Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

[Michael Mozina]

People who do not know what they are talking about also do not know how to talk about it. So they use the language they do know in a sloppy manner, or invent language that nobody will understand except themselves.

Sort of like how you folks still cling to "pseudoscience' so nobody knows what you're talking about? Sort of like how you call a circuit a "magnetic line"?

Your sloppy language indicates sloppy thinking and ignorance.

Like the fact that none of you folks seem to be able to distinguish between ordinary "induction" and "magnetic reconnection' at the level of particle physics?

Once you have projected that kind of persona, it is very hard to reverse the effect.

Ya, I have the same problem with you sometimes and those white light images from the CD. I eventually got over it. You will too. We're all human.

 

[Tubbythin]

Yes, but your brand of "physics"

You mean evidenced-based physics?

is something Alfven himself referred to as "pseudoscience".

Who cares? Who cares who said what? Alfven is not God. Alfven was not omniscient. All that matters is what the evidence says.

Worse yet, none of you seem to be able to explain what is unique in terms of the actual "physics" involved in "magnetic reconnection' that is physically distinguishable from induction and ordinary particle collisions in "current carrying" plasma. There is no "physics" offered by your side, just a "dumbed down" B field rendition of a "circuit reconnection" process.

Once again your ridiculous use of quotation marks makes you post utterly unintelligible.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You mean evidenced-based physics?

What "evidence"? All your actual studied involved current flow inside plasma filaments.

Who cares? Who cares who said what? Alfven is not God. Alfven was not omniscient.

Alfven did however write MHD theory, he understood it very well and he read all the early theories on magnetic reconnection. He clearly wasn't impressed and repeatedly emphasized the E orientation (and lingo) of MHD theory in these scenarios. He drew circuit diagrams where you have 'magnetic lines'.

All that matters is what the evidence says.

Show me one experiment where "magnetic reconnection" happened *WITHOUT* current flowing through the plasma?

Once again your ridiculous use of quotation marks makes you post utterly unintelligible.

Ya, that's the only thing that matters.....oh and spelling....

 

[GeeMack]

Alfven did however write MHD theory, he understood it very well and he read all the early theories on magnetic reconnection.

But what has he read recently, like say, since 1995?

​

Oh, and when you're done having a laugh at the expense of your dead hero, how about you tackle this one you've tried so desperately, but transparently to ignore...

I'd really like to hear your explain how a single coronal loops reaches millions, sometimes tens of millions of degrees Kelvin over a 6000 K photosphere. The "circuit/resistor" approach explain that heating process quite nicely, [...]

So go ahead, do explain, quite nicely if you will, how the "circuit/resistor" approach applies to heating a coronal loop to millions of degrees. Or maybe you were lying when you made that claim.

Oh, and when you get done ignoring that one again, and/or throwing another childish tantrum at the mere thought of being asked to put up or shut up, why don't you answer this one: Why is it that not one single professional physicist on this planet agrees with you on your crackpot conjecture?

 

[Tubbythin]

What "evidence"? All your actual studied involved current flow inside plasma filaments.

My studies? What are you talking about?

Alfven did however write MHD theory, he understood it very well and he read all the early theories on magnetic reconnection. He clearly wasn't impressed and repeatedly emphasized the E orientation (and lingo) of MHD theory in these scenarios. He drew circuit diagrams where you have 'magnetic lines'.

I don't care. Alfven is not God. So long as that remains the case I only care about the scientific evidence.

Show me one experiment where "magnetic reconnection" happened *WITHOUT* current flowing through the plasma?

You've had the bar magnets explained to you many times now.

Ya, that's the only thing that matters.....oh and spelling....

Look, if you're sentences are unintelligible, how do you expect an appropriate answer?

 

[tusenfem]

Michael! I thought you were going to come with your BIG explanation of the plasma ball, and how it is all magnetic flux tubes etc.

And while you are at it, please give your pseudo explanation of reconnecting circuits or particles to explain all the observations by Cluster as in this paper by Runov et al. [2003] or mayby this paper by Runov et al. [2005].

