Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[tusenfem]

They other obvious thing about all the so called "experiments' done to date is that NONE OF THEM actually tried to falsify the claim. They never explain what is physically unique and different from the kinetic energy particle transfers that Alfven describes in his double layer paper, or the transfer of photon kinetic energy to charged particles, *PROPERLY CALLED INDUCTION*. Instead they *ASSUME* things like the E field remained stable even while the thread size shrinks! The whole this is goofy. The particle reconnect. The current flows change direction. It's no mystery and no magnetic lines ever actually 'reconnect'. They just exist as a result of the current and their topology is directly related to the flow of that current as it changes over time.

Actually, this was all considered long long ago in the early 60s of the last century, in a revolotionary paper by Dungey. It started with

Dungey, J.W., Interplanetary Magnetic Field and the Auroral Zones, Physical Review Letters, vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 47-48, 1961
And culminated in the cycle called after him in;
Dewitt, Hieblot and Lebeau, Geophysics, The Earth's Environment with the paper Dungey, J. W. (1962). Structure of Exosphere or Adventures in Velocity Space. (of which I unfortunately do not have a pdf).

So, things have been studied and deeply thought about in the last 50 years since Dungey decided something like reconnection is supposed to happen, in order to not come to an energy crisis in the Earth's magnetosphere.

 

[Dancing David]

Rubbish. Lest we forget, from 13 February 2009 ...




So, Mr. Mozina, have you ever read any of the papers I cited here? No, you have not.
Have you ever read any papers describing laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not.
Have you ever examined the design & procedures of laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not.
Have you ever examined the data coming out of any laboratory magnetic reconnection experiment? No, you have not.
So, how the hell do you know what is really going on?

"Particle reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" are buzzwords of your own invention which have no basis in physical reality. You have been asked to physically describe what they are supposed to mean on too many occasions to count, and have failed to do so every time. So I still have no idea what you think you are talking about. But I do know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that it is the "reconnection" of the magnetic field and not the "reconnection" of anything else, especially the currents & particles, which is the source of energy. I know this because I know that the topology of the magnetic field changes first (we call that "cause") and the accelerated currents flow afterwards (we call that "effect"). Since cause precedes effect rather more often than effect precedes cause, magnetic reconnection is the obvious answer. This is why people do things called "experiments". I realize you have much disdain for such menial tasks and prefer to live a life of academic seclusion, but the rest of us have faith in the ability of the real world to actually show us what is really happening, if we just bother to look. You should bother someday yourself, you might actually learn something (perish the thought!).




Have you ever examined the design & procedures of laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not.
Have you ever examined the data coming out of any laboratory magnetic reconnection experiment? No, you have not.
So, how the hell do you know what is really going on?

No, as a matter of fact, it is not only not clear, it's not even possible because the like charges of the currents would repel each other, or are you now going to war against Coulomb too? And what about the magnetic fields generated by the currents in the filaments, which will surround the filaments in solenoidal shape? By what process do you suppose they might conveniently get out of the way and allow the bare naked currents to "reconnect"?




Have you ever examined the design & procedures of laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not.
Have you ever examined the data coming out of any laboratory magnetic reconnection experiment? No, you have not.
So, how the hell do you know what is really going on?

Sorry to but into this reverie with shocking facts, but there are these things called "measuring devices" in laboratories. They are used to measure things. Amongst the many things that can be measured are electric currents, electric fields and magnetic fields. So no, they do not assume that the electric field is constant, they measure the electric field, which cannot be constant and is not constant, because of Faraday's Law (or maybe now you are going to war against both Coulomb & Faraday?). They also measure the magnetic field and the electric currents. Funny thing is the magnetic field changes first (we call that "cause") and the electric currents change afterwards (we call that "effect"). How dare Mother Nature disagree with Mozina! Who does she thing she is, anyway?




Of course they do. In fact, they always do. But since you can't read, you are hardly likely to realize this. however, for those who can read, and for the umpteenth time already since December 2009 ...




Considering the "current" state of affairs, I must say I am impressed with the predictive power of the statement I made in those last few sentences from two years ago. And I boldly predict that, two years hence, the "current" state of affairs will remain unchanged.

