Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[Michael Mozina]

It's likely Alfvén wrote exactly zero papers on breeding sheep, too.

Um his Nobel Prize was for developing MHD theory and the science of plasma physics, not for raising sheep. Wow. I've seen desperate, useless and less than brilliant comments before, but that one really takes the cake.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina has been telling us that Alfvén's books and papers say absolutely nothing about magnetic reconnection. Here, however, he claims to have educated himself about magnetic reconnection by reading Alfvén's books and papers. That's a nonsensical argument.

Of course it is because you have a short memory. I've explained that I "came to accept' the basic concept of MR theory at space.com several years ago. I outright rejected the first few papers that I was asked to read based on their use of "monopoles" to transfer energy.

I was however eventually presented with a paper by Birn that clearly explained the "moving particles" and "current" in the "magnetic lines". It did not use monopoles to transfer energy and it used only Maxwell's equations. It was very clear to me that what he was describing was essentially "circuit reconnection", not "magnetic reconnection', but otherwise the math looked *FABULOUS* IMO. I had to "come to terms" with the idea that a B oriented math approach was mathematically valid, even if the name they assigned to the physical process was goofy.

Why, then, is Michael Mozina unable to compute the curl of a vector field?

It would be absolutely pointless for me to bark math on command around here. All you would do is look for *any* flaw as an opportunity to ridicule me personally rather than to stay on topic. Onel, Mann, Alfven, Peratt Dungey, Bruce and a whole host of other authors that I have presented on this forum have done math for you. None of you have found any flaws in Alfven's circuit orientation to plasma physics. The perceived 'limitations' of circuit theory seem to be more limits in your imagination than limits of the theory itself.

Fortunately for everyone, GR theory does not rise or fall on my personal math skills. Neither does circuit theory. Get over it. No amount of bashing me is going to resolve your problem with Alfven's claim that MR theory was pseudoscience. It won't change the fact that he wrote HUNDREDS of papers on the topic of circuits in space and *ZERO* papers on *ANY* brand of MR theory. Deal with it.

 

[GeeMack]

It won't change the fact that he wrote HUNDREDS of papers on the topic of circuits in space and *ZERO* papers on *ANY* brand of MR theory. Deal with it.

So we'd be idiots to think we can learn anything about magnetic reconnection from someone who never wrote a single paper on the subject?

 

[Perpetual Student]

So we'd be idiots to think we can learn anything about magnetic reconnection from someone who never wrote a single paper on the subject?

I can see that you really don't get it. If magnetic reconnection isn't mentioned in the sacred texts, then it must not exist.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I can see that you really don't get it. If magnetic reconnection isn't mentioned in the sacred texts, then it must not exist.

You missed the point entirely (again). Mr. Clinger claimed that I somehow misrepresented or misunderstood Alfven on this topic, suggesting that Alfven didn't actually reject MR theory. Were any of you actually willing to *READ* his work for yourself, he's quite clear about why he rejects the idea, and he consistently does so.

If Mr. Clinger's accusation were accurate, and I did in fact misrepresent Alfven on this topic, one of you surely would have been able to produce a few papers by Alfven on this topic.

You can blame Alfven for rejecting MR theory all you like, but blaming me for misunderstanding him, or misrepresenting Alfven isn't an option, at least it's not an *HONEST* option.

 

[GeeMack]

You missed the point entirely (again). Mr. Clinger claimed that I somehow misrepresented or misunderstood Alfven on this topic, suggesting that Alfven didn't actually reject MR theory. Were any of you actually willing to *READ* his work for yourself, he's quite clear about why he rejects the idea, and he consistently does so.

If Mr. Clinger's accusation were accurate, and I did in fact misrepresent Alfven on this topic, one of you surely would have been able to produce a few papers by Alfven on this topic.

It doesn't appear that Alfvén wrote any papers on animal husbandry. Applying clear thought and rational judgement to that, it would be foolish to suggest that he considered animal husbandry pseudo-science because he didn't write anything about it. It's an irrational leap.

You can blame Alfven for rejecting MR theory all you like, but blaming me for misunderstanding him, or misrepresenting Alfven isn't an option, at least it's not an *HONEST* option.

