Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[dafydd]

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.




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.

I am an interested layman and by following this thread I have discovered that it is nonsense. Why can't Michael the layman see that?

 

[tusenfem]

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.

WRONG! There are no particles in MHD, that is why the H is in there, you work with fluids.

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.

Circuit theory cannot explain the irreversable change of magnetic topology, as circuit theory has no fields and no lines.

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!

There is no KINETIC energy of the EM field.
Dungey explained in the late fiftys why there MUST be reconnection.

I still have not seen any paper that says experiment with respect to your CNO cycle paper. Are you going to retract your obviously unsupported paper finally?

 

[tusenfem]

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

In that paper they have reconnection running smootly (see Fig. 2) and then, to drive instabilities in the current sheet they artificially increase the voltage over the current sheet, driving stronger currnets and thus creating instabilities. This may or may not have a application in space plasma physics, but it is rather hard to suddenly increase the voltage in actual astrophysical entities.

And no that is NOT the entire point of Alfvén's theory.

 

[Cuddles]

Wouldn't it be nice if people could actually stick to the topic for once?

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Michael Mozina]

WRONG! There are no particles in MHD, that is why the H is in there, you work with fluids.

Grrr. It's so aggravating to move an inch in your direction only to have my hand bitten off due poor phasing on my part. You're not exactly easy to deal with at times. I can however admit that a B oriented approach has some merit and it allows things to be viewed on small scales. What you seem to refuse to acknowledge is any movement toward an E orientation of the same event. I find that annoying frankly.

Circuit theory cannot explain the irreversable change of magnetic topology, as circuit theory has no fields and no lines.

Current flow patterns, and a change of resistance leading to flow pattern changes can also be used to explain topological changes to the magnetic field. They are directly related. Magnetic fields have no individualized 'lines" that are even capable of 'disconnecting" from, or reconnecting to any other magnetic field line. The magnetic field topology of the filament is directly related to the flow of current. You're trying to ignore that clear connection. The only thing that is changing is the current flow topology and direction, and the magnetic field is just along for the ride and it's being sustained by the current.

There is no KINETIC energy of the EM field.

Boloney. The transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy already has a proper scientific name, it's called induction. The carrier particle of that kinetic energy transfer is the photon.

Dungey explained in the late fiftys why there MUST be reconnection.

He also explained why it's a "discharge" event, which you all keep ignoring.

I still have not seen any paper that says experiment with respect to your CNO cycle paper. Are you going to retract your obviously unsupported paper finally?

I've never seen sustained hydrogen fusion in the lab either, but I don't have a problem with you proposing the idea anyway because hydrogen shows up in the lab, and it can experience fusion. I therefore don't care if you wish to use that as an energy source even *WITHOUT* an empirical test of concept.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, t....

You're essentially trying to "dumb down' an entire current carrying Bennett Pinch thread, to a "magnetic line'. It's not simply a "magnetic line', it's a "flow of current" in a flowing plasma thread. The path of the current simply changes over time, and that is what you're calling "magnetic reconnection'. That's a complete "dumbed down" (B only) oriented view of events. It can also be viewed a "short circuit' and wiring topology change in two 'circuits". You're must ignoring the whole Circuit orientation of plasma physics because you don't like it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I am an interested layman and by following this thread I have discovered that it is nonsense. Why can't Michael the layman see that?

I see it just like Alfven saw things, only I'm actually a little more "liberal" about it quite honestly. I realize they botched the hell out of the title they give their mathematical equations, but I also recognize the validity of them to some degree. Alfven just rejected the concept entirely in a current carrying plasma in favor of a circuit oriented approach, something I still prefer as well.

I guess the basic difference between us is education. This particular "layman" has actually bothered to sit down and read Alfven's material for himself, unlike you, and unlike most of those who fancy themselves to be "experts" on this topic that are participating in this thread. Only two of us have actually read Alfven's material AFAIK.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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:


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?

I'm not. You're the one ignoring 100 years of physics related to "discharges' in plasmas.

If I actually rejected MR theory outright as you seem to imagine, you might actually have a point. Since I simply prefer not to 'dumb down" a whole current carrying plasma thread to a "magnetic line", your point is moot.

