Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[Michael Mozina]

Magnetic reconnection occurs, the math is good, and the empirical experiments bear it out, so the only "Problems With Magnetic Reconnection" is it has a funny name?

Circuit reconnection occurs, and the experiments bear it out. The only problem with calling it magnetic reconnection is that that magnetic fields never actually 'disconnect from' nor 'reconnect to' any other magnetic lines. Only particles and circuits "reconnect".

 

[GeeMack]

Circuit reconnection occurs, and the experiments bear it out. The only problem with calling it magnetic reconnection is that that magnetic fields never actually 'disconnect from' nor 'reconnect to' any other magnetic lines. Only particles and circuits "reconnect".

It seems a very appropriate response to this unsupported and unqualified assertion has already been provided...

At no time has Mozina ever commented on a single experiment beyond the level of saying that the experimental results must be impossible because Alfven said so. Not one single reference to actual experimental data anywhere, ever.

Ever. No scientific criticism has been offered to support the claim that there are any significant "Problems With Magnetic Reconnection". No comment on actual experimental data has been made. None of the "critics" has attempted to initiate a discussion of the contemporary state of the science magnetic reconnection. The name of god Alfvén has been invoked. Apparently that is considered science by some people. Fortunately real science doesn't work that way and real scientists don't feel that way.

 

[Reality Check]

Define the 'event' in terms of empirical physics please. What particle does the kinetic energy transfer "event"?

That is dumb, Michael Mozina. There is no

kinetic energy transfer "event"

. There are magnetic reconnecton events. They can happen many times. The rate of there occurrence is the magnetic reconnection rate.


You may not be able to understand this so the empirical physics is:

1. Start a clock.
2. Count the number of magnetic reconnection events.
3. Stop the clock.
4. Subtract the 2 times.
5. Divide the count by the time difference.

Simple enough for you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is dumb, Michael Mozina. There is no . There are magnetic reconnecton events. They can happen many times. The rate of there occurrence is the magnetic reconnection rate.


You may not be able to understand this so the empirical physics is:

1. Start a clock.
2. Count the number of magnetic reconnection events.
3. Stop the clock.
4. Subtract the 2 times.
5. Divide the count by the time difference.

Simple enough for you?

It's "oversimplified" there RC. I'm looking for the carrier particle that does the work in terms of particle acceleration. The photon is the kinetic energy carrier particle of induction. What the hell is the carrier particle for "magnetic reconnection"?

 

[Reality Check]

What the hell is the carrier particle for "magnetic reconnection"?

This has nothing to do with the question which was what was the magnetic reconnection rate and the answer wasa

Originally Posted by Reality Check
a) In relation to any magnetic reconnection events, Reconnection rate = the rate of magnetic reconnection events, e.g. X events per second.

Do you understand that the magnetic reconnection rate is the count of magnetic reconnection events divided by the time over which they are counted, Michael Mozina?

The photon is the mediator of the electromagnetic field so the "particle" is the photon (Duh!).
Of course only an ignorant person would want to use photons. Any scientifically competent person would just use the forces exerted by changing magnetic fields that accelerate charged particles.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...only an ignorant person would want to use photons....

 

[tusenfem]

Sure, by all means. I still think his paper was one of the best I've ever read on the topic of (circuit) "reconnection".

You mean that the current flow topology changes over time, and therefore so does the magnetic field topology. That's not "magnetic reconnection", but you can go ahead and call it anything you like as long as you acknowledge that current flow inside the line as did Dr. Birn.

Up to now, he has shown magnetic reconnection, flows, entropy, electric fields, and never yet mentioned circuits. That may ofcourse be, because circuits are not interesting, circuits cannot e.g. show the fast flows that "launched" out of the reconnection region. The only currents he mentioned from his modeling is field aligned currents that are driven by the fast flows twisting flux tubes.

So, when are you finally going to show us this real circuit reconnection model of yours?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Up to now, he has shown magnetic reconnection, flows, entropy, electric fields, and never yet mentioned circuits. That may ofcourse be, because circuits are not interesting, circuits cannot e.g. show the fast flows that "launched" out of the reconnection region. The only currents he mentioned from his modeling is field aligned currents that are driven by the fast flows twisting flux tubes.