W.D.Clinger's analysis of Alfvén's comments seems to be contradictory to the claim that Alfvén outright rejected magnetic reconnection. I recall Tim did a similar analysis as did tusenfem, Ziggurat, Reality Check, and others. From these objective and informed explanations, it appears any claims about Alfvén's total rejection of magnetic reconnection are unevidenced assertions. Of course even if Alfvén did believe magnetic reconnection was, on the whole, pseudo-science and contrary to physical reality, the fact that it does occur would go to show that on that issue, he was simply wrong.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Of course even if Alfvén did believe magnetic reconnection was, on the whole, pseudo-science and contrary to physical reality, the fact that it does occur would go to show that on that issue, he was simply wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

You missed the point entirely (again). Mr. Clinger claimed that I somehow misrepresented or misunderstood Alfven on this topic, suggesting that Alfven didn't actually reject MR theory.

Wrong: Perpetual Student gets the point that you do not.
Alfven never rejected MR entirely. He thought that it was misapplied as in the handful of papers he wrote on magnetic reconnection, e.g.
On frozen-in field lines and field-line reconnection (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 81, Aug. 1, 1976, p. 4019-4021)

The concepts of 'frozen-in magnetic field lines' and 'field-line reconnection', which are frequently used in discussions of the theory of the magnetosphere, have been criticized by Alfven and Falthammar (1971), by Heikkila (1973), and by Alfven (1975). In the present paper, it is demonstrated that both concepts are unnecessary and often misleading. The frozen-in concept is shown to belong to the pseudo-plasma formalism which is useful only in special cases.

ETA: Cited just 10 times in 36 years!

Were any of you actually willing to *READ* his work for yourself, he's quite clear about why he rejects the idea, and he consistently does so.

Are you capable of understanding that many of us have actually been willing to *READ* his work for ourselves. We see that he is quite clear about why he rejects the idea aand that the idea is not your fantasy of all of magnetic reconnection. The idea is the misapplication of MR theory.

If Mr. Clinger's accusation were accurate, and I did in fact misrepresent Alfven on this topic, one of you surely would have been able to produce a few papers by Alfven on this topic.

See above.

You can blame Alfven for rejecting MR theory all you like, but blaming me for misunderstanding him, or misrepresenting Alfven isn't an option, at least it's not an *HONEST* option.

We do not "Alfven for rejecting MR theory".
We blame you for lying about what Alfven actually states. He never rejected MR theory. He rejected the frozen-in field approximation except in special cases.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong: Perpetual Student gets the point that you do not.
Alfven never rejected MR entirely. He thought that it was misapplied as in the handful of papers he wrote on magnetic reconnection, e.g.
On frozen-in field lines and field-line reconnection (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 81, Aug. 1, 1976, p. 4019-4021)

Huh? In that paper, he's criticizing ALL papers on the topic RC, not papers that HE personally wrote on this topic. Which paper that supports MR theory are you claiming that HE wrote on this subject?

 

[Reality Check]

Huh? In that paper, he's criticizing ALL papers on the topic RC, not papers that HE personally wrote on this topic. Which paper that supports MR theory are you claiming that HE wrote on this subject?

Huh? That is a paper he wrote on MR theory, i.e. criticizing the misapplication of MR theory not ALL papers on the topic. HE wrote that paper personally. He cites an earlier paper HE wrote along with Falthammar (1971) . The subject is MR theory and its misapplication in the context of the magnetosphere.

This is a paper that Alfven wrote that

1. supports the appropriate use of the frozen-in field approximation of MR theory and
2. criticizes the inappropriate use of frozen-in field approximation of MR theory.

This is the paper that supports MR theory that HE wrote on this subject.

