Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

A general observation:

I seems to be a frequent occurrence that crackpots read scientific papers that they do not have the knowledge and training to understand. Inexplicably, they seem to believe that such "reading" imparts insights that genuine professionals do not have. These people do indeed provide a fascinating side show in the world of science.

Yet not one of you can produce a single positive paper from Alfven on MRx theory. Why is that PS? At least I've actually read his papers and books. Some clairvoyant crackpots seem to think they already understand a subject *without* ever studying it. They write off the work of Nobel Prize winning physicist without ever reading it, let alone citing a single flaw in the work.
 
Tough. Alfvén is dead. And his criteria, whether real or imagined for the pourpose of supporting some crackpot notions about physics, are largely irrelevant to contemporary physics and the reality of magnetic reconnection.

So spoke the clairvoyant physicist that has never personally cited a single mathematical or physical flaw in his work.
 
Tough. Alfvén is dead. And his criteria, whether real or imagined for the pourpose of supporting some crackpot notions about physics, are largely irrelevant to contemporary physics and the reality of magnetic reconnection.

FYI, nothing has even changed in that 20 years since his death. The MrX theories of today are based on *EXACTLY* the same basic premises that were around during Alfven's time. There's nothing new under the sun, must more fascination with the same old pseudoscience that Alfven utterly rejected.
 
FYI, nothing has even changed in that 20 years since his death. The MrX theories of today are based on *EXACTLY* the same basic premises that were around during Alfven's time. There's nothing new under the sun, must more fascination with the same old pseudoscience that Alfven utterly rejected.


This has to be as ludicrous and ignorant of an argument as anyone could ever put forth to try to support a scientific position. It is absolutely, undeniably false, and it shows a clear and obvious contempt for science and for the people who are legitimately engaged in applying the scientific process to improve our understanding of the Universe. The blatant acknowledgement that twenty years of contemporary science is being willfully ignored is an outright admission of failure to provide a legitimate argument. :p

It's also another excellent example of Tim's description of the what we've seen here as the only argument against magnetic reconnection. The totality of the argument is the constant bleating of, "Alfvén said it isn't so, therefore it isn't." Invoke the name of the gods, no science required. :boggled:
 
Last edited:
I saw unsupported assertions, but no legitimately scientific criticism of the physics of magnetic reconnection. And that's the point.

No, you're just in hard core denial of the fact that you have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse. "Electrical discharges" happen around *every* large body in the solar system with a magnetic field and an atmosphere, *including* the solar atmosphere as Dungey demonstrated over 60 years ago. That's the point.
 
This has to be as ludicrous and ignorant of an argument as anyone could ever put forth to try to support a scientific position.

No, you win that award for never reading Alfven's work or finding any flaw in it.

It is absolutely, undeniably false, and it shows a clear and obvious contempt for science and for the people who are legitimately engaged in applying the scientific process to improve our understanding of the Universe. The blatant acknowledgement that twenty years of contemporary science is being willfully ignored is an outright admission of failure to provide a legitimate argument. :p

Besides your emotional need to grandstand and the computer models that I already acknowledged were more "sophisticated", what's changed? The MrX experiment all violate Alfven's basic restrictions, and they all require "current" to make them work!

It's also another excellent example of Tim's description of the what we've seen here as the only argument against magnetic reconnection. The totality of the argument is the constant bleating of, "Alfvén said it isn't so, therefore it isn't." Invoke the name of the gods, no science required. :boggled:

Alfven personally wrote MHD theory and was given a Nobel Prize for his work on that subject. He personally rejected MrX theory. So far I've yet to see any of you provide me with a legitimate scientific reason to ignore his teachings on circuit theory of favor of what he called "pseudoscience". It's not about "gods", it's about pure physics. Your "magnetic reconnection' experiments all require "electricity" to make them work.
 
No he didn't!

He absolutely rejected MR theory TBT. He called it pseudoscience more than a half dozen times in a single keynote speech which I have already posted to this forum. He talked about putting nails in the coffin of that very same theory in that very same speech where he presented his paper on double layers. He'd already seen the Parker and Sweet and Petschek brands and he personally rejected them all as "pseudoscience".

It's really revealing to me to witness the fact that you folks are absolutely incapable of accepting historical fact. Alfven *rejected* the whole concept in a "current carrying" environment. He immediately switched to a circuit oriented approach in such conditions. Everywhere that the mainstream uses "MR" theory, he used "circuits" instead. He wrote exactly zero supportive papers on MR theory and he put *severe* restrictions upon the conditions that must be met in order to even consider it. Not coincidentally, none of those conditions are met in the "experiments" done to date.

It's one thing to argue that Alfven was wrong on this topic. It's quite another thing entirely to claim he did not reject the idea. He absolutely rejected it as 'pseudoscience". He literally wrote hundreds of papers related to the 'particle/circuit" oriented approach to plasma physics, and zero papers on the topic of "magnetic reconnection".
 
Last edited:
He literally wrote hundreds of papers related to the 'particle/circuit" oriented approach to plasma physics, and zero papers on the topic of "magnetic reconnection".


If he wrote zero papers on magnetic reconnection, then I'm sure we all agree it would be foolish to present him as an expert on the issue. So we have an argument by convoluted logic, another failure to present any legitimately scientific criticism of magnetic reconnection, and another example of erroneously holding Alfvén up as the final word on a subject which has decades of scientific improvement since he croaked. :p
 
He absolutely rejected MR theory TBT. He called it pseudoscience more than a half dozen times in a single keynote speech which I have already posted to this forum.
He rejected it's use in certain contexts.

He wrote exactly zero supportive papers on MR theory
So what? Einstein never wrote any papers on evolution. Should we reject evolution?

and he put *severe* restrictions upon the conditions that must be met in order to even consider it.
Huh? Contradict yourself much? You just claimed he absolutely rejected it, now you claim he only put constraints on when it should be considered.

It's one thing to argue that Alfven was wrong on this topic. It's quite another thing entirely to claim he did not reject the idea.
It's one thing to claim Alfven rejected the use of MR in certain circumstances. It's another to claim "He absolutely rejected it".

He absolutely rejected it as 'pseudoscience". He literally wrote hundreds of papers related to the 'particle/circuit" oriented approach to plasma physics, and zero papers on the topic of "magnetic reconnection".
Einstein wrote 0 papers on evolution. Did Einstein reject evolution?
 
From