Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

Tubbythin said:

I answered this before at some point. No I haven't, why would I?

Click to expand...

I don't really think it matters in your case specifically TBT, since you don't seem to have any overt chips on your shoulder toward PC theory. I am however curious about the hard core "haters" like Tim and RC and GM that have played the role of "skeptic" toward EU/PC oriented idea for years now, in Tim's case, longer than I've even been a PC advocate.

AFAIK, tusenfem and I are the only ones to have actually read Alfven's book on this topic.

I'm still waiting for you folks to pick an *EXPERIMENT* that satisfied Alfven's list of requirements, and/or that actually attempted to "rule out" other more mundane processes in plasma. If you're going to make the extraordinary claim that an entirely new and unique energy release mechanism is necessary to explain the event, the least you folks could do is provide a *LITTLE* evidence to support that claim. Alfven explained the energy release process in terms of circuit energy, induction and double layer kinetic energy transfers inside a double layer. I see *NO* evidence that any attempt was *EVER* made to eliminate induction and/or particle collisions before *LEAPING* to the conclusion that "magnetic reconnection did it".

Reality Check said:

Why should any one bother to read a 30 year old book when there are better modern books on plasma physics?
I for one have not bothered.

Click to expand...

That's really sad IMO. You've been playing the role of PC inquisitor for many years now, yet all that time you've argued and continue to argue from a place of complete and utter ignorance of Alfven's actual writings and statements on these topics.

You seem to have *NO IDEA* or appreciation for the particle/circuit approach to physics. What you do "pretend" to know, you simply "misunderstand" at a fundamental level, specifically your *DENIAL* of a "discharge' in a plasma!

It's absurd to argue with you on this topic because it's *EXACTLY* like arguing with a creationist. Of course you don't really understand Alfven's basic objections to MR theory, because YOU'VE NEVER READ HIS BOOK, nor commented on his double layer papers. Worse yet, you refuse to *EVER* read his book for yourself, but you'll continue to claim you know more about MR theory than the guy the wrote MHD theory and who no doubt read HUNDREDS of papers on the topic. Oy Vey.

Michael Mozina said:

I'm still waiting for you folks to pick an *EXPERIMENT* that satisfied Alfven's list of requirements, and/or that actually attempted to "rule out" other more mundane processes in plasma. If you're going to make the extraordinary claim that an entirely new and unique energy release mechanism is necessary to explain the event, the least you folks could do is provide a *LITTLE* evidence to support that claim. Alfven explained the energy release process in terms of circuit energy, induction and double layer kinetic energy transfers inside a double layer. I see *NO* evidence that any attempt was *EVER* made to eliminate induction and/or particle collisions before *LEAPING* to the conclusion that "magnetic reconnection did it".

Click to expand...

Magnetic reconnection is pretty mundane. You've been repeatedly shown why induction cannot be the cause.

Michael Mozina said:

That's really sad IMO. You've been playing the role of PC inquisitor for many years now, yet all that time you've argued and continue to argue from a place of complete and utter ignorance of Alfven's actual writings and statements on these topics.

Click to expand...

It is completely irrelevant whether anyone has or has not read Alfven's book. All that is relevant is whether "their" preferred theory matches the data and, if so, whether it matches the data better than any other theory we have. Science isn't a book club.

tusenfem said:

I am sorry to tell you that circuit theory is an ever greater approximation of plasma physcis than MHD. Circuit theory only works on scales that are large with respect to all processes that are happening, which is much much larger than the gyro radius of the heaviest ion which sets the limit for MDH.

However, I am sure you have a complete different view on what circuit theory is supposed to mean.

Click to expand...

I must admit that I do have some sympathy for some of your statements. I can appreciate the fact that circuit theory tends to be a "larger scale" view of events than the particle physics level that you can play with in MHD theory.