 

[Reality Check]

I'm not. You're the one ignoring 100 years of physics related to "discharges' in plasmas.

No I am not.
The definition of electrical dicharges has always meant that they are impossible in plasma.
Some authors in the past have used the term electrical discharge to refer to high current densities, especially that sudden ones caused by magnetic reconnection (see Dungey).

I'm If I actually rejected MR theory outright as you seem to imagine, you might actually have a point.

So now you are saying that MR theory is correct ?
Or what bits of it are wrong?

Since I simply prefer not to 'dumb down" a whole current carrying plasma thread to a "magnetic line", your point is moot.

That is not MR theory. MR theory does not say that there is a "current carrying plasma thread". In fact current in plasma never happens as "threads". It happens in sheets.

MR theory is models aa entire volume of plasma including the electromagnetic fields within it.

This ignorance about MR makes the question more appropriate:
Michael Mozina, Why are you ignoring over 30 years of advances in plasma physics?
Plasma physics did not stop in 1981 !
Alfven did not write a bible of plasma physics. He wrote a book which reflected the knowledge of the time. Most of that knowledge is still correct. Some will have been shown to be incorrect. Some is just outdated.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Wow, take MM off Ignore, and enter the world of surreal.

I see it just like Alfven saw things,

Except, of course, that Alfven actually understood Maxwell's equations, PDEs, the whole math nine yards.

Alfven just rejected the concept entirely in a current carrying plasma in favor of a circuit oriented approach,

Surreal².

Does this constitute proof of the existence of (slightly overlapping) parallel universes? Or something more mundane, to do with delusion perhaps? Or, ...

I guess the basic difference between us is education. This particular "layman" has actually bothered to sit down and read Alfven's material for himself, unlike you, and unlike most of those who fancy themselves to be "experts" on this topic that are participating in this thread. Only two of us have actually read Alfven's material AFAIK.

Surreal³.

Given that - to you, MM - the math that forms the foundation of Alfven's work is as comprehensible as a dialect of PIE, reading != understanding.

 

[Reality Check]

He also explained why it's a "discharge" event, which you all keep ignoring.

We have never ignored the fact that Dungey used the term electrical discharges in the context of high current densities .

We do know that he never states that magnetic reconnection was a "discharge" event. He states that it causes high current densities which he terms electrical discharges.

But I may be wrong:
Cite and quote where Dungey explains magnetic reconnection as an electrical discharge.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So why insist everyone should be clued up on exactly what he said?

Um, maybe because he wrote MHD theory, was given a Nobel Prize for that work, and her personally called MR theory pseudoscience?

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?

Actually it was Guass' law of magnetism that made me toss out a few early "magnetic reconnection" papers that tried to use "monopoles' to do the transfer of energy trick. I try to read the original writings of various authors when available.

The same way you hilariously ripped to shreds' Guth's paper whilst being completely incapable of even defining pressure?

I gave you a *PERFECTLY* good definition of pressure in a VACUUM. You just didn't like the implication that NOTHING equals *ZERO* pressure, not a pressure of "negative infinity". You didn't like the fact you can't even figure out what to add or subtract from a "pure vacuum" to give it a "negative pressure".

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.

Alfven did. Did any of you read, let alone comment on his double layer paper?
I don't recall you even commenting on it personally. How about that paper by Mann and Onel? Why do I need "magnetic reconnection' to explain a flare when a simple circuit will do?

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

When you can show that there is some *OTHER* way to transfer magnetic field energy into kinetic energy, complete with controlled experiments to rule out other processes, you let me know.

What is a pure magnetic line?

It's an INTANGIBLE thing that is physically incapable of disconnecting or reconnecting to another "line".

What was the exact quote, page and line number?

I'll have to look it up *AGAIN*.

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.

Not one of you commented much on that Mann and Onel paper other than perhaps tusenfem, and I didn't hear him claim it to be "invalid" in any way. I haven't heard any of you pick apart Alfven's "circuit" oriented approach to magnetospheric interactions either. In fact I haven't seen a single one of you pick out *ANY* flaw in any of Alfven's HUNDREDS of paper or either of his two books. I can't get you to read any of the appropriate materials, and when I do post links, you folks never read them and then I'm supposed to find them again for you later on!

