Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

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 ...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

Michael Mozina said:

If I have to chose between you and Alfven, sorry Tim.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 [...]

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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.

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". 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.

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.

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. 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?

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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".

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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).

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.