Having said that however, you're taking two 'current carrying filaments' and short circuiting them together. You *COULD* chose to add a few resistors and extra circuits to express the idea of 'reconnection' if you wanted to however, so it's not as though circuit theory cannot be expressed in small enough units to explain any necessary event in plasma.

Where your beliefs tend to fall apart IMO is in the lab. At the smallest scales, it's the KINETIC ENERGY transfer of particles to particles and the kinetic energy of the EM field to particles (properly called induction) that do the real work. You're simply 'mislabeling' the process, and I've yet to see any *EXPERIMENT* that actually attempted to RULE OUT other more mundane processes. In fact many of the papers I've read *ASSUME* the electric field remained constant even though the filament diameter changes over time. That's just goofy. Not only have they *NOT* made any effort to rule out particle collisions and/or induction processes, they seem to be going out of their way to *IGNORE* these more likely culprits in favor of their pet theory. Nowhere in the published world have I seen a real *EXPERIMENT* that attempted to rule out induction and particle kinetic energy as the likely culprits, even though these *ARE* the likely culprits according to other branches of physics, and according to Alfven himself!

Michael Mozina said:

That's really sad IMO. You've been playing the role of PC inquisitor for many years now, yet all that time you've argued and continue to argue from a place of complete and utter ignorance of Alfven's actual writings and statements on these topics.

Click to expand...

That is really idiotic IOM. Alfven had nothing to do with the modern PC non-science.

Michael Mozina said:

You seem to have *NO IDEA* or appreciation for the particle/circuit approach to physics.
..snipped insane creationist rant....

Click to expand...

I have *PLENTY OF AN IDEA* and lots of appreciation for the particle and circuit approach to physics. For example I know what they are, unlike you .

Michael Mozina said:

Of course you don't really understand Alfven's basic objections to MR theory, because YOU'VE NEVER READ HIS BOOK, nor commented on his double layer papers..

Click to expand...

You are lying. I have commented on his double layer papers.

I understand that you are misinterpreting Alfvens baics objections to MR theory. It is not that it is wrong. It is that it is sometimnes misapplied.

I DO NOT NEED TO READ HIS BOOK. I HAVE READ MORE MODERN PLASMA PHYSICS BOOKS.

Michael Mozina said:

I'm still waiting for you folks to pick an *EXPERIMENT* that satisfied Alfven's list of requirements, and/or that actually attempted to "rule out" other more mundane processes in plasma.

Click to expand...

Try: Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986
This rules out the role of DLs in magnetic reconnection by showing that current disruption (and thus DLs) happens afer the reconnection.

Also look at the Cluster observations mentioned earlier in the thread.

Tubbythin said:

It is completely irrelevant whether anyone has or has not read Alfven's book. All that is relevant is whether "their" preferred theory matches the data and, if so, whether it matches the data better than any other theory we have. Science isn't a book club.

Click to expand...

Know, but it is a "knowledge club". It's one thing to argue against an idea based on a thorough understanding of the topic. It's quite another to argue from a place of ignorance of concept.

IMO most of the 'problem' with the haters is that they've never really read Alfven's "particle/circuit' approach to physics, so they really don't 'get it'. Instead of simply admitting it can be viewed as a circuit, they *INSIST* it can only be expressed as "magnetic lines of current carrying particles that "magnetically reconnect"".

The real problem is that MR theory is unnecessary. It's a pink albatross because Alfven already explained these double layer events *WITHOUT* resorting to any new forms of energy exchange. MR theory is *UNNECESSARY* every time we find a "double layer", in fact Alfven claimed that the mere presence of a double layer was another nail in the coffin of MR theory. It's not necessary. It's completely unnecessary when a double layer forms. In an Occum's razor debate, MR theory loses. Not a single real lab experiment done to date meets Alfven's list of experimental criteria. They all BEGIN AND END with ELECTRON flow and other charged particle flow, the one thing Alfven explicitly rejects in terms of MR theory! In every such case he claimed it was "misleading' to call the energy exchange process "magnetic reconnection" and he immediately switched to a particle/circuit orientation. In fact his entire double layer paper was specifically intended to explain the behaviors of plasma that are found in the region between the current carrying filaments and the double layer that forms between them if and when they happen to 'reconnect'.