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

Sheesh. It's actually already being done *PHYSICALLY* in half of those "experiments" on the topic of MR theory. They tend to start with two "circuits' of current carrying plasma and then they "short circuit" them together! Since they carrying current and the plasma acts as a wire or circuit according to Alfven, you simply are shorting two "current carrying wires' together. So what? That's not 'magnetic' reconnection, that's a "short circuit" between two plasma threads and a "double layer" that forms between them.

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.

Except I have provided papers on flares and megnetospheric activity (by Alfven) that require no sort of 'magnetic reconnection", and these are the places that supposedly produce such event. None of you have ever once found a flaw in Alfven's work. Your words are simply untrue IMO. What you want is for ME PERSONALLY do bark math for you on command or you refuse to read or address any of the math.

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.

You've ignored Alfven for his whole career, math and all. The mainstream ignored Birkeland's work on aurora for over 60 years. I have no doubt many of you folks will live and die believing in your same nonsense.

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.

Since none of you have yet found a single flaw in any of Alfven's maths, I can only presume you aren't actually interested in those maths, you're just interested in smearing me personally for not barking math on command for you. Since you haven't personally responded to the maths provided by Alfven or Onel or Mann, I have no confidence that any of you actually care one iota bout the actually math I might present. All you're doing is bashing the messenger and refusing to deal with the actual maths presented.

 

[Tubbythin]

Um, maybe because he wrote MHD theory, was given a Nobel Prize for that work, and her personally called MR theory pseudoscience?

But Newton discovered gravity. I bet you haven't read Principia from cover to cover though have you. And yet you still feel able to comment on gravity. Should we reject anything related to gravity that was not endorsed by Newton?

Actually it was Guass' law of magnetism that made me toss out a few early "magnetic reconnection" papers that tried to use "monopoles' to do the transfer of energy trick. I try to read the original writings of various authors when available.

Err... ok.

I gave you a *PERFECTLY* good definition of pressure in a VACUUM. You just didn't like the implication that NOTHING equals *ZERO* pressure, not a pressure of "negative infinity". You didn't like the fact you can't even figure out what to add or subtract from a "pure vacuum" to give it a "negative pressure".

As I recall, and you can correct me I'm wrong, you tried to give us the ideal gas equation.

Alfven did. Did any of you read, let alone comment on his double layer paper?
I don't recall you even commenting on it personally. How about that paper by Mann and Onel? Why do I need "magnetic reconnection' to explain a flare when a simple circuit will do?

So you'll have no problem with quantifying these prefferred options then will you?

When you can show that there is some *OTHER* way to transfer magnetic field energy into kinetic energy, complete with controlled experiments to rule out other processes, you let me know.

"Controlled experiments"? Do we have to go back over that one again too?

It's an INTANGIBLE thing that is physically incapable of disconnecting or reconnecting to another "line".

Ok, why not say that then?

I'll have to look it up *AGAIN*.

Ok.

Not one of you commented much on that Mann and Onel paper other than perhaps tusenfem, and I didn't hear him claim it to be "invalid" in any way. I haven't heard any of you pick apart Alfven's "circuit" oriented approach to magnetospheric interactions either. In fact I haven't seen a single one of you pick out *ANY* flaw in any of Alfven's HUNDREDS of paper or either of his two books. I can't get you to read any of the appropriate materials, and when I do post links, you folks never read them and then I'm supposed to find them again for you later on!

You're meant to provide us with quantitative evidence to support your claims. Instead you tend to give us lots of papers you invariably haven't understood.

Sheesh. It's actually already being done *PHYSICALLY* in half of those "experiments" on the topic of MR theory. They tend to start with two "circuits' of current carrying plasma and then they "short circuit" them together! Since they carrying current and the plasma acts as a wire or circuit according to Alfven, you simply are shorting two "current carrying wires' together. So what? That's not 'magnetic' reconnection, that's a "short circuit" between two plasma threads and a "double layer" that forms between them.