I am amazed by the patience and tolerance that you have shown for two years.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Rubbish. Lest we forget, from 13 February 2009 ...




So, Mr. Mozina, have you ever read any of the papers I cited here? No, you have not.

Yes Tim I have them all now. Before I even get into the rest of your post, please tell me which specific one of those papers and experiments satisfies Alfven's MR conditions?

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.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes Tim I have them all now. Before I even get into the rest of your post, please tell me which specific one of those papers and experiments satisfies Alfven's MR conditions?

This got me thinking some more about the example I gave before:

{Bx,By} = {by,ax}

I previously calculated the scalar divergence for this field (the monopole term) and found it to be zero. But it turns out that if you calculate the 2nd order tensor divergence (the quadrupole term), it's nonzero. Which means that this doesn't actually satisfy Maxwell's equations. So maybe you're on to something about your objections to magnetic reconnection after all. I'll have to think about this some more and see if I can find a magnetic field which reconnects with a nonzero tensor divergence.

 

[Tubbythin]

This got me thinking some more about the example I gave before:

{Bx,By} = {by,ax}
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1192499b6711ad5d6.gif[/qimg]

I previously calculated the scalar divergence for this field (the monopole term) and found it to be zero. But it turns out that if you calculate the 2nd order tensor divergence (the quadrupole term), it's nonzero. Which means that this doesn't actually satisfy Maxwell's equations. So maybe you're on to something about your objections to magnetic reconnection after all. I'll have to think about this some more and see if I can find a magnetic field which reconnects with a nonzero tensor divergence.

Well I was thinking about an April Fool post about having converted to Plasma Cosmology...

 

[Ziggurat]

Well I was thinking about an April Fool post about having converted to Plasma Cosmology...

Don't tip him off!

 

[Tubbythin]

Sorry.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ya, I briefly considered repenting my sins and becoming a 'mainstreamer' for the day too. FYI, I'm still waiting for you folks to (collectively) pick a paper of a LAB EXPERIMENT that actually satisfies Alfven's conditions. I want to see how they eliminated other more mundane options from consideration before LEAPING to the conclusion that "magnetic reconnection did it".

 

[GeeMack]

Ya, I briefly considered repenting my sins and becoming a 'mainstreamer' for the day too. FYI, I'm still waiting for you folks to (collectively) pick a paper of a LAB EXPERIMENT that actually satisfies Alfven's conditions. I want to see how they eliminated other more mundane options from consideration before LEAPING to the conclusion that "magnetic reconnection did it".

It's interesting that the topic of the thread is "Problems With Magnetic Reconnection", yet the against-the-mainstreamers seem to be taking the dishonest position of deflecting the burden of proof.

If there's actually a problem with magnetic reconnection (and all the legitimate science offered so far in this/these discussions has solidly supported the notion that there really isn't), those who believe there is a problem should stop shirking their responsibility to scientifically, objectively, and quantitatively demonstrate the supposed problem. And no, just like always, arguments from incredulity and ignorance do not constitute support for the existence of an alleged problem.

 

[michaelsuede]

Tusenfem and Tim Thompson have put on a fine show of picking apart Mozina, but they aren't commenting to much on the papers done by Stenzel.

A few facts need to be highlighted again here.

While I suppose it may be theoretically possible for some kind of reconnection event like the type described by the standard theory to occur in space, it is clear from the observed data that it is highly unlikely.

If it was occurring as the standard model suggests, then we should see reconnection speeds orders of magnitudes slower than are actually observed.

The standard theory can not provide an exact cause as to why this anomalous resistivity should exist that makes reconnection occur at such rapid rates.

Following on the heels of Stenzel, here's a paper by Drake that shows:

A new generation of massively parallel PIC codes is facilitating the direct simulation of 3-D magnetic reconnection and the self-generation of turbulence and anomalous resistivity, opening a door to study a new class of physics. Simulations demonstrate that the electron streaming velocity in the vicinity of the x-line during reconnection can exceed by a wide margin the electron thermal velocity. The resulting Buneman instabilities grow and rapidly evolve to a nonlinear state consisting of localized regions of strongly reduced electron density with scales of 10's of Debye lengths, refered to as "electron holes". In the resulting dynamic state the formation and destruction of electron holes leads to the strong scattering of electrons by the intense, localized parallel electric fields.