The fact that this paper by a Nobel prize wining scientist has been essentially ignored over the last 36 years indicates that he was stating the obvious. Plasma physicists knew 36 years ago that the frozen-in field approximation was an approximation ! They have sepent the last 36 years removing that approximation. They continue to work on MR theory. That is what happens in science.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Alfvén acknowledged magnetic reconnection

Alfven never rejected MR entirely. He thought that it was misapplied as in the handful of papers he wrote on magnetic reconnection, e.g.
On frozen-in field lines and field-line reconnection (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 81, Aug. 1, 1976, p. 4019-4021)

http://plasma.colorado.edu/phys7810/articles/Alfven_FieldLines_1976.pdf

The first four sections of that short paper describe a gedanken experiment in which the magnetic field is stationary. With a stationary magnetic field, there is obviously no magnetic reconnection.

In section 5, however, Alfvén explicitly acknowledges the legitimacy and potential relevance of magnetic reconnection in non-stationary fields:

In case the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near neutral points may change in such a way that it is legitimate to speak of a `field-line reconnection.' We cannot exclude the possibility that some of the field-line reconnection formalism may be applicable, but this remains to be proved.

That passage confirms my interpretation of Alfvén's remarks in his keynote address, while refuting Michael Mozina's interpretation of those same remarks. Alfvén acknowledged the physics of magnetic reconnection, and acknowledged the "possibility" that magnetic reconnection "may be applicable" to the scientific problems that concerned him, but he was skeptical about its applicability.

As tusenfem and Tim Thompson have pointed out, magnetic reconnection has been observed in space. The relevance of those observations to the problems that interested Alfvén may not be entirely clear even today, but pseudo-scientists who reject magnetic reconnection out of hand or deny its potential relevance cannot support those prejudices by appeal to Alfvén's authority.

We blame you for lying about what Alfven actually states. He never rejected MR theory. He rejected the frozen-in field approximation except in special cases.

That rejection is explicit in section 6 of the paper:

In Cosmical Electrodynamics [Alfvén, 1950] I pointed out that under certain conditions the frozen-in picture was useful. However, the theory of magnetic storms which was summarized in the same monograph contains Bierkeland currents and magnetospheric convection (although in the wrong direction) and other concepts contrary to the frozen-in concept. From the observational evidence available already at that time it was evident that the frozen-in concept was not applicable to the magnetosphere, but the reasons for this did not become clear before space research had supplied us with relevant observational data. Later Alfvén and Fälthammar [1963, 1971] strongly warned against a general use of the frozen-in concept. It is increasingly evident that this concept belongs to the pseudo-plasma formalism which is useful only in special cases.

 

[GeeMack]

http://plasma.colorado.edu/phys7810/articles/Alfven_FieldLines_1976.pdf

The first four sections of that short paper describe a gedanken experiment in which the magnetic field is stationary. With a stationary magnetic field, there is obviously no magnetic reconnection.

In section 5, however, Alfvén explicitly acknowledges the legitimacy and potential relevance of magnetic reconnection in non-stationary fields:

That passage confirms my interpretation of Alfvén's remarks in his keynote address, while refuting Michael Mozina's interpretation of those same remarks. Alfvén acknowledged the physics of magnetic reconnection, and acknowledged the "possibility" that magnetic reconnection "may be applicable" to the scientific problems that concerned him, but he was skeptical about its applicability.

As tusenfem and Tim Thompson have pointed out, magnetic reconnection has been observed in space. The relevance of those observations to the problems that interested Alfvén may not be entirely clear even today, but pseudo-scientists who reject magnetic reconnection out of hand or deny its potential relevance cannot support those prejudices by appeal to Alfvén's authority.

That rejection is explicit in section 6 of the paper:

Thanks, W.D.Clinger, for showing once again that arguments like these...

Oh, I've posted what Alfven wrote about "magnetic reconnect" theory. He called it pseudoscience and claimed all DL's put another nail in it's coffin. He claimed that all MR theories in plasmas with current running through them were "misleading". They were better looked at as 'circuits' and "double layers". He wrote *HUNDREDS* of papers on the topic of 'circuits' and double layers. You collectively can't come up with even *ONE* paper that he wrote on the topic of MR theory.

The problem here is really quite simple. Alfven outright rejected and never once wrote about MR theory. He wrote HUNDREDS of papers and a whole book on the topic of "circuits" in space. That paper by Mann and Onel demonstrates that a 'circuit" orientation related to coronal loop activity works as well as any other orientation. When two or more "circuits/loops" do their "reconnection' process, it's simply "circuit reconnection". The moment you admit that the circuit orientation to plasma physics is valid, you lose this debate, not to me but to Alfven himself.

