Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

[tusenfem]

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

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

Unfortunately, what Alfvén did not realize is that MHD breaks down near what he calls a "magnentic merging" region. First the ions demagnetize and then the electrons demagnetize. Any observations that are made around "magnetic merging" regions, like the two papers by Runov et al. that I mentioned above cannot be explained by simply putting in a double layer, even though I love DLs to death, it just cannot be done.

Alfvén was a great physicist/engineer, however, he also had his failings and one was his rejection of magnetic reconnection. This is mainly because of his "too strict" holding on to MHD, not seeing that it can break down, and thus maintaining the "frozen in" condition of the field close to the X-point, where it is no longer valid.

 

[sol invictus]

Who cares what Alfven thought about magnetic reconnection? Einstein discovered relativity, and yet was completely wrong about black holes. He won the Nobel for the photoelectric effect (which is quantum), but refused to accept quantum mechanics.

Along with the fact that they spend significant fractions of their lifespan arguing over physics they don't understand at all and never take the time to learn, this fetishistic hero worship of Alfven is another mind-bogglingly bizarre thing about EU freaks.

 

[tusenfem]

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.

The study of the IMF clock angle dependence of reconnection at the magnetopause (which is the "symmetry/asymmetry" of the field lines) is an important topic in space physics. Although a numerical paper, this paper by Li et al. (2008) should be a good starting point and then search back through the references.

 

[GeeMack]

Oh Michael, you missed this post. You're still going to explain, quite nicely of course, how the "circuit/resistor" approach applies to heating a coronal loop to millions of degrees. Or can we expect another demonstration of your ignorance? Or maybe you were lying when you made that claim?

Also, your continued ignorance of this issue is noted: Why is it that not one single professional physicist on Earth agrees with you on your inane conjecture?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Unfortunately, what Alfvén did not realize is that MHD breaks down near what he calls a "magnentic merging" region.

Boloney. He knew it formed a "double layer" and that's how he treated it. Did you not read the paper or his quotes on this topic?

No self respecting electrical engineer would ever make the bonehead mistake of claiming that a "full continuum", without beginning or end could ever "disconnect" or "reconnect" to any other full continuum. He treated these scenarios from the "particle/circuit" orientation of MHD theory, just like that paper I cited on macroscopic circuits that cite his earlier work.

You folks are like blind mice, trying to use the B "field" orientation to explain *EVERYTHING* that happens in plasma, rather than using both the E and B orientations as Alfven did. You therefore treat everything as 'magnetic yada, yada, yada", even discharges in plasma. You might as well claim that any electrical discharges is a "magnetic reconnection' event because the magnetic field topologies certainly change over time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Let me see you physically demonstrate that nifty trick. Birkeland's empirical experiments showed that they start at the "surface". How the heck would a "beam" form in pure plasma if not inside a "magnetic rope", another "current carrying" structure?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Who cares what Alfven thought about magnetic reconnection?

I care. You should care too. He lived into the 90's and saw all sorts of variations of "magnetic reconnection" theory sol. He certainly understood the math. He certainly understood the *physics* too, which is why he would never have called that theory anything other than pseudoscience. That's all it ever will be too.

Einstein discovered relativity, and yet was completely wrong about black holes.

Not unless you can absolutely demonstrate they have "infinite density" at a "point". That seems to be his primary objection, and I fail to see how you'd ever prove him wrong on that point.

He won the Nobel for the photoelectric effect (which is quantum), but refused to accept quantum mechanics.

Given time, he would have come around due to empirical experiments.

All your real (some of them are actually real) "experiments" involve "current flow", and "double layers" between "plasma filaments". Alfven simply treated them as circuits and double layers. That would not have impressed him one iota.

Along with the fact that they spend significant fractions of their lifespan arguing over physics they don't understand at all and never take the time to learn, this fetishistic hero worship of Alfven is another mind-bogglingly bizarre thing about EU freaks.