Well all be darned if doesn't sound like the formation of double layers to me.

That finding is basically what Stenzel reported with his research.

Same stuff.

Lets rehash what happens in a plasma when there is a density drop:

Instabilities and double-layer formation are systematically investigated on a bounded collisionless system with electron beam penetrating through a plasma. The Buneman instability is observed at low beam currents. Above a critical current, there appears a sudden nonoscillatory potential drop due to the Pierce instability, which traps ions in the potential well. This collisionless ion trapping provides a new formation mechanism of the double layer, which is controlled by changing the speed of the potential drop.

The speed of reconnection is a property of the double layers that are formed, the cause of reconnection is a property of the circuit that the plasma belongs to.

MHD can't model double layers, hence the astrophysicists who refuse to acknowledge circuit theory will be stuck spinning their wheels forever trying to solve a problem that has already been solved decades ago.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

A few facts need to be highlighted again here.

Okay, I'll highlight facts in yellow and the ridiculous parts in red.

While I suppose it may be theoretically possible for some kind of reconnection event like the type described by the standard theory to occur in space, it is clear from the observed data that it is highly unlikely.

Wait for it...

Following on the heels of Stenzel, here's a paper by Drake that shows:

Wait for it...

Magnetic reconnection plays a fundamental role in the dynamics of astrophysical plasma systems as the driver of explosive events such as solar and stellar flares....

Those are the opening words of the abstract michaelsuede quoted to support his claim that magnetic reconnection "is highly unlikely" to occur in those astrophysical plasma systems.

MHD can't model double layers, hence the astrophysicists who refuse to acknowledge circuit theory will be stuck spinning their wheels forever trying to solve a problem that has already been solved decades ago.

So long as we're making such profound statements about the empty set, I'll say this:

Every element of the empty set is a pink unicorn.​

 

[Reality Check]

Can you understand that in Stenzl MR happens before DLs form

Tusenfem and Tim Thompson have put on a fine show of picking apart Mozina, but they aren't commenting to much on the papers done by Stenzel.

They do not have to comment on them.
The experiments show concusively that you are wrong about magnetic reconnetion being DLs.

Repeating a wrong assertion does not make it true.
When there is just magnetic reconnection, magnetic reconnection is the mechanism that imparts kinetic energy to the particles.
When there is magnetic reconnnetion + DLs then both mechanisms impart kinetic energy to the particles.
The formation of the DLs happens after the magnetic reconnection.
See Figure 9 in Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986 !

Can you read it, michaelsuede?
Can you see the disruption happening after the reconnection, michaelsuede?
Can you understand the abstract where it stated that the double layers happen after the disruption, michaelsuede?

So I will put this as a formal question:
michaelsuede,
Can you understand that in the Stenzl experiments demonstrate that MR happens before DLs form?
The sequence of events is

1. Magnetic reconnetion
2. Current disruption
3. DLs may form

 

[Michael Mozina]

Rubbish. Lest we forget, from 13 February 2009 ...




So, Mr. Mozina, have you ever read any of the papers I cited here?

While were talking about work that's been read and not read, I won't irrationally accuse you, I'll just ask. I want to know if you have *EVER* actually bothered to read Cosmic Plasma yet Tim? In fact I'd like to see a show of hands of those participating in this thread that HAVE ACTUALLY READ Alfven's book, Cosmic Plasma? I know that tusenfem has read the book, but as far as I know, the rest of you are arguing from a place of pure scientific ignorance of Alfven's actual work. Show of hands please, who's actually bothered to read Cosmic Plasma besides tusenfem and myself that also supports "reconnection" theory. Don't be bashful now.

 

[Reality Check]

In fact I'd like to see a show of hands of those participating in this thread that HAVE ACTUALLY READ Alfven's book, Cosmic Plasma?

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.