Michael Mozina said:

It's one thing to argue against an idea based on a thorough understanding of the topic. It's quite another to argue from a place of ignorance of concept.

Click to expand...

Reality Check said:

Try: Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986
This rules out the role of DLs in magnetic reconnection by showing that current disruption (and thus DLs) happens afer the reconnection.

Also look at the Cluster observations mentioned earlier in the thread.

Click to expand...

Is every MR proponent in agreement that this is the "best" demonstration of a methodical scientific attempt to eliminate other options from consideration before *LEAPING* to the conclusion that MR did it?

Michael Mozina said:

I must admit that I do have some sympathy for some of your statements. I can appreciate the fact that circuit theory tends to be a "larger scale" view of events than the particle physics level that you can play with in MHD theory.

Having said that however, you're taking two 'current carrying filaments' and short circuiting them together. You *COULD* chose to add a few resistors and extra circuits to express the idea of 'reconnection' if you wanted to however, so it's not as though circuit theory cannot be expressed in small enough units to explain any necessary event in plasma.

Click to expand...

The argument that there are problems with magnetic reconnection hasn't been supported by adding a few resistors here and some extra circuits there? Whose job is that? It would appear that none of the proponents of that "problems with magnetic reconnection" position have the qualifications in math and physics to actually do the work necessary to flesh out that argument. Or maybe it's just a goofy argument without any scientific merit at all.

Where your beliefs tend to fall apart IMO is in the lab. At the smallest scales, it's the KINETIC ENERGY transfer of particles to particles and the kinetic energy of the EM field to particles (properly called induction) that do the real work. You're simply 'mislabeling' the process, and I've yet to see any *EXPERIMENT* that actually attempted to RULE OUT other more mundane processes. In fact many of the papers I've read *ASSUME* the electric field remained constant even though the filament diameter changes over time. That's just goofy. Not only have they *NOT* made any effort to rule out particle collisions and/or induction processes, they seem to be going out of their way to *IGNORE* these more likely culprits in favor of their pet theory. Nowhere in the published world have I seen a real *EXPERIMENT* that attempted to rule out induction and particle kinetic energy as the likely culprits, even though these *ARE* the likely culprits according to other branches of physics, and according to Alfven himself!

Click to expand...

The fact that this is nothing more than a long rambling argument from incredulity and ignorance is noted.

Michael Mozina said:

Is every MR proponent in agreement that this is the "best" demonstration of a methodical scientific attempt to eliminate other options from consideration before *LEAPING* to the conclusion that MR did it?

Click to expand...

Nobody seems to have leaped to any such conclusion. The suggestion that anyone has is a straw man. And constructing a straw man argument is well understood to be dishonest.

Michael Mozina said:

Is every MR proponent in agreement that this is the "best" demonstration of a methodical scientific attempt to eliminate other options from consideration before *LEAPING* to the conclusion that MR did it?

Click to expand...

That is dumb - it is not the "best" experimental demonstration that magnetic reconnection is caused by magnetic reconnection!

It is one of hundreds (?) of experiments that shows it. Any magnetic reconnection experiment that matches the theory confirms the theory.

The other people who have knowledge of plasma physics will have their own favourite experiments. I suspect that tusenfem with his expertise in space physics will cite the Cluster observations.

But we can start with:
Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986
which clearly shows (read the abstract, see Fig 9) that current disruption (and thus DLs) happens afer the reconnection.

Michael Mozina said:

Know, but it is a "knowledge club". It's one thing to argue against an idea based on a thorough understanding of the topic. It's quite another to argue from a place of ignorance of concept.

Click to expand...