Whoahhhhhh, that cannot be mainstream papers, the are talking about currents ghasp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[tusenfem]

Show me one experiment where "magnetic reconnection" happened *WITHOUT* current flowing through the plasma?

Typical nonsense argument if you would only be in touch with the latest scientific developments on magnetic reconnection since the late 70s early 80s when Alfvén stopped doing MDH and decided resonances in the universe were the ultimate theory.

Please show me one mainstream paper that does not discuss electric currents in reconnection, and while you are at it, please give the circuit reconnection or particle reconnection theory that is supposed to describe it all much better, still waiting for your (or Alfvén's) theories on this, hello Michael, are you there, helloooohhh, oooh oooh oooh, Michael, ael ael ael ..... mmmm deafening silence..........................

 

[DazzaD]

Yes, but your brand of "physics" is something Alfven himself referred to as "pseudoscience". Worse yet, none of you seem to be able to explain what is unique in terms of the actual "physics" involved in "magnetic reconnection' that is physically distinguishable from induction and ordinary particle collisions in "current carrying" plasma. There is no "physics" offered by your side, just a "dumbed down" B field mathematical rendition of a "circuit reconnection" process.

My "brand" of physics is called physics.

Kindly explain what is pseudoscience about mainstream physics, in detail if you please (no hand waving arguments).

As for a "dumbed down" B field...may I be so bold as to question your ability to distinguish what is dumbed down and what isnt if, by your own admission, you are unable to cope with the level of mathematics required to understand say MHD theories.

 

[brantc]

Tim's statement is correct. You are the one with the claim:

and so strictly speaking it is up to you to back it up. This has the advantage that you can find the papers on the "certain field aligned flux tubes" and not bother about all of the 1000's of other papers where MHD works.


Now it looks like you think that any random example/paper/simulation will contain misapplied MHD or features not taken into account.
Here is a random paper that I found (there are lots more) and presented to you yesterday:
Nonlinear propagation of Alfven waves driven by observed photospheric motions: Application to the coronal heating and spicule formation

Waiting for your reply ...

Does this paper have anything to do with reconnection? It seems to be more about coronal heating.

I cant refute that or do anything with that. Too much math speculation. I was wrong. You guys are right.
However there is one part that I was curious about.

The foot point of the flux tube is subjected to an external torque (Ltrq) so as to drive
the Alfv´en waves. The formulation of the external torque is(NO Tex)

The amplitude of the torque, F0, is determined so that the resulting toroidal velocity of the foot point becomes the given velocity time series that reproduces the given velocity spectrum.

Where does the torque come from? That is rotation, isnt it?
Doesnt that say that they pick numbers to match observation without knowing where the torque comes from?

 

[Reality Check]

Kindly explain what is pseudoscience about mainstream physics, in detail if you please (no hand waving arguments).

Michael Mozina is refering to a statement by Alfven about certain applications of MHD being "pseudoscience".
I have never seen the actual statement or its context which might be interesting.

 

[Reality Check]

Does this paper have anything to do with reconnection? It seems to be more about coronal heating.

It is about an MHD simulation involving flux tubes. The question you asked was about MHD simuations involving flux tubes and did not say anything about magnetic reconenction simulations.

Where does the torque come from? That is rotation, isnt it?
Doesnt that say that they pick numbers to match observation without knowing where the torque comes from?

If you are going to ignore the paper then there is no point in discussing it.
But yes torque means there is rotation.

Can I take it that "You guys are right" means that you accept that MHD simulations are as correct as any other computer simulations?

Or is it that that magnetic reconnection happens as described in textbooks and scientific papers?

 

[DazzaD]

Michael Mozina is refering to a statement by Alfven about certain applications of MHD being "pseudoscience".
I have never seen the actual statement or its context which might be interesting.

