Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection IX
I know this for a fact because Mr. Spock accused me of misrepresenting Alfven's position on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" theory, and I know for a fact that that is not the case.
I know for a fact that it is the case, although I doubt you know enough about plasma physics to realize it.
Then I will expect you then to provide *WRITTEN EVIDENCE* from published works of Alfven.
You expect wrong. Like I said, "
I doubt you know enough about plasma physics to realize it." The fact that you make this demand only supports my claim that you don't understand plasma physics well enough to discuss the matter intelligently. The difference between
ideal MHD, which was invented by Alfven, and
non-ideal MHD (or
resistive MHD) was not well developed when Alfven wrote his books. I have and have read
Cosmic Plasma and I can find no indication in it that Alfven ever deals explicitly with non-ideal MHD. All of Alfven's work is
implicitly in the realm of ideal MHD, which is hardly likely to show up as an
explicit statement from Alfven.
However, let me stress once again:
I doubt you know enough about plasma physics to realize it. Behold:
Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection is based on ideal MHD, which deals with plasmas that have zero resistivity.
And since no plasma in the universe has "zero" resistivity, he pretty much *ALWAYS* rejected it with the afformentioned items I listed to Mr. Spock involving INDUCTION at the point of PARTICLE reconnection.
So, Alfven rejects magnetic reconnection
because Alfven assumes zero resistivity plasma and Mozina tells us, "
no plasma in the universe has "zero" resistivity, ...". This is an explicit statement from Mozina that no plasma in the universe is consistent with Alfven's basic assumption of zero resistivity. It follows logically that Mozina should therefore reject Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection, and accept the physical validity of physical magnetic reconnection. However, Mozina actually says in full, "
And since no plasma in the universe has "zero" resistivity, he pretty much *ALWAYS* rejected it ..." This is not a logically self consistent sentence. In fact, it is explicitly self-contradictory! Alfven rejects magnetic reconnection based on an assumption that Mozina agrees is not valid, but Mozina goes on to claim that the
invalidity of Alfven's assumption supports his conclusion that required the
validity of the assumption! Not only do I stand by my claim that Mozina does not know enough about plasma physics to discuss the matter intelligently, it appears that he does not know enough colloquial English or simple logic either.
I want to see them start with an *EXTERNAL* (to themselves) definition of a 'discharge" in a plasma. Is that really too much to ask?
Maybe not "too much" but certainly "the wrong thing" to ask. All of this endless discussion of what is or is not a "discharge" or an "electrical discharge" is nothing but an irrelevant smokescreen designed to avoid discussing the real issue, which is
physics. Drop the inane argument over what name you want to attach to something (an old habit, your argument over the name of "dark energy" is equally inane). Stick to the real issue. Like I said before (
Electric Sun and Coronal Heating III) ...
It seems to me that whether or not one wishes to call the hot plasma an "electrical discharge" is not really the point. It is certainly a poor choice of words, designed to generate confusion in the absence of a constantly repeated definition. But the real issue is the physics that underlies the words. What physically is really happening is the point. This is where Mozina runs into the brick wall of physics and catastrophically fails the test. He rejects magnetic reconnection in favor of exploding double layers, even though physics rejects the latter in favor of the former. He rejects the frozen flux approximation for magnetic fields in a plasma even though physics requires it. These two points are the most fundamental and critical points in this entire discussion. Everything in the physics of coronal heating, coronal loops, flares & CME's stems from these two critical concepts (with some thermodynamics & radiative transfer thrown in, but they don't yet seem to be points of contention).
As long as Mozina rejects these two critical concepts of physics, magnetic reconnection and the frozen flux approximation, then this discussion and all other similar discussions everywhere are doomed at once to become infinite loops of the same thing over & over & over & over again, ad infinitum, as has become the case for this discussion. Quite simply it's Mozina vs. physics, and I choose physics over Mozina every time.
Whether or not Alfven or anyone else rejected magnetic reconnection as a physical process is no longer relevant and has no place in this discussion. It is at best of only historical interest. Either we talk about relevant current physics as we know it to be or we do not. What's it going to be? I have already pointed out in numerous posts that Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection is invalid in the face of current physics as we know it. But All Mozina can do is quote Alfven from 30 years ago, or longer, but Mozina never can, never has and never will actually deal with real physics as we know it. I submit on that basis that Mozina has nothing of value left to contribute to this or any similar discussion.
.
Just as long as we're all clear where it came from 