You accused me of *MISREPRESENTING* Alfven on this topic, or not UNDERSTANDING Alfven on this topic. You however have provided absolutely *NO* evidence to support that accusation, not even a single paper on the topic. IMO you owe me an apology.

So you have crystal clear evidence that I have never misrepresented Alfven on this topic, not ever! He consistently preferred a "circuit" orientation to such events. Whatever "reconnection" happens, happens between two "circuits" according to Alfven, not just two "magnetic lines". You folks have essentially mathematically "dumbed down" a current carrying Bennett Pinch "circuit" to a "magnetic line" so that you can call it 'magnetic reconnection'.

Fortunately for everyone, GR theory does not rise or fall on my personal math skills. Neither does circuit theory. Get over it. No amount of bashing me is going to resolve your problem with Alfven's claim that MR theory was pseudoscience. It won't change the fact that he wrote HUNDREDS of papers on the topic of circuits in space and *ZERO* papers on *ANY* brand of MR theory. Deal with it.

... are nonsense, demonstrably wrong, apparently based on ignorance rather than knowledge, and in many cases completely fabricated falsehoods.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Thanks, W.D.Clinger, for showing once again that arguments like these...

... are nonsense, demonstrably wrong, apparently based on ignorance rather than knowledge, and in many cases completely fabricated falsehoods.

As I have pointed out many times, these are the consequences of trying to read scientific papers without the scientific training and knowledge to understand them. Mozina would be well served by listening to those who have read these papers and have knowledge of plasma physics.
Dealing with income tax computer programs has nothing to do with plasma physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I've seen denial before, but this group is in a class by itself. You picked ONE LINE from ONE PAPER that claimed it "remained to be proven" at best case, and ignored the fact he called it pseudoscience 7 times, 10 years later at a conference for plasma physicists where he presented a paper on double layers. In the same speech he claimed that any double layer put another nail in the coffin of MR theory so clearly he thought the theory DESERVED to be buried by 1986. You could not come up with a SINGLE paper he wrote on this topic, yet you insist he somehow supported it anyway. What a crock.

The worst part is that you're denying the legitimacy of a circuit oriented approach even though Alfven himself wrote *HUNDREDS* of papers on that topic, and zero papers on the topic of MR theory. Not a single one of you (Clinger/PS/GM/RC) have actually read his book. Evidently the only thing that you could even dig up from Alfven on this topic to support you position is a single line from a single paper from 10 years earlier that said it REMAINED UNPROVEN.

Not one of you have yet to cite *ANY* flaw in a circuit oriented paper on magnetopheric activity, or flares. Not one of you have found a single paper where Alfven actually *SUPPORTED* MR theory. The best you could evidently come up with was a paper from 12 years *PRIOR* to his "pseudoscience" speech, where he claimed it remained to be proven. You're still in total denial of what he then said about that same theory 10 years later. How sad.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Huh? That is a paper he wrote on MR theory, i.e. criticizing the misapplication of MR theory not ALL papers on the topic. HE wrote that paper personally. He cites an earlier paper HE wrote along with Falthammar (1971) . The subject is MR theory and its misapplication in the context of the magnetosphere.

Yet that is *EXACTLY* where you're trying to use it anyway!

Note that not one of you could come with even a single paper where Alfven actually promoted the concept and you're in total denial of the fact the he explained these exact same events using "circuit" theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As I have pointed out many times, these are the consequences of trying to read scientific papers without the scientific training and knowledge to understand them. Mozina would be well served by listening to those who have read these papers and have knowledge of plasma physics.

Pfft. Clinger found only a SINGLE line from ONE paper where Alfven claimed that MR theory had not been proven to that point in time, and he utterly ignored he speech from 10 years later where he called it pseudoscience more than a 1/2 dozen different times. The whole lot of you can't even come up with A SINGLE SUPPORTING PAPER written by Alfven. As a group, you have yet to find any flaw in any of his circuit oriented papers related to these very same topics where you claim that MR theory applies.

