Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[Michael Mozina]

Yet in thousands of words posted in this and other threads on this forum, plus literally millions of words posted on a variety of other science and skeptic themed forums on the 'net for nearly a decade, none of the people claiming there is some significant problem with magnetic reconnection has been able to support that claim objectively, scientifically, and quantitatively. Imagine that.

Liar. Alfven did that for you and you never even bothered to read his work. Onel and Mann explained flares with circuit theory too *WITHOUT* evoking new energy release mechanisms. By a simple Occum's razor argument your precious exotic energy release theory bites the dust.

Not a single one of you can justify your claim based on a lab experiment that satisfies Alfven's actual writings on this topic, and your whole belief system is predicated upon denying the validity of circuit theory, the single most successful branch of science on the planet!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Like I said: Alfven established faulty boundary conditions because he was guided by a faulty paradigm, namely the circuit paradigm for describing the physics of plasmas.

Demonstrate that specific claim Tim. Did Onel and Mann also make a mistake? If so, where is the mistake found in their paper?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

Honestly Tim, I think you've totally lost touch with reality at this point. Your entire argument seems to be predicted on denying the validity of the work of Hannes Alfven, the guy with the Nobel Prize, not to mention anyone and everyone that's ever expressed plasma events using circuit theory.

That's like me denying the validity of GR theory! Unless you have some evidence to back up your claim, it looks to me like you're setting yourself up as the only "expert' on plasma physics, and you're condemning the work of a Nobel Prize winning physicist *WITHOUT* bothering to even read the work!

 

[GeeMack]

Honestly Tim, I think you've totally lost touch with reality at this point.

That's like me denying the validity of GR theory! Unless you have some evidence to back up your claim, it looks to me like you're setting yourself up on the only "expert' on plasma physics, and you're condemning the work of a Nobel Prize winning physicists *WITHOUT* bothering to even read the work!

It doesn't look to me like Tim is setting himself up as the only expert on plasma physics. But the argument by personal attack combined with a straw man is noted. It does, in fact, look like Tim is doing a fine job of referencing a variety of contemporary plasma physics experts. Also, he has demonstrated the qualifications to speak with expertise on the subject, and interestingly enough, seems to hold a position that is directly aligned with pretty much all the contemporary experts in the field. Also of interest, of those who claim there is some problem with magnetic reconnection, none of them have demonstrated any real qualifications to speak with expertise on the subject.

So where does that leave us?

We could be swayed to accept that there are problems with magnetic reconnection by arguments from incredulity and ignorance, by being directed to read a book or paper that the claimant hasn't shown any qualifications to understand, and by accepting the silly argument that every plasma physicist on Earth is an idiot and they all have it wrong. And, by the way, accepting that from a dozen individuals scatter-gunning unqualified, unsupported opinions all over the Internet instead of actually writing their conjectures in scientific papers like real scientists might do.

Or we could accept, provisionally of course, that thousands of researchers, educators, grad students, and others who are professionally and actively engaged in the field of plasma physics, those who actually do have the qualifications to understand the science of it, know what they're talking about and understand the topic far better than a couple dozen complainants on a handful of Internet forums.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It doesn't look to me like Tim is setting himself up as the only expert on plasma physics.

Of course he is. He's claiming that the whole circuit orientation to plasma physics is wrong! It's not like Alfven was the only one to use the approach.

But the argument by personal attack combined with a straw man is noted. It does, in fact, look like Tim is doing a fine job of referencing a variety of contemporary plasma physics experts.

Yet he could not come up with even one single experiment that satisfied Alfven's list of requirements. He therefore attacked Alfven's work.

Also, he has demonstrated the qualifications to speak with expertise on the subject,

Pfft. He's just like you on this topic, he's clueless because he's never actually read Alfven's book or commented much on his work. Since you haven't read Alfven's work, neither one of you have a clue what you're talking about. Tim at least is an honorable man that I respect, I just think he's lost touch on this particular topic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We could be swayed to accept that there are problems with magnetic reconnection by arguments from incredulity and ignorance,

Alfven was neither incredulous, nor ignorant on the topic GM. You're the one arguing from a place of pure ignorance on this topic because you never bothered to read or comment on his work in plasma physics.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

Michael Mozina, speaking of Tim Thompson, wrote:

Pfft. He's just like you on this topic, he's clueless because he's never actually read Alfven's book or commented much on his work.

Why are you accusing Tim Thompson of lying to us?

Since you haven't read Alfven's work, neither one of you have a clue what you're talking about. Tim at least is an honorable man that I respect, I just think he's lost touch on this particular topic.

