right I was lazy and didn't go back and count how many times he called it pseudoscience, but it is indisputable that he called it *PSEUDOSCIENCE* and never once wrote about any variation of MR theory he actually promoted. All his work in current carrying plasmas, and interplanetary plasmas was based on 'circuit' theory, not MR theory.

Michael Mozina · Apr 22, 2011

mike3 said:
(emphasis mine)

So what do you make of that, MM?

I'm not sure how to respond until I see exactly which paper and experiments he's talking about. I have no idea if they meet Alfven's criteria on this topic. I'll have to see how they eliminated more 'mundane" processes in plasma like induction and/or particle collisions before *LEAPING* to the conclusion that "magnetic reconnection did it". Which paper, which empirical experiments are we talking about?

Perpetual Student · Apr 22, 2011

mike3 said:
Heck, even the "lesser" that he knows as much about it as even one would be an astonishing claim, no?

Also, I'm curious: does this mean you absolutely cannot get a large knowledge of this stuff without being rich enough to afford a formal education program in it, no matter how much work you do or how much dogmatism you refuse to fall into (like MM is doing)?

A formal education is a great vehicle for gaining knowledge. Nevertheless, people can and do certainly learn through self study.
But Mozina has demonstrated that he has not taken the time to do so because he lacks an understanding of basic physics and has no skills in mathematics, which is the language and tool for analysis within the field of physics. Instead of studying plasma physics (either formally or informally), he has fallen into a cult of EU crackpots who do not understand real physics and cosmology. For them, sacred texts trump the scientific method.
His studying of Alfven's papers would be like his reading an original text of The Iliad without a knowledge of ancient Greek. In order to understand Alfven's papers one must first learn the language of physics (mathematics) and gain a strong understanding of basic physics. Otherwise there can be no useful context to understand Alfven's papers. In summary, he has demonstrated no such understanding or knowledge. When it comes to physics, he is a pretender. Sadly, he does manage to fool some people.

tusenfem · Apr 22, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
The middle ground is the DL that forms between the circuits and Alfven wrote *ALL ABOUT DL's*. Where was the error in his DL paper?

That depends on what double layer model you are talking about.

The one in the solar loop that just unwinds the magnetic field is fine, but is not reconnection.

The one about the exploding double layer is most likely wrong because it has been shown that such strong double layer will not exist in a natural plasma because they tend to distribute the potential drop in many double layers, such that this dramatic "chocking" of the current is not going to happen. I have cited the paper somewhere in this thread or in the other thread, look it up.

Now, please come up with this circuit model, thank you very much. Just claiming stupid things as "the DL will form between the two circuits is the middle ground" does not make any sense.

Michael Mozina said:
You aren't limited to a single circuit, a single resistor, or single switch/gate, or anything of the sort. You both are negating Alfven's circuit oriented approach when you claim this same event is not 'circuit reconnection'. Onel and Mann demonstrated how coronal loops can be expressed as current carrying "circuits". If two or more of the circuits touch, and their circuit topology changes over time, it's "circuit reconnection" every bit as much as it is "magnetic reconnection."

Did I say that? No. Did I not use two circuits in my diagrams that should be coupled somehow? Yes. Can the circuits describe how the topology of the magnetic field changes? No. Do you understand anything about circuit theory model and how it relates to plasma physical processes? No.

Please answer me this. How does circuit theory deal with currents flowing perpendicular to the magnetic field? Are the magnetic field lines not supposed to be the electrical wires in the circuit diagram?

ETA: It was the paper by Foukal & Hinata (1991) that bring the arguments against one of those huge exploding double layers.

W.D.Clinger · Apr 22, 2011

mike3 said:
Also, I'm curious: does this mean you absolutely cannot get a large knowledge of this stuff without being rich enough to afford a formal education program in it, no matter how much work you do or how much dogmatism you refuse to fall into (like MM is doing)?