I can't even recall if you read Cosmic Plasma or any of his papers. Yes, no, maybe so?

 

[brantc]

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.

Electron beams require an electric field at both ends of the beam. It is not a jet.

ABSTRACT

Using the Large-Angle Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) aboard the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft, we have imaged polar plumes extending 30 R⊙ from disk center in the image plane and ~45 R⊙ in three-dimensional space, a factor of 2–3 farther than previous imaging measurements and well into the constant-velocity regime of wind flow.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/546/1/569/50129.text.html

I dont know if the solar plumes could be considered electron beams.

 

[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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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.

But we know flux tubes helicity or twistedness comes from J x B > 0.

So why do they make up some parameter???

 

[brantc]

Reconnection in Solar Flares: Outstanding Questions
Received 2007 April 9; accepted 2009 April 10
Abstract. Space observations of solar flares such as those from Yohkoh, SOHO,TRACE, and RHESSI have revealed a lot of observational evidence of magnetic reconnection in solar flares: cusp-shaped arcades, reconnection inflows, plasmoids, etc. Thus it has been established, at least phenomenologically, that magnetic reconnection does occur in solar flares. However, a number of fundamental questions and puzzles still remain in the physics of reconnection in solar flares. In this paper, we discuss the recent progresses and future prospects in the study of magnetic reconnection in solar flares from both theoretical and observational points of view.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jaa/jun2009/JAA623.pdf

However, the theories of magnetic reconnection itself still have fundamental difficulties. The authors’ list of the remaining outstanding problems in the physics of reconnection is as following:
• How is fast reconnection realized in a highly conducting plasma?
• What is and what determines the rate of reconnection?
• Is reconnection in the solar corona Petschek type, generalized Sweet–Parker type, or other type? Can we find slow and fast shocks?
• What is the nature of coupling between micro and macro scales?
• What is the origin of anomalous resistivity?
• What is the acceleration mechanism of non-thermal particles?
• What is the energy build-up process and the triggering mechanism of reconnection
in solar flares ?
• What are the differences of reconnection in different plasma environment?
• What are the three-dimensional topology and dynamics?
We are aware that this is a biased list, perhaps biased towards macroscopic aspects

5. Conclusion
In this paper we have discussed a selected issue on the outstanding questions of the physics of magnetic reconnection. Due to the space restriction we did not discuss some very important issues such as particle acceleration (Aschwanden 2002) and three dimensionality
(Priest & Forbes 1992; Isobe et al. 2002; Tripathi et al. 2006).

So we have a starting place.

 

[Tubbythin]

I care. You should care too. He lived into the 90's and saw all sorts of variations of "magnetic reconnection" theory sol. He certainly understood the math. He certainly understood the *physics* too, which is why he would never have called that theory anything other than pseudoscience. That's all it ever will be too.

Ok Michael. Since he certainly understood the physics, prove that he understood it better than anyone else in the world who disagrees with him.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Reconnection Rate Not Arbitrarily Set III

And I did not say anything about anything being arbitrarily set in that post ...

Oh yes you did!

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

You said "set". You explicitly say in your post that the reconnection rate is set. I am following your lead and responding to what you say. You said "set". If you can't figure out how to say what you mean, don't blame me for not being able to read your mind.

Tim, you did not answer the question.

I don't know if there is a theoretical justification or not, but the question is only marginally relevant to the paper in any case. Why does there need to be a theoretical justification? Just read the first sentence of the 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." The point of the paper is to find out if there is a relationship between asymmetry and reconnection rate. It is an exploration of a question and requires no precondition in either theory or practice. But the answer they come to will lead to further experimental & theoretical explorations.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ok Michael. Since he certainly understood the physics, prove that he understood it better than anyone else in the world who disagrees with him.

IMO it's their responsibility to do that. He did in fact invent the mathematical formulas and he was an electrical engineer. His entire approach is fully consistent with electrical theory and fully consistent with particle physics theory. Magnetic reconnection theory is consistent with neither branch of physics. That alone says volumes as to the legitimacy of his approach and the stupidity of theirs.