This is what I mean about you having the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse. The "current" is what drives the parade due to "charge separation" between various areas of the surface. The magnetic field acts to "pinch" the current into well defined "streams" of currents. When the current streams change directions, it's simply "current reconnection" or "circuit reconnection" (as it relates to circuit theory), but the magnetic field doesn't "do" anything other than to release itself "partially" into surrounding plasma, AKA *induction*.

Birn never hid the fact that currents flowed along the "lines". He made that quite clear in fact which was how I was able to finally understand what MR theory was really about. Up till that point in time, the energy exchange "mechanisms" I'd seen proposed were "monopoles" (which I had rejected).

Once I understood that those "currents" were present, I could understand how it directly related to back to Alfven's circuit oriented approach, and since that time I've simply called it "circuit reconnection".

So, when are you finally going to show us this real circuit reconnection model of yours?

Onel and Mann already did that for you. The used Alfven's circuit oriented approach and broke up the circuit into "smaller pieces" for you and everything. Whatever "double layer" might form between two circuits is likely to be "short lived" as we both agree, but Alfven wrote all about the energy exchange inside that double layer *without* MR theory. Occum's razor argument anyone?

 

[tensordyne]

just a quick question

How does one experimentally determine if magnetic reconnection has occured?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The photon is the mediator of the electromagnetic field so the "particle" is the photon (Duh!).

So you really mean "induction" then (Duh!).

Of course only an ignorant person would want to use photons. Any scientifically competent person would just use the forces exerted by changing magnetic fields that accelerate charged particles.

That is exactly how induction works RC.

This is another example of where you folks ignore the physics. The transfer of kinetic energy from the magnetic field to a charged particle already has a proper scientific name, AKA *induction*. There's nothing "unique" about what you're calling "magnetic reconnection" that isn't already explained by induction and "discharges in plasmas". Oh ya, you don't do discharges in plasma either.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How does one experimentally determine if magnetic reconnection has occured?

They turn on the current......

 

[tensordyne]

They turn on the current......

That does not sound like much of a check to me, unless you are being fascetious.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That does not sound like much of a check to me, unless you are being fascetious.

FYI, the latter was the case.

I agree with you that turning on the CURRENT doesn't impress me much, but that is exactly how most of the 'experiments' begin.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

delete

(One of my paragraphs was wrong, and I don't have time right now to correct it.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

In the experiment I have recommended to Michael Mozina on several occasions, you'd use the magnetometer.

This is *your* claim, so *you* are obligated to do the 'experiment' and report the results. Where is the published paper on this topic that you wish to refer us to?

 

[Michael Mozina]

First question:

Did your published experiment begin with 'current'?

Second question:

What is sustaining the "magnetic line' and does it involve "current" inside the thing you are calling a "magnetic line".

Third question:

Are you going to claim as Wiki claims that this process can occur *in the absence of plasma or plasma double layers*?

Forth Question:

If this does involve "current', why is it not 'misleading" and why should I not ignore it as Alfven suggested?

 

[GeeMack]

First question:

Did your published experiment begin with 'current'?

Second question:

What is sustaining the "magnetic line' and does it involve "current" inside the thing you are calling a "magnetic line".

Third question:

Are you going to claim as Wiki claims that this process can occur *in the absence of plasma or plasma double layers*?

Forth Question:

If this does involve "current', why is it not 'misleading" and why should I not ignore it as Alfven suggested?

All those words and not a single scientific criticism of magnetic reconnection. Tim's words still hold true...

At no time has Mozina ever commented on a single experiment beyond the level of saying that the experimental results must be impossible because Alfven said so. Not one single reference to actual experimental data anywhere, ever. The list I have shown above is by no means exhaustive, as there are more detailed descriptions available in texts & papers. But we can be assured that Mozina will deny them one & all, and do so without bothering ever to actually examine the experiments in any scientific sense. So I refer to the Mozina self portrait above on the matter of "scientific laziness".