Perpetual Student said:
A formal education is a great vehicle for gaining knowledge. Nevertheless, people can and do certainly learn through self study.

I am not a physicist. Most of what little I know about physics is derived from self study.

I do, however, have enough formal education in math and physics to understand the most basic facts about magnetic reconnection. If that's what mike3 means by "this stuff", then freshman-level knowledge of vector calculus and electricity and magnetism would put you far ahead of Michael Mozina.

The vector calculus can be learned on your own, but it would be easier to take a course or two at your local community college. I'm not sure you can trust your local community college to teach E&M, because you really need a course designed for physics majors instead of the watered-down versions they teach to more general audiences. The course I took used Edward Purcell's textbook, which I can recommend.

One problem with self-study is that you're likely to miss out on the laboratory experiments that are part of university physics courses. Michael Mozina's unfamiliarity with experimental science is one of the reasons he gives more weight to prophetic pronouncements than to empirical facts. Had he been willing to perform the simple experiment I suggested, he'd have observed magnetic reconnection in his own laboratory.

Michael Mozina · Apr 22, 2011

Perpetual Student said:
A formal education is a great vehicle for gaining knowledge. Nevertheless, people can and do certainly learn through self study.
But Mozina has demonstrated that he has not taken the time to do so

Um, I'm the one that has read Alfven's books and papers, whereas you have not. That's essentially the primary difference between us, AKA "education".

because he lacks an understanding of basic physics and has no skills in mathematics,

Lies, lies, lies, ya.........

which is the language and tool for analysis within the field of physics. Instead of studying plasma physics (either formally or informally), he has fallen into a cult of EU crackpots

These types of comments are your cults way of "bashing" the individual. You can't call me "evil" so "crackpot", "crank", etc will do.

who do not understand real physics and cosmology.

Pfft. You refuse to even read anything about 'real physics and cosmology' from the likes of Alfven and Peratt and those that have literally 'written the book' on 'real physics' rather than "pseudoscience" with everything mathematically dumbed down to "magnetism".

For them, sacred texts trump the scientific method.

No, but it is actually helpful to *READ THEM*.

His studying of Alfven's papers would be like his reading an original text of The Iliad without a knowledge of ancient Greek.

Even if that were true, perhaps the simple act of reading them would enlighten me whereas you will forever be looking at shadows upon wall in a dark metaphysical/pseudoscientific cave.

In order to understand Alfven's papers one must first learn the language of physics (mathematics) and gain a strong understanding of basic physics. Otherwise there can be no useful context to understand Alfven's papers. In summary, he has demonstrated no such understanding or knowledge. When it comes to physics, he is a pretender.

That's really funny considering the fact that you're essentially 'pretending' to be a critic of EU theory without actually reading the material, so you're limited to attacking individuals rather than commenting on the actually material.

Sadly, he does manage to fool some people.

IMO I think that it's sad that you've fooled yourself into believing that you can get even an informal education on plasma oriented circuit theory without studying it. Clairvoyant skeptics never impressed me much.

Michael Mozina · Apr 22, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
I am not a physicist. Most of what little I know about physics is derived from self study.

I do, however, have enough formal education in math and physics to understand the most basic facts about magnetic reconnection. If that's what mike3 means by "this stuff", then freshman-level knowledge of vector calculus and electricity and magnetism would put you far ahead of Michael Mozina.

Nope. Been there, done that more than thirty years ago.

One problem with self-study is that you're likely to miss out on the laboratory experiments that are part of university physics courses. Michael Mozina's unfamiliarity with experimental science is one of the reasons he gives more weight to prophetic pronouncements than to empirical facts. Had he been willing to perform the simple experiment I suggested, he'd have observed magnetic reconnection in his own laboratory.