 

[Ziggurat]

IMO it's their responsibility to do that.

That's where you're wrong. They don't have to prove anything about Alfven, all they have to do is back up their own work. And they do. YOU are the one making a claim about Alfven's authority, so the burden rests with you.

He did in fact invent the mathematical formulas and he was an electrical engineer.

Whoop-de-do.

His entire approach is fully consistent with electrical theory and fully consistent with particle physics theory. Magnetic reconnection theory is consistent with neither branch of physics.

You keep saying that, but you fail every single time to ever justify it. If there's an inconsistency, you should be able to demonstrate that quantitatively. But you have failed to ever do so. Plenty of us remember past claims that magnetic reconnection violated Gauss's law. But when faced with an actual equation for a field which exhibits magnetic reconnection, you were proven wrong. Your current objections are simply hand-waving and appeals to authority.

That alone says volumes as to the legitimacy of his approach and the stupidity of theirs.

No, Michael. It says volumes as to your own ignorance and inability to do even basic physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's where you're wrong. They don't have to prove anything about Alfven, all they have to do is back up their own work. And they do.

http://zpinch.sandia.gov/

Boloney you do. Here's physical proof that "discharges" in plasma can create million degree plasma.

YOU are the one making a claim about Alfven's authority, so the burden rests with you.

I just provided you with a burden of proof that "discharges' can produce high temperature plasma. Let's see your "proof" that this can be done with "magnetic reconnection".

How long shall I expect to have to hold my breath?

 

[Ziggurat]

http://zpinch.sandia.gov/

Boloney you do. Here's physical proof that "discharges" in plasma can create million degree plasma.

And it's irrelevant. Conditions in the Z-machine don't resemble conditions in the sun. And nobody with half a brain is claiming they do.

I just provided you with a burden of proof that "discharges' can produce high temperature plasma.

Um... first off, you clearly don't know what the term "burden of proof" means, because what you provided was not a burden of proof, but proof. And secondly, it's irrelevant. Nobody is contesting that discharges can produce high temperature plasmas. That's not the issue. The very fact that you think it is demonstrates, once again, how little you know. Or perhaps you do know, and are just being dishonest. Nah, you don't know.

Let's see your "proof" that this can be done with "magnetic reconnection".

The evidence for magnetic reconnection is vast, and has been presented to you many times before. You have never shown that evidence to be wrong.

How long shall I expect to have to hold my breath?

That's pretty funny, coming from you. You have been challenged so many times to defend or even quantify your own ideas, yet you never have.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And it's irrelevant. Conditions in the Z-machine don't resemble conditions in the sun.

You're in complete and total denial.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

Those are "macroscopic circuits". Denial is an ugly thing. There's damn little anyone but you can do about it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The evidence for magnetic reconnection is vast, and has been presented to you many times before. You have never shown that evidence to be wrong.

I asked for a "physical demonstration" of concept, not a mathematical representation of what you think happens. Can you demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection' can and does create million degree plasma in a lab *WITHOUT* starting with discharges through the plasma, yes or no? Tick....tick...tick...

 

[Ziggurat]

You're in complete and total denial.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

Those are "macroscopic circuits".

And they don't resemble the Z-machine. So... epic fail. You can't even understand the models you're advocating.

Denial is an ugly thing. There's damn little anyone but you can do about it.

The irony continues unabated.

 

[Ziggurat]

I asked for a "physical demonstration" of concept, not a mathematical representation of what you think happens. Can you demonstrate that "magnetic reconnection' can and does create million degree plasma in a lab *WITHOUT* starting with discharges through the plasma, yes or no? Tick....tick...tick...

The proposed model in the paper you just linked to cannot be demonstrated in a lab. I understand that you are probably unaware of this, but the model consists of more than just having an electrical discharge.