 

[Reality Check]

So you really mean "induction" then (Duh!).

I really meant what I said not what your fantasies make you think. I said that the mediator of the electromagnetic field is photons.

That is exactly how induction works RC.

That is exactly how magnetic reconnection works, MM.

This is another example of where you folks ignore the physics.

You are lying. You are the one who is ignoring the physics and continuing with the delusion that magnetic reconnection is induction.

We folks look at the physics of induction and note that its time scale is millions of times longer than the time scales of magnetic reconnection.
You consistently ignore this little fact proving that you are deluded about this point.


Then there is your continued "circuit reconnection" fantasy that

• You cannot define.
• You cannot cite a defintion of.
• Two currents ("circuits") connecting is obviously dumb since it does not release any energy as seen in magnetic reconnection events.

The transfer of kinetic energy from the magnetic field to a charged particle already has a proper scientific name, AKA *induction*.

Wrong: The proper scientific name is acceleration.
For example particle accelerators do not use induction to accelerate particles. They use magnets.

There's nothing "unique" about what you're calling "magnetic reconnection" that isn't already explained by induction and "discharges in plasmas".

Lying again: Induction cannot explain the time scales of real magnetic reconnection events. One more time:

• Solar flares release energy on time scales of ~100 seconds.
• Given their size, induction takes a million years to release the energy of a solar flare.

Oh ya, you don't do discharges in plasma either.

Oh ya - showing your ignorance yet again, Michael Mozina.
High current densities happen in plasma. Some authors in older papers call these discharges. Most authors in modern papers call these high curent densities.

By definition though, electrical discharges cannot happen in plasma because that requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium and plasmas conduct (are already broken down).

To emphasis the delusional nature of your assertion about inductrion, here is that assertion debunked on over a year ago (31st December 2009)

The conversion of magnetic energy into a current always operates on a time-scale characteristic of the system, and that time scale is controlled by the ability of the magnetic field to move through the conductor, in order to create a dB/dt term from which the current is generated. That time-scale in a plasma is rather different than it is for a fixed conductor. Here we find the real deal once again in Priest & Forbes:

"In space physics the distinction between ideal and non-ideal processes is important because simple estimates imply that magnetic dissipation acts on a time-scale which is many orders of magnitude slower than the observed time-scale of dynamic phenomena. For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 10⁵ km is of the order of 10⁶ yrs."
Priest & Forbes, page 6
​

All of this occurs in the first few pages of the book, but evidently Mozina has not even bothered to look at it.

 

[tusenfem]

This is what I mean about you having the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse. The "current" is what drives the parade due to "charge separation" between various areas of the surface. The magnetic field acts to "pinch" the current into well defined "streams" of currents. When the current streams change directions, it's simply "current reconnection" or "circuit reconnection" (as it relates to circuit theory), but the magnetic field doesn't "do" anything other than to release itself "partially" into surrounding plasma, AKA *induction*.

Needless to say that this does not make sense at all. What charge separation, there is no such thing in MRx, the double layers that appeared after the reconnection was already happening were in the current layer.

What "surface" are you talking about? What is the magnetic field pinching in the magnetotail? How can a magnetic field "release" itself partly in a plasma?

Birn never hid the fact that currents flowed along the "lines". He made that quite clear in fact which was how I was able to finally understand what MR theory was really about. Up till that point in time, the energy exchange "mechanisms" I'd seen proposed were "monopoles" (which I had rejected).

Once I understood that those "currents" were present, I could understand how it directly related to back to Alfven's circuit oriented approach, and since that time I've simply called it "circuit reconnection".

Ofcourse there are currents present, there is the current sheet between the oppositely directed fields (Birn models the Earth's magnetotail). There are Hall currents, there are field aligned currents which are the closure currents of the Hall currents (which flow perpendicular to the magnetic field, through unmagnetized ions and electrons).

I doubt you can show any evidence of a mainstream MRx model that uses monopoles.

And again, a circuit can describe the large scale properties, but it cannot model the diffusion regions where the actual MRx is taking place. And you know the reason why it cannot model that, I have given you the reasons numerous times.