I have yet to see any formal paper on MR theory that satisfied the conditions outlined by Alfven in terms of what is "misleading" and what is not. I have yet to hear any of you critique Alfven's work in terms of his circuit orientation that in any way actually devalues that orientation. I have not attempted (despite your claims) to claim your math is incorrect, I have simply pointed out that you have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse. Those coronal loops can (and have) been mathematically described as "circuits". If two or more of them "short circuit" and a 'change in circuit topology' takes place as a result, it's simply "circuit" reconnection from the circuit oriented perspective of MHD theory. You folks have "dumbed down" plasma physics to only HALF of it's actual capabilities and you simply *DENY* the E orientation has equal value. You do that because the moment you stop doing it, you have to admit it's also "circuit reconnection". Round and round we go, denying the validity of the E side of Maxwell's equations.......

Michael Mozina · Apr 22, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
One problem with self-study is that you're likely to miss out on the laboratory experiments that are part of university physics courses.

Show me one (published) that satisfied Alfven's criteria. You've still never copped to the fact that Alfven wrote *ZERO* papers on the topic of magnetic reconnection theory, and HUNDREDS of papers on "circuits/DLs" in plasma. Seven times he called "magnetic reconnection' theory "pseudoscience" in a single speech at a conference where he presented a paper on double layers. He claimed in that same speech that any double layer drove another nail in the coffin of that theory.

Essentially the 'crew' here is the mirror opposite of Alfven. Whereas he outright rejected your beliefs, you outright reject his work in circuit theory in terms of is "equality" in plasma physics. You're all bigots IMO, including Alfven.

GeeMack · Apr 22, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Show me one (published) that satisfied Alfven's criteria. You've still never copped to the fact that Alfven wrote *ZERO* papers on the topic of magnetic reconnection theory, [...]

It's likely Alfvén wrote exactly zero papers on breeding sheep, too. I'm sure we all agree that only a fool might take that to mean our current knowledge of animal husbandry is lacking or incorrect because Alfvén didn't know, didn't care, or maybe was a complete idiot when it comes to breeding sheep. This particular line of logic isn't even logic. It failed before it started and continues to fail every time it's brought up.

In fact, if we were to pursue this as if it represented some kind of logic, the fact that Alfvén "wrote *ZERO* papers on the topic of magnetic reconnection theory" would mean that using Alfvén to argue against magnetic reconnection is a fool's errand. If the argument is built on the notion that he wrote no papers on it, he certainly can't be used as any kind of an expert on the subject.

W.D.Clinger · Apr 22, 2011

Self-study doesn't always work, as michaelsuede and Michael Mozina have demonstrated in this thread.

Michael Mozina said:
Um, I'm the one that has read Alfven's books and papers, whereas you have not. That's essentially the primary difference between us, AKA "education".

Michael Mozina has been telling us that Alfvén's books and papers say absolutely nothing about magnetic reconnection. Here, however, he claims to have educated himself about magnetic reconnection by reading Alfvén's books and papers. That's a nonsensical argument.

Michael Mozina said:
W.D.Clinger said:

I am not a physicist. Most of what little I know about physics is derived from self study.

I do, however, have enough formal education in math and physics to understand the most basic facts about magnetic reconnection. If that's what mike3 means by "this stuff", then freshman-level knowledge of vector calculus and electricity and magnetism would put you far ahead of Michael Mozina.

Click to expand...

Nope. Been there, done that more than thirty years ago.

Why, then, is Michael Mozina unable to compute the curl of a vector field?

Michael Mozina said:
Show me one (published) that satisfied Alfven's criteria. You've still never copped to the fact that Alfven wrote *ZERO* papers on the topic of magnetic reconnection theory, and HUNDREDS of papers on "circuits/DLs" in plasma.

As I have stated elsewhere, magnetic reconnection can occur in the absence of plasmas. Michael Mozina has said he would "*LOVE* to see a "physical demonstration" of that, yet he refuses to look at a physical demonstration.

michaelsuede and Michael Mozina are the ones who have been confusing themselves by dragging plasma into the picture before they understand even the basic facts about magnetic reconnection.