By Alfven's work isn't the final say. Science has moved on since then. Nobody has time to read everything. Subsequent works have synthesized the best bits of Alfven's work with more recent advancements in theoretical, experimental and computational physics. As a result they are a far more useful tool for the modern day plasma physicist than Alfven's work.

IMO most of the 'problem' with the haters is that they've never really read Alfven's "particle/circuit' approach to physics, so they really don't 'get it'. Instead of simply admitting it can be viewed as a circuit, they *INSIST* it can only be expressed as "magnetic lines of current carrying particles that "magnetically reconnect"".

Click to expand...

You seem to be the one insisting we have to do something a certain way. If it gives the right results I couldn't care less, personally.

The real problem is that MR theory is unnecessary. It's a pink albatross because Alfven already explained these double layer events *WITHOUT* resorting to any new forms of energy exchange.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? In what way is MR a new form of energy exchange?

MR theory is *UNNECESSARY* every time we find a "double layer", in fact Alfven claimed that the mere presence of a double layer was another nail in the coffin of MR theory.

Click to expand...

Then you'll be able to give us an exact quote together with page and line number for that won't you?

It's not necessary. It's completely unnecessary when a double layer forms. In an Occum's razor debate, MR theory loses.

Click to expand...

Michael, you have repeatedly shown that you do not understand what Occam's razor means.

Not a single real lab experiment done to date meets Alfven's list of experimental criteria.

Click to expand...

The world of plasma physics has moved on Michael. You're stuck in the past while everyone else has advanced.

They all BEGIN AND END with ELECTRON flow and other charged particle flow, the one thing Alfven explicitly rejects in terms of MR theory! In every such case he claimed it was "misleading' to call the energy exchange process "magnetic reconnection" and he immediately switched to a particle/circuit orientation. In fact his entire double layer paper was specifically intended to explain the behaviors of plasma that are found in the region between the current carrying filaments and the double layer that forms between them if and when they happen to 'reconnect'.

Click to expand...

The only one thing you've ever shown is that he rejects, in certain situations, the frozen in field approximation for MHD.

Michael Mozina said:

MR theory is *UNNECESSARY* every time we find a "double layer",

Click to expand...

You are wrong:
Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986
which clearly shows (read the abstract, see Fig 9) that current disruption (and thus DLs) happens afer the reconnection.

Michael Mozina said:

in fact Alfven claimed that the mere presence of a double layer was another nail in the coffin of MR theory.

Click to expand...

Where does Alfven say that the presence of double layers invalidates MR theory?
Quote his actual words not what you thnk he said.
I suspect this will be a fantasy that his treatment of solar flares using circuit models including DLs somehow invalidates MR theory. That is idiotic as has been already explained to you

1. Circuit theory is a bigger approximation than MR theory.
2. Alfven's objection to MR theory was hwher it was being applied, not the theory itself.
3. There have been 30 years of progress since Alven's book. MR theory has advanced and is more widely applicable.

The science is that DLs are not part of MR theory for the really basic reason that MR theory models magnetic reconnection.

DLs cannot be treated in the very field that Alfven started and was an expoert it: Magnetohydrodynamics.
That is why Alfven used circuit theory to model them.

Tubbythin said:

By Alfven's work isn't the final say.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was the final say, but it's certainly *A SAY*, and he had one.

Science has moved on since then. Nobody has time to read everything. Subsequent works have synthesized the best bits of Alfven's work with more recent advancements in theoretical, experimental and computational physics. As a result they are a far more useful tool for the modern day plasma physicist than Alfven's work.

Click to expand...

If that were so, you should be able to empirically demonstrate it. So far, I've yet to see it. Admittedly I haven't gone through RC's link yet until you all agree it's *THE* paper on this topic. Once you're in agreement that it's a "good' paper, I'll be happy to pick it apart for you.

You seem to be the one insisting we have to do something a certain way. If it gives the right results I couldn't care less, personally.

Click to expand...