Onel and Mann already did that for you. The used Alfven's circuit oriented approach and broke up the circuit into "smaller pieces" for you and everything. Whatever "double layer" might form between two circuits is likely to be "short lived" as we both agree, but Alfven wrote all about the energy exchange inside that double layer *without* MR theory. Occum's razor argument anyone?

No, Onel & Mann did not do that, have you even read my comments on this paper? There is nothing in that paper that has anything to do with MRx, they set up a circuit to calculate the amount of energy in the flare system, and then they start to talk about accelerating electrons by electric fields, which generate the X-rays through bremsstrahlung.

I guess you cannot be bothered with actually commenting on what I wrote about that paper (I think I have even done it twice), you just forget what you don't like and come up with the same old same old statements, that e.g. I have to reject again and again.

This is, as usual, a pointless discussion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Needless to say that this does not make sense at all. What charge separation, there is no such thing in MRx,

I thought you said you read Mann an Onel's paper? There is such a thing in "circuit theory" and that is essentially where Mrx theory falls apart IMO. You have current flowing along the 'magnetic line', but you never explained it properly.

the double layers that appeared after the reconnection was already happening were in the current layer.

The current is flowing along both "magnetic lines" *before* the 'current reconnection/circuit reconnection' ever occurs. The double layer is simply the "plasma layer" that forms between them as they "touch".

What "surface" are you talking about? What is the magnetic field pinching in the magnetotail? How can a magnetic field "release" itself partly in a plasma?

Let's either discuss coronal loops or the magnetotail but not both at the same time. Alfven used a simple "circuit" oriented approach and the the variation in solar wind would account for the highs and lows in terms of auroral activity. His circuit oriented approach explained the energy exchange process *without* the need for Mrx at all.

Ofcourse there are currents present, there is the current sheet between the oppositely directed fields (Birn models the Earth's magnetotail). There are Hall currents, there are field aligned currents which are the closure currents of the Hall currents (which flow perpendicular to the magnetic field, through unmagnetized ions and electrons).

Ya, and those "currents" sustain and explain the process without the need for Mrx to occur at any time, day or night. I've cited Alfven's circuit oriented magnetosphere paper before. Did you ever point out any flaws in it?

I doubt you can show any evidence of a mainstream MRx model that uses monopoles.

Honestly, the first paper I attempted to review mathematically got to a point where it used monopoles in the energy exchange process. Priest is a recognized writer in the field.

http://books.google.com/books?id=nf...result&resnum=9&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=false

If in fact monopoles existed and were a unique carrier particle of kinetic energy *THAT* might actually convince me that MR theory is in fact a unique kinetic energy exchange and deserves a name of it's own that is unique and different from ordinary "induction" where photons are the carrier particle.

And again, a circuit can describe the large scale properties, but it cannot model the diffusion regions where the actual MRx is taking place. And you know the reason why it cannot model that, I have given you the reasons numerous times.

Your "reasons" seem to utterly and completely ignore the 'charge separation' aspect of the process. That's why you keep "insisting' it can't be done in fact. The moment you stop burying your head in the sand over the charge separation aspect, the whole argument falls flat. Birkeland already 'tested' the 'circuit" approach to explaining 'coronal loops".

No, Onel & Mann did not do that, have you even read my comments on this paper? There is nothing in that paper that has anything to do with MRx, they set up a circuit to calculate the amount of energy in the flare system, and then they start to talk about accelerating electrons by electric fields, which generate the X-rays through bremsstrahlung.

Yes I know. It's a much more "elegant" solution to a 'coronal loop" and it correctly explains how and why a *single* coronal loops emits x-rays. It correctly explains the "operating characteristics' of energy releases of partial or full "circuits" of energy, including two that might "touch". All that is required is to add "circuits".

I guess you cannot be bothered with actually commenting on what I wrote about that paper (I think I have even done it twice), you just forget what you don't like and come up with the same old same old statements, that e.g. I have to reject again and again.

This is, as usual, a pointless discussion.

It's only "pointless" because you refuse to accept a "circuit' oriented "coronal loop", let alone two "circuits" shortcircuiting.