If you think that there is something in Cosmic Plasma that disproves magnectic reconnection theory then cite it.
Then show why all the papers, books and experiments on magnetic reconnection after Cosmic Plasma are wrong .
All you have shown is what scientists have always known: Physical examples of magnetic reconnection modelled in Alfven's ideal MHD require that the frozen-in magnetic field approximation is appropriate.

Michael Mozina, HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ ANY modern plasma physics text? How about a modern text on magnetic reconection?

Michael Mozina, have you actually read any of the papers that Tim Thompson has cited. How about that one I cited that shows that DLs happen after magnetic reconnection?
The formation of the DLs happens after the magnetic reconnection.
See Figure 9 in Lessons from Labatory Experiments on Reconnection, R.L. Stenzel, W. Gekelman and J. M. Urrutia 1986 !

 

[tusenfem]

This got me thinking some more about the example I gave before:

{Bx,By} = {by,ax}
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1192499b6711ad5d6.gif[/qimg]

I previously calculated the scalar divergence for this field (the monopole term) and found it to be zero. But it turns out that if you calculate the 2nd order tensor divergence (the quadrupole term), it's nonzero. Which means that this doesn't actually satisfy Maxwell's equations. So maybe you're on to something about your objections to magnetic reconnection after all. I'll have to think about this some more and see if I can find a magnetic field which reconnects with a nonzero tensor divergence.

I could not find the "like" button.

 

[tusenfem]

I have the Stenzel & Gekelman paper, and maybe I will get the drake paper.
However, last week I was preparing for the EGU general assembly in Vienna, where I have to present two posters, which I had to prepare, and help some others.

However, for the paper that I did comment on (which was the last in the list of michaelsuede's list), it is clear that in that experiment the reconnection was already well established, and then they artificially increased the voltage over the current sheet and then drove instabilities in that current sheet.

ETA: Unfortunately, I cannot access that paper.
AETA: Okay, is is not a paper is it just an abstract of a presentation.

 

[tusenfem]

MHD can't model double layers, hence the astrophysicists who refuse to acknowledge circuit theory will be stuck spinning their wheels forever trying to solve a problem that has already been solved decades ago.

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.

 

[Tubbythin]

While were talking about work that's been read and not read, I won't irrationally accuse you, I'll just ask. I want to know if you have *EVER* actually bothered to read Cosmic Plasma yet Tim? In fact I'd like to see a show of hands of those participating in this thread that HAVE ACTUALLY READ Alfven's book, Cosmic Plasma? I know that tusenfem has read the book, but as far as I know, the rest of you are arguing from a place of pure scientific ignorance of Alfven's actual work. Show of hands please, who's actually bothered to read Cosmic Plasma besides tusenfem and myself that also supports "reconnection" theory. Don't be bashful now.

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

 

[michaelsuede]

I have the Stenzel & Gekelman paper, and maybe I will get the drake paper.
However, last week I was preparing for the EGU general assembly in Vienna, where I have to present two posters, which I had to prepare, and help some others.

However, for the paper that I did comment on (which was the last in the list of michaelsuede's list), it is clear that in that experiment the reconnection was already well established, and then they artificially increased the voltage over the current sheet and then drove instabilities in that current sheet.

ETA: Unfortunately, I cannot access that paper.
AETA: Okay, is is not a paper is it just an abstract of a presentation.

No kidding they artificially increased the voltage, that's the freaking entire point of Alfven's theory.

 

[Reality Check]

No kidding they artificially increased the voltage, that's the freaking entire point of Alfven's theory.

Even I can see that is wrong, michaelsuede.
The freaking entire point of Alfven's theory (ideal MHD) was that a frozen in magnetic field allows magnetic reconneciton.

He had valid circuit models but

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.

AFAIK (but tusenfem is the expert here!) at no point in the circuit model is any voltage "artificially increased".

P.S. the Drake presentation is Development of turbulence and anomalous resistivity during magnetic reconnection and is about PIC computer simuations of magnetic reconnection. This looks like (IMO) a much more accurate "theory" of magnetic reconnection then either ideal MHD or circuit models. Look - no double layers!