I agree that Tim Thompson is an honorable man. Why, then, did you accuse him of lying?

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.

I promise to read Alfvén's outdated book on plasma cosmology after Michael Mozina reads Weinberg's Cosmology (2008) and gives evidence of having understood it.

 

[Reality Check]

Why are you accusing Tim Thompson of lying to us?

Another question is: If Michael Mozina thinks Tim Thompson is lying to us then what reason do we have to think that Michael Mozina is not lying to us (has never read Alfven's book and is just posting quotes that he copied from a web site)?

However I do not think that Michael Mozina is lying. Anyone who is so obsessed with a few scientists such as Birkeland and Alfven would treat their books as holy scripture and read them.

 

[Reality Check]

Of course he is. He's claiming that the whole circuit orientation to plasma physics is wrong! It's not like Alfven was the only one to use the approach..

You are lying about what Tim Thompson said.
He said what everyone esle is saying: the circuit orientation to plasma physics is a simplification that modern plasma physics rarely uses because there are better methods.

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
Alfven established faulty boundary conditions because he was guided by a faulty paradigm, namely the circuit paradigm for describing the physics of plasmas. That paradigm has serious limitations. It is still used by plasma physicists today, but has limited application. Alfven's reliance on this circuit formalism may have been good enough to establish the basics of plasma physics and the basics of ideal MHD, but was not good enough to handle the advances that have given us modern plasma physics. None of the modern plasma physics text books I have in my library apply the circuit analogy to plasma physics the way Alfven did. It simply does not apply to realistic space plasma physics in most cases, and we can in fact deal with all cases today using the local parameters of the plasma without appealing to Alfven's limiting boundary conditions.

(From Feb 4, 2010, emphasis added)

 

[Reality Check]

michaelsuede mentioned that he cited several papers to support his assertion that magnetic reconnection is DLs.
They actually say that he is wrong since they have:

1. Magnetic reconetions happening then
2. Current disruption then
3. DLs

A couple are about spontanious current disruption (no reconnection) and the DLs from them.

Papers on double layer formation:

Lessons from laboratory experiments on reconnection
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/web pdf's/46. Lessons from Lab..pdf


Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/Older Publ. PDF/28. 1982_ Double Layer.pdf

Magnetic Field Line Reconnection Experiments, 5. Current Disruptions and Double Layers
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/Older Publ. PDF/29. JGR1983-Current Disrupt.pdf

Laboratory experiments on current sheet disruptions, double layers turbulence and reconnection
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985IAUS..107...47S

Magnetic-field aligned electric fields in collisionless space plasmas – a brief review
http://www.geofisica.unam.mx/divulgacion/geofinternacional/iframes/anteriores/2004/02/Falthamar.pdf

 

[Reality Check]

Logical fallacy of argument from incredibility.

Just because you cannot understand the physics of pulsars does not mean that they do not exist.

Off topic so start a new thread if you want to discuss it more fully michaelsuede. ....

Dancing David started a new thread so that you can list the scientific evidence that neutron stars or pulsars are so incredible that they cannot exist.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205582

 

[dafydd]

Dancing David started a new thread so that you can list the scientific evidence that neutron stars or pulsars are so incredible that they cannot exist.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205582

Michael,you do know that the Chandra telescope discovered superfluid in a neutron star's core? What is your alternative theory? Why are all the astronomers and physicists wrong?

http://sciencesprings.wordpress.com...y-telescope-superfluid-in-neutron-stars-core/

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina, speaking of Tim Thompson, wrote:

Why are you accusing Tim Thompson of lying to us?

Nope. I stand corrected. Unlike some around here, I can just admit when I am wrong. Sorry about that Tim.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I promise to read Alfvén's outdated book on plasma cosmology after Michael Mozina reads Weinberg's Cosmology (2008) and gives evidence of having understood it.

I get the distinct feeling that the last part of your sentence is your "out" so you can use it as an excuse to NOT read the work of a Nobel Prize winning physicist. Does Weinberg have a Nobel?

I'd settle for seeing you commenting on that paper by Mann and Onel. You guys sort of glossed right over that one.

 

[tusenfem]

Demonstrate that specific claim Tim. Did Onel and Mann also make a mistake? If so, where is the mistake found in their paper?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

Honestly Tim, I think you've totally lost touch with reality at this point. Your entire argument seems to be predicted on denying the validity of the work of Hannes Alfven, the guy with the Nobel Prize, not to mention anyone and everyone that's ever expressed plasma events using circuit theory.

That's like me denying the validity of GR theory! Unless you have some evidence to back up your claim, it looks to me like you're setting yourself up as the only "expert' on plasma physics, and you're condemning the work of a Nobel Prize winning physicist *WITHOUT* bothering to even read the work!