Well, if you don't do it a "certain way', you haven't really eliminated any of the other more likely culprits from consideration. The passing of kinetic energy from one particle to another is not 'magnetic reconnection". The passing of kinetic energy from the EM field to a charged particle is *INDUCTION*, not "magnetic reconnection". IF you can't and haven't eliminated these two standard kinetic energy transfer processes, how do you know 'magnetic reconnection did it"?

What are you talking about? In what way is MR a new form of energy exchange?

Click to expand...

It's not? They why not call it *INDUCTION* or CIRCUIT reconnection? When did any pure magnetic lines "reconnect"?

Then you'll be able to give us an exact quote together with page and line number for that won't you?

Click to expand...

Ya. I already posted his double layer paper in fact.

Michael, you have repeatedly shown that you do not understand what Occam's razor means.

Click to expand...

You've repeatedly shown me that you folks do not care one iota about competing theories and the fact MR theory is NOT any sort of 'new' energy exchange process. It's simply a dumb name for what amounts to a "short circuit" in plasmas.

The world of plasma physics has moved on Michael. You're stuck in the past while everyone else has advanced.

Click to expand...

I've seen what passes for 'advancement' in your industry. You "moved beyond" Birkeland's auroral theories for 60 years too until that belief system came crashing down. I imagine you'll stick to MR theory for another 100 years too just to avoid using the term 'discharge" too.

The only one thing you've ever shown is that he rejects, in certain situations, the frozen in field approximation for MHD.

Click to expand...

Boloney. I showed you the quote where he rejects the concept *ANYTIME* there is current flow involved and all the experiments that you've cited DEPEND on current flow. In fact he calls the whole formation of a double layer a 'nail in the coffin' of that theory and specifically rejects that theory anytime and every single time that electrical current crosses the surface.

Michael Mozina said:

I didn't say it was the final say, but it's certainly *A SAY*, and he had one.

Click to expand...

So why insist everyone should be clued up on exactly what he said? Are you clued up on exactly what Maxwell said? Why not? Surely he is a more significant figure from history when it comes to electromagnetism than Alfven? What about Faraday? Gauss?

If that were so, you should be able to empirically demonstrate it. So far, I've yet to see it. Admittedly I haven't gone through RC's link yet until you all agree it's *THE* paper on this topic. Once you're in agreement that it's a "good' paper, I'll be happy to pick it apart for you.

Click to expand...

The same way you hilariously ripped to shreds' Guth's paper whilst being completely incapable of even defining pressure? Or by comparing their paper with (other) quantitive data sets?

Well, if you don't do it a "certain way', you haven't really eliminated any of the other more likely culprits from consideration. The passing of kinetic energy from one particle to another is not 'magnetic reconnection". The passing of kinetic energy from the EM field to a charged particle is *INDUCTION*, not "magnetic reconnection". IF you can't and haven't eliminated these two standard kinetic energy transfer processes, how do you know 'magnetic reconnection did it"?

Click to expand...

There is nothing non-standard about magnetic reconnection. Nor have you provided the slightest shred to of quantitative evidence that other "culprits" are more likely.

It's not? They why not call it *INDUCTION* or CIRCUIT reconnection?

Click to expand...

Ok, I'll call MR induction if you change your name to... I dunno... Harold the Teapot.

When did any pure magnetic lines "reconnect"?

Click to expand...

What is a pure magnetic line?

Ya. I already posted his double layer paper in fact.

Click to expand...

What was the exact quote, page and line number?

You've repeatedly shown me that you folks do not care one iota about competing theories and the fact MR theory is NOT any sort of 'new' energy exchange process.

Click to expand...

No, we've repeatedly shown you that we do not care for your deification and misrepresentation of a figure from scientific history. When you can provide quantiative arguments to either back-up your claims or refute others then people will care what you have to say.

It's simply a dumb name for what amounts to a "short circuit" in plasmas.

Click to expand...