Quantitative

Except I have provided papers on flares and megnetospheric activity (by Alfven) that require no sort of 'magnetic reconnection", and these are the places that supposedly produce such event. None of you have ever once found a flaw in Alfven's work. Your words are simply untrue IMO. What you want is for ME PERSONALLY do bark math for you on command or you refuse to read or address any of the math.

Some kind of indication that you understand the physics is a quantitative subject would be good. And that when you make wild claims and invoke conspiracy theories you should try to back them up with quantitative evidence.

You've ignored Alfven for his whole career, math and all. The mainstream ignored Birkeland's work on aurora for over 60 years. I have no doubt many of you folks will live and die believing in your same nonsense.

I couldn't care less about Alfven. Physics has moved on. Alfven's words were not the one true word of God. You can mention his name as many times as you like. It does not make your argument any more scientific. Ditto Birkeland.

Since none of you have yet found a single flaw in any of Alfven's maths, I can only presume you aren't actually interested in those maths, you're just interested in smearing me personally for not barking math on command for you.

How would you possibly know if we'd found a flaw in his maths if you're completely incapable of understanding a mathematical argument?

Since you haven't personally responded to the maths provided by Alfven or Onel or Mann, I have no confidence that any of you actually care one iota bout the actually math I might present. All you're doing is bashing the messenger and refusing to deal with the actual maths presented.

You haven't presented any maths. You've linked to papers and provided us with little clue that you understand. You can't even do the simple tasks that others have set for you.

 

[Reality Check]

I gave you a *PERFECTLY* good definition of pressure in a VACUUM

Hi MM. Could you post that *PERFECTLY* good definition of pressure in a VACUUM in this new thread:

Can pressure be negative?
​

 

[Reality Check]

Why do I need "magnetic reconnection' to explain a flare when a simple circuit will do?

You need magnetic reconnection beacuse the simple circuit model produces simple results!
All that it predicts is the large scale properties of the solar flare. It does not show

• how the magnetic fields change during the flare
• how the current sheets change during the flare (no actual electric currents!)
• why the flare happens at the top of coronal loops
• what the details of the energy release are

You need magnetic reconnection to explain these. Magnetic reconnection also explains everything that the circuit model explains, e.g. the total energy release.
In science a theory that explains more is better than a theory that explains less.

 

[michaelsuede]

Circuit theory cannot explain the irreversable change of magnetic topology, as circuit theory has no fields and no lines.



There is no KINETIC energy of the EM field.
Dungey explained in the late fiftys why there MUST be reconnection.

I still have not seen any paper that says experiment with respect to your CNO cycle paper. Are you going to retract your obviously unsupported paper finally?

Circuit theory can explain the irreversible change of magnetic topology, and indeed is the only way one can explain such a change given that fluid models invoke ad hoc resistivity. When the voltage of the circuit is increased/decreased, it can lead to current disruptions and instabilities which give rise to double layers.

In such a double layer, kinetic energy is transfered to the particles. Double layers are the only way one can account for the transfer of kinetic energy in a plasma while still obeying the circuit laws that any real plasma must obey.

MHD theory is incapable of modeling the mechanics of a double layer, and necessarily neglects any mention of them in its models. Given that we know such instabilities give rise to density depletions and such depletions are even modeled in MHD simulations, we know that the formation of a double layer in those regions is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Unless you want to claim that regions of differing plasma do not produce double layers between themselves.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow, take MM off Ignore, and enter the world of surreal.

Ya, two way conversations and hearing the other half of the debate can be quite a different experience than just tuning out what you don't like to hear.

Except, of course, that Alfven actually understood Maxwell's equations, PDEs, the whole math nine yards.

Irony overload. He also rejected MR theory as "pseudoscience", referring to it as "pseudoscience' more than a dozen times in room *FULL* of plasma physicists.

Surreal².

Does this constitute proof of the existence of (slightly overlapping) parallel universes? Or something more mundane, to do with delusion perhaps? Or, ...

Huh? Oh ya, you missed half the conversation so you missed all those quotes from Alfven that I posted earlier in the thread about the conditions he outlined. I'd post them again for you, but what would be the point?