Did you even read the comments that I made on that paper, 2 pages ago? It has zilch to do with MRx, please give some founded comments on my summary of the Onel & Mann paper.

And just for fun, to show how much mainstream space physics is suppressing the E approach of plasma physics, in less than an hour I will go to the EGU Alfvén medal lecture. This year the recipient is Syun-Ichi Akasofu and his medal lecture has the title "The choice of the concept of magnetic field lines or of electric current lines."

 

[Reality Check]

I'd settle for seeing you commenting on that paper by Mann and Onel. You guys sort of glossed right over that one.

Why do you think that someone else commenting on Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits by Hakan Önel, Gottfried J. Mann will change anything?

No one has "glossed over it". It is a nice bit of standard plasma physics.
It has nothing to do with this thread. for example, read the abstract

A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy.

Nice paper.
Pity that it cannot not explain solar flares, e.g. the observed magnetic fields that are characteristic of magnetic reconnection.
Not anything to do with this thread.

If you want to invalidate the magnetic reconnection model for solar flares then you need to find a paper that invalidates it!

 

[tusenfem]

Of course he is. He's claiming that the whole circuit orientation to plasma physics is wrong! It's not like Alfven was the only one to use the approach.

Oh holy moly, can you learn to READ MM? Tim is not saying that circuit theory is wrong for plasma physical processes (just like I am not saying that) but that it can only be applied in a certain way, e.g. on very large scales, where everything is averaged over and micro physical processes are substituted by overall quantities. Particle collisions, wave-particle interactions, ionozation and so on are replaced by resistance. I will let the rest of the analogies for you to find out when you actually try to figure out what circuit theory is actually.

Yet he could not come up with even one single experiment that satisfied Alfven's list of requirements. He therefore attacked Alfven's work.

Then please give a list of requirements that need to be fulfilled according to Alfvén. I know, naturally, about his exploding double layer, I have also shown at least one paper where it is concluded that such strong double layers will probably not exist in natural plasmas on the sun, I have shown a paper that shows that double layers in a solar loop will be annihilated because of the heating that takes place because of the beams shooting into the ambient plasma.

 

[tusenfem]

LOL

By the way, how are those double layers treating you guys in those MHD simulations you run?

LOL

how about you getting along with modern developments of numerical modeling? In ideal MHD (the Alfvén thingy) there can be no parallel electric fields because the plasma is infinitely conducting. However .... as no numerical code is perfect (rounding errors because of 8-16-32-64 bit accuracy of the numbers) there will be what is called numerical diffusion which is equivalent to the plasma having a finite resistivity.

Then modern day modelling uses MDH, resistive MHD, Hall MHD.
Or they use hybrid codes where the electrons are a fluid and the ions are particles.
Or they use PIC (particle in cell) codes.
All of them can be used with adaptive grids, to get better resolution in the interesting regions.

Catch up with the times, michaelsuede, we are living in 2011 not in the 1980s.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I promise to read Alfvén's outdated book on plasma cosmology after Michael Mozina reads Weinberg's Cosmology (2008) and gives evidence of having understood it.

I get the distinct feeling that the last part of your sentence is your "out" so you can use it as an excuse to NOT read the work of a Nobel Prize winning physicist.

You "get the distinct feeling" you'll understand modern cosmology when hell freezes over and pigs fly?

Tim Thompson mentioned the hypocrisy of your demand that everyone else read your holy book even as you refuse to read (and appear incapable of understanding) more relevant and more important books. My promise was just one concrete illustration of your hypocrisy.

Does Weinberg have a Nobel?

Yes.

So you've been mentioning Alfvén's Nobel Prize in post after post as proof that Alfvén's book and papers are more important than books and papers by Steven Weinberg and other modern cosmologists, and never even bothered to check whether Steven Weinberg had won a Nobel Prize?

That's another concrete illustration of your ignorance and hypocrisy.

 

[Cuddles]

Unlike some around here, I can just admit when I am wrong.

And it only took you 1 year and 3 months, probably rather more given that that post suggests it was far from the first time you'd been told. Well, I guess that's progress of a sort. You still seem to be struggling to admit you were wrong about all of physics, but at least we're getting somewhere.

 

[Perpetual Student]

So you've been mentioning Alfvén's Nobel Prize in post after post as proof that Alfvén's book and papers are more important than books and papers by Steven Weinberg and other modern cosmologists, and never even bothered to check whether Steven Weinberg had won a Nobel Prize?

That's another concrete illustration of your ignorance and hypocrisy.