I don't listen to ignorant people that are scientifically lazy, who refuse to read the appropriate materials, and who refuse to do their homework. If he actually supported MR theory, where's Alfven's paper on this topic? There isn't one!

 

[Michael Mozina]

I noticed that you all have refused to acknowledge any of the scientific criticisms that Alfven leveled at the whole MR concept and you ignored the fact he ruled out that concept *EVERYWHERE* inside the solar system. he did that because there is nowhere inside this solar system where current does not flow. You essentially don't even care what he wrote, you're going to believe what you want to beleive even though you can't find even ONE supporting paper on this topic written by Alfven. It's like me claiming that Einstein supported EU theory, but not being able to come up with a single supporting document to support such a claim. The fact he hadn't ruled out MR theory entirely n 1976 does not mean he had not ruled it out in 1986 when he called it "pseudoscience" in a room full of his peers.

 

[Reality Check]

Alfvén acknowledged magnetic reconnection and used circuit models

Note that not one of you could come with even a single paper where Alfven actually promoted the concept and you're in total denial of the fact the he explained these exact same events using "circuit" theory.

You are wrong yet again, Michael Mozina:
Alfvén acknowledged magnetic reconnection

And stop lying:
I and other posters have told you time and time again that Alfven did explain solar flares (for example) using circuit models.
We have also pointed out that circuit models are an even bigger approximation than the frozen-in field approximation that Alfven advocates as useful in special cases. Circuit models totally ignore the details of what is happening by absorbing them into a few parameters (resistivity, inductance, etc.). As an example, in circuit models Alfven waves do not exist!

 

[Reality Check]

I noticed that you all have refused to acknowledge any of the scientific criticisms that Alfven leveled at the whole MR concept and you ignored the fact he ruled out that concept *EVERYWHERE* inside the solar system. he did that because there is nowhere inside this solar system where current does not flow.

You are persisting in your delusions

1. We have acknowledged Alfven's 36 year old scientific criticisms of the MR concept, e.g. Alfvén acknowledged magnetic reconnection
   and many other posts.
2. He never ruled out that concept *EVERYWHERE* inside the solar system. If I am wrong then quote him stating this.
3. Electric current flows eveywhere in the universe.
   This has nothing to do with the critera that he uses (Why Alfven Was Wrong). That criteria is that there is no electric current passing through the surface of a finite volume, not that electric current does not exist. Magnetic fields can prevent electric currents from flowing through finite volumes of plasma by simply guiding them away from that volume!

 

[GeeMack]

Not one of you have found a single paper where Alfven actually *SUPPORTED* MR theory.

If nobody could find a single paper where Alfvén actually supported plate tectonics, it would be absurd to suggest that consequently he rejected it. Absolutely, unequivocally absurd. So absurd it's not even wrong. It doesn't matter what Alfvén didn't write about magnetic reconnection. It's irrelevant. This sort of dishonest contortion of logic only gets more ridiculous each time it's used as an argument.

But the fact is, Alfvén did apparently understand and acknowledge the existence of magnetic reconnection, as pointed out several times by Reality Check and others. To claim he didn't would be untrue and/or the result of ignorance of the preceding 10 pages of discussion.

The best you could evidently come up with was a paper from 12 years *PRIOR* to his "pseudoscience" speech, where he claimed it remained to be proven.

So Alfvén said something, then 10 years later said something else that allegedly overruled his earlier comments, yet all research and acquired knowledge in the field of plasma physics since then can be discarded because, well, it wasn't Alfvén! Again, the depth of the illogic in these Alfvén-was-omniscient arguments is abysmal.

You're still in total denial of what he then said about that same theory 10 years later. How sad.

A speech isn't a paper. It's a speech. But of course a dishonest and/or unqualified misinterpretation is still dishonest and/or unqualified whether the criticism is of a speech or a scientific paper. Also, accusing the participants in this thread of being in denial when most of us clearly acknowledge and understand Alfvén's position, with a few who are actual experts in fields of physics, astrophysics, and/or plasma physics even, is both a personal attack and a lie.