Surreal³.

Given that - to you, MM - the math that forms the foundation of Alfven's work is as comprehensible as a dialect of PIE, reading != understanding.

Well, "clairvoyance" clearly isn't "understanding", and since you haven't read his work, you were clueless on point number two. Since you tuned me out (can't handle the other side of the debate evidently), you missed the quotes I posted too. It's sort of an 'ignorance is bliss", "couch potato" brand of "science" that you folks practice and I'm supposed to believe THAT IGNORANT BEHAVIOR = understanding? Please.

Have you even read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma yet DRD? Let me guess......

 

[Reality Check]

Irony overload. He also rejected MR theory as "pseudoscience", referring to it as "pseudoscience' more than a dozen times in room *FULL* of plasma physicists.

Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics (PDF)
That was a keynote speech in a conference in 1986. That was his own personal (and now outdated) opinion
You need to get rid of your obsession with Alfven's opinions and the physics of 30 years ago. Learn some modern physics written by other people.

You are also lying about what he said.
He starts by pointing out (correctly) that care needs to be taken when applying the frozen-in flield line approximation.
He then calls "Magnetic Merging" a pseudoscience (section B). There are a couple of what look like elementary mistakes in there. I am sure that I am wrong though.

• "We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist."
  That is wrong: Anyone who uses the merging concepts implies that DLs are described by another theory.
• "A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer."
  The last 2 sentences imply that he thinks that there can be no energy transfer from magnetic reconnection in MHD. That seems unlikely because the change in magnetic field configuration releases energy and it has to go somewhere!

 

[Reality Check]

Circuit theory can explain the irreversible change of magnetic topology.

Even I know that this a lie!
Circuit theory has a circuit model of the system. There are no details about the magnetic field. The magnetic field is a single number - the inductance of the inductor in the circuit (sometimes several inductors = several numbers).
Likewise:

• All of the currents in the plasma are just one current in the circuit.
• The various resistances in the plasma are the single resistance of the circuit.

Circuit theory cannot explain the observed change in magnetic field topology because it has no magnetic field topology in it!

You are still ignoring 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 magnetic reconnection.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Cosmic Plasma and other reading

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?

From 13 Jan 2011

Actually, most of the astronomers who work in the relevant field most certainly have read Alfven. But since you are in the habit of constantly complaining that people don't read what you think they should be reading, it is only fair to point out that you are yourself subject to exactly the same complaint. Lest we forget ...

This is nearly a year old now, from 20 January 2010. As far as I know you never responded.

How about a quick show of hands, how many of the following individuals have actually read "Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven? ... Tim Thompson

You have asked this question about a bazillion times, keep getting the same answers, and then just ask it again like it's the first time. How many times do I have to tell you ... YES ... I have read the book and I have two copies of it in my physics library. I used the book as a reference when I was a graduate student.

So, how about a show of hands from Michael Mozina:
Have you read Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Practice by Priest & Forbes?
Have you read Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics by Deiter Biskamp?
Have you read Fundamentals of Plasma Physics by Paul Bellan?
Have you read The Physics of Plasmas by T.J.M. Boyd & J.J. Sanderson?
Have you read Plasma Physics for Astrophysics by Russell Kulsrud?
Have you read Plasma Astrophysics by Toshiki Tajima & Kazunari Shibata?
Have you read Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos by Eugene Parker?

If you have not read any of these, can you tell us what plasma physics books, other than Alfven, you actually have read?
How many plasma physics classes have you taken?
How many plasma physics laboratory experiments have you performed yourself, or assisted with?

Well? Have you read any of these books?

To this day Mozina has never responded, so I can only assume that he has not read any books on magnetic reconnection and has never examined any experimental data related to magnetic reconnection. It seems inappropriate that he should be so constantly and repetitiously demanding of everyone else that they read "his" book, while he himself refuses to even touch any current book on the topic. It is hypocritical.

Yes, for the bazillion and first time, I have read Alfven's book, used it as a student over 30 years ago, and have two copies ready at hand. Now please stop asking me if I have read the book and please explain why you adamantly refuse to read any other books besides Alfven's.