The knowledgeable people here generally attempt to explain magnetic reconnection without speaking of plasma. For example...

ben m said:
Let's skip the bluffing and go straight to the "tells".

Pick a unique point in space. Measure the B field direction. Take a differential step in that direction. Measure the B field direction, take another step. Etc. That traces out a line. This is the definition of a magnetic field line, it's perfectly clear, it ignores E fields by definition.

...snip...

The line "crossing" happens at saddle points, i.e. at places where B=0, where it is perfectly reasonable, indeed necessary, for lines to meet. It does not require a monopole or any Maxwell's Equation violation. Examples are trivial to construct: quadrupole fields like {Bx,By} = {y, x} have "crossing" lines.

From that field to magnetic reconnection is but a short step, yet michaelsuede and Michael Mozina refuse to see the connection:

michaelsuede said:
Throwing out a list of random stuff that has nothing to do with the topic does nothing to diminish the points made in my article.

Ziggurat took that short step by giving this simple example of magnetic reconnection:

Ziggurat said:
Indeed. In fact, we can produce reconnection with only a slight modification. If you use the field

{Bx,By} = {b*y, a*x}

then when you change the ratio a/b, you will reconnect points, as shown below:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1192499b6711ad5d6.gif[/qimg]

So the math clearly works. One may dislike the terminology all one wants to, but that's irrelevant. The term is well-defined, and actual magnetic fields which satisfy Maxwell's equations (you can check) fit the description.

michaelsuede couldn't follow Ziggurat's explanation because he knew nothing about the vector fields he had been blathering about:

sol invictus said:
What is wrong with this B-field, Michael?

{Bx,By} = {b*y, a*x}

And why don't you illustrate for us that you understand freshman-level electrodynamics by computing its curl and divergence. If you cannot do that in your head or in a few seconds on paper, you have no business whatsoever discussing this topic.

Can you do that?

Then Michael Mozina entered the fray. He can't compute a divergence or curl either, so he ignored all of the above.

Michael Mozina said:
Show me an experiment in a vacuum that is devoid of plasma entirely where "magnetic reconnection' happens. Then and only then can you tell me it's not the particles in the plasma and circuits doing the "reconnecting".

The experiment I suggested can be set up around a vacuum chamber that's devoid of plasma. Although the vacuum chamber will make the measurements a lot less convenient, the magnetic reconnection happens just the same in the vacuum as in air. Since the vacuum is devoid of particles, plasmas, or circuits, the experiment I suggested refutes Michael Mozina's claim. Decisively.

No wonder Michael Mozina has ignored that experiment.

Michael Mozina said:
It fails to explain what is physically unique and different about magnetic reconnection that can be isolated and shown to be unique and different from ordinary particle collisions inside current carrying plasma, and "induction" which already has a proper scientific term. The fact the circuit topology changes over time is not evidence that "magnetic fields' did the actual reconnecting. It's the "current" that is simply being "redirected', it's not the magnetic lines that "reconnect". They just follow the current.

That's ignorant nonsense.

In the experiment I suggested, there are no "ordinary particle collisions inside current carrying plasma", the "circuit topology" does not change over time, and the magnetic lines do not "just follow the current."

As I wrote on 28 March:

W.D.Clinger said:
This thread is about denials of magnetic reconnection by people who (a) turn out not to understand the freshman-level math and physics they claim to be using as the basis for their arguments, and (b) refuse to read scientific papers that report experimental observations of magnetic reconnection.

You'll fit right in.

Several months ago, I described a simple experiment and suggested you conduct it in your own lab. That experiment can be conducted in a vacuum without changing its results in any way, although the vacuum will make the experiment somewhat more awkward. I suggest you perform the experiment in open air before duplicating it in vacuo.

Your refusal to do lab work does not make you an authority on the subject any more than your refusal to read the relevant literature or to learn the relevant math make you an authority on the subject.

Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Master Poster

Master Poster

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Philosopher

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Philosopher