Hmmm

So "Magnetic Reconnection is pseudo-science." Hannes Alfven appears on www.plasmacosmology.net/tech.html but seemingly nowhere else.

So if that exact phrase is what Hannes uttered, why can it not be easily found elsewhere?

I see what you mean.

 

[brantc]

It is about an MHD simulation involving flux tubes. The question you asked was about MHD simuations involving flux tubes and did not say anything about magnetic reconenction simulations.


If you are going to ignore the paper then there is no point in discussing it.
But yes torque means there is rotation.

Can I take it that "You guys are right" means that you accept that MHD simulations are as correct as any other computer simulations?

Or is it that that magnetic reconnection happens as described in textbooks and scientific papers?

I'm not ignoring the paper. I told you what I thought.

We have performed MHD simulations of Alfven wave propagation along an open flux tube in the solar atmosphere. In our numerical model, Alfven waves are generated by the photospheric granular motion. As the wave generator, we used a derived temporal spectrum of the photospheric granular motion from G-band movies of Hinode/SOT.

I'm sure their math is correct for the model that they are using. Simulations are always correct because they depend on operator input. GIGO. I'm sure their model matches the spectrum they are using for input. And maybe wave resonance heating does work.

I dont have any math that shows their model to be incorrect. But the input assumptions my be incorrect. The idea that flux tube act as resonant cavities to transport energy via Alfven waves is a good idea. Just not the right one.

I have already shown observations of electron beams on the sun that extend from the photosphere to the corona.. That means there is an electric field that is at the base of the beam and at the top.
This is the coronal heating mechanism.


Reconnection as it happens in the text books and the way you guys describe is not the full story.

 

[GeeMack]

Reconnection as it happens in the text books and the way you guys describe is not the full story.

And just so we don't forget the qualifier...

Lets just fix this right now. I have no sources for anything I say.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Reconnection Redux IX

I have already shown observations of electron beams on the sun that extend from the photosphere to the corona.. That means there is an electric field that is at the base of the beam and at the top.
This is the coronal heating mechanism.

Reconnection as it happens in the text books and the way you guys describe is not the full story.

I only know two ways to get an electric field. One is to separate charges (the electric field between the oppositely charged plates of a parallel plate capacitor, for instance) and the other is a time variable magnetic field (Maxwell's equations).

As I see it, the separation of charges is a physically unreasonable explanation for the genesis of the electric field (what separates the charges?). However, it is common knowledge that the dynamo process in a plasma will generate copious magnetic fields that are subject to significant time variability, and therefore quite likely to generate time variable electric fields as a result.

Both induction and magnetic reconnection are processes whereby the time variable magnetic field will generate a time variable electric field which will accelerate charged particles. But as I have already indicated elsewhere (Magnetic Reconnection Redux V, Magnetic Reconnection Redux VII), induction works in the solar plasma on a time scale too long (by orders of magnitude) to be responsible for impulsive particle acceleration. So I don't see any physically reasonable alternative to magnetic reconnection.

Where do you think the electric field comes from and what is the physical justification for your ideas?

 

[Reality Check]

I have already shown observations of electron beams on the sun that extend from the photosphere to the corona.. That means there is an electric field that is at the base of the beam and at the top.
This is the coronal heating mechanism.

The one paper that I find you citing is: Solar Electron Beams Detected in Hard X-Rays and Radio Waves
Authors: Aschwanden, M. J., Benz, A. O., Dennis, B. R., & Schwartz, R. A.
Journal: Astrophysical Journal v.455, p.347

I suggest that you at least read the abstract. The electron beams are the well-known ones from solar flares. These happen at distances of 10,000 kilometers above the photosphere.
There are no observations that the beams extended from the photosphere to the corona.
This has nothing to do with the coronal heating mechanism since the beams originate where the corona is already at millions of degrees.