And you will now show us quantitatively how MR is the same as a short circuit...

I've seen what passes for 'advancement' in your industry. You "moved beyond" Birkeland's auroral theories for 60 years too until that belief system came crashing down.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Physics is an industry where claims are expected to be backed up by quantitative evidence. You have repeatedly failed to provide any to back up your claims. Don't blame others, or accuse them of ignorance, for your failure to provided quantitative support for your ramblings.

I imagine you'll stick to MR theory for another 100 years too just to avoid using the term 'discharge" too.

Click to expand...

And I'll imagine you'll have a huff at people on the internet for ignoring you when you fail to provide quantitative support for your claims for at least the next thirty years.

Boloney. I showed you the quote where he rejects the concept *ANYTIME* there is current flow involved and all the experiments that you've cited DEPEND on current flow. In fact he calls the whole formation of a double layer a 'nail in the coffin' of that theory and specifically rejects that theory anytime and every single time that electrical current crosses the surface.

Click to expand...

The only quote I recall seeing is quite explicit about the frozen in field bit. Now I'm a bit busy at the minute so I can't sure I haven't forgotten. But anyway, it doesn't really matter what Alfven said. Since I do not believe Alfven to be the one true God I expect his claims to be subject to the same degree of quantitative rigour as any other physicist. If you can't show what you claim quantitatively then you do not have a leg to stand on. The words of Alfven are completely and utterly irrelevant.

Michael Mozina, Why are you ignoring over 30 years of advances in plasma physics

Michael Mozina said:

Boloney. I showed you the quote where he rejects the concept *ANYTIME* there is current flow involved and all the experiments that you've cited DEPEND on current flow.

Click to expand...

Boloney, MM.
It is the use of MR theories that do not satisfy the critera that there is no electric current across a surface that Alfven commented on in 1981.
Cosmic Plasma:

113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES
What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface . In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface. All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention.

Click to expand...

He was right for the state of plasma physics when he wrote the book before 1981.

Plasma scientists know this. That is why they have spent the last 30 years or more that you are ignoring extending MHD so that it is applicable when there is electric current across a surface, e.g.

• Resistive MHD
• Extended MHD
• Two fluid MHD
• Hall MHD

Michael Mozina,Why are you ignoring over 30 years of advances in plasma physics?

Michael Mozina, Citation for the "nail in the coffin" of MR theory quote

Michael Mozina said:

In fact he calls the whole formation of a double layer a 'nail in the coffin' of that theory and specifically rejects that theory anytime and every single time that electrical current crosses the surface.

Click to expand...

Michael Mozina,
Citation (and the actual quote would be good) for the "nail in the coffin" of MR theory quote?

Michael Mozina said:

Deny it all you like, but I already did that for you!

Click to expand...

That is, of course, a lie. Nobody in this discussion has pointed out the "problems with magnetic reconnection" specifically, mathematically, objectively, and scientifically, citing contemporary sources, and in a way that agrees with the known laws of physics.

You can't even demonstrate that magnetic reconnection is actually a unique energy release mechanism in the first place! You can't even isolate it from induction or ordinary collision processes in plasma, nor can you tell me what is physically unique about MR theory compared to ordinary induction and ordinary particle processes inside a double layer.

Click to expand...

Of course I'd have to be an idiot to believe I have any obligation to demonstrate anything in this thread. The topic is "Problems With Magnetic Reconnection". The burden of responsibility falls to those who believe there are some such problems. Magnetic reconnection seems to be a fairly mundane, well accepted physical phenomenon, pretty fully supported by contemporary research. Nobody has pointed out that any significant problems exist.

It might be mentioned, once again, that physics has progressed substantially in the past 30 years, and 50 years, and 100 years. Any scientific claim that relies exclusively on cherry picked words and phrases from material several decades old, and preached by a handful of people who clearly don't possess the qualifications to understand the physics involved, can reasonably be written off as nonsense.