As other posters have already stated in their replies to that post: there is no problem with electrical fields at the sites of solar flares creating these electron beams. In fact there is no problem with electrical fields creating bursts of electrons in any magnetic reconnection event. That is why it is called electromagnetism. Look at the role of current sheets in magnetic reconnection.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hmmm



So "Magnetic Reconnection is pseudo-science." Hannes Alfven appears on www.plasmacosmology.net/tech.html but seemingly nowhere else.

So if that exact phrase is what Hannes uttered, why can it not be easily found elsewhere?

I see what you mean.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double Layers In Astrophysics.pdf

Try page 18 or do a search on 'pseudoscience'. He's not kind.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Magnetic reconnection at 3D null points: effect of magnetic field asymmetry
Authors: A. K. Al-Hachami, D. I. Pontin
(Submitted on 31 Aug 2009 (v1), last revised 1 Feb 2010 (this version, v2))

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to investigate the properties of magnetic reconnection at a 3D null point, with respect to their dependence on the symmetry of the magnetic field around the null. In particular we examine the rate of flux transport across the null point with symmetric/asymmetric diffusion regions, as well as how the current sheet forms in time, and its properties. Mathematical modelling and finite difference resistive MHD simulations are used. It is found that the basic structure of the mode of magnetic reconnection considered is unaffected by varying the magnetic field symmetry, that is, the plasma flow is found cross both the spine and fan of the null. However, the peak intensity and dimensions of the current sheet are dependent on the symmetry/ asymmetry of the field lines. As a result, the reconnection rate is also found to be strongly dependent on the field asymmetry.

So in this one the reconnection rate is set by the symetry/asymmetry of the field lines.

What experiment/evidence is there to support this theoretical rate.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Reconnection Rate Not Arbitrarily Set II

Magnetic reconnection at 3D null points: effect of magnetic field asymmetry
Authors: A. K. Al-Hachami, D. I. Pontin
(Submitted on 31 Aug 2009 (v1), last revised 1 Feb 2010 (this version, v2))

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to investigate the properties of magnetic reconnection at a 3D null point, with respect to their dependence on the symmetry of the magnetic field around the null. In particular we examine the rate of flux transport across the null point with symmetric/asymmetric diffusion regions, as well as how the current sheet forms in time, and its properties. Mathematical modelling and finite difference resistive MHD simulations are used. It is found that the basic structure of the mode of magnetic reconnection considered is unaffected by varying the magnetic field symmetry, that is, the plasma flow is found cross both the spine and fan of the null. However, the peak intensity and dimensions of the current sheet are dependent on the symmetry/ asymmetry of the field lines. As a result, the reconnection rate is also found to be strongly dependent on the field asymmetry.

So in this one the reconnection rate is set by the symetry/asymmetry of the field lines.

What experiment/evidence is there to support this theoretical rate.

No, the reaction rate is not set at all, it is calculated, as s function of the asymmetry, which is in fact exactly what the abstract actually says ("The aim of this paper is to investigate the properties of magnetic reconnection at a 3D null point, with respect to their dependence on the symmetry of the magnetic field around the null."). If you read the paper (I linked the ADS page to the title in your quote) and see the description of the simulation you will find that what I have said is in fact the case.

You have made the same trivial mistake before. What is your problem reading simple English? This is the second time you have claimed that a paper arbitrarily set the reconnection rate because you could not read plain English. I submit that if you do that a third time it might be embarrassing.

 

[Zeuzzz]

No, the reaction rate is not set at all, it is calculated, as s function of the asymmetry, which is in fact exactly what the abstract actually says ("The aim of this paper is to investigate the properties of magnetic reconnection at a 3D null point, with respect to their dependence on the symmetry of the magnetic field around the null."). If you read the paper (I linked the ADS page to the title in your quote) and see the description of the simulation you will find that what I have said is in fact the case.

You have made the same trivial mistake before. What is your problem reading simple English? This is the second time you have claimed that a paper arbitrarily set the reconnection rate because you could not read plain English. I submit that if you do that a third time it might be embarrassing.

Tim, you did not answer the question.

And I did not say anything about anything being arbitrarily set in that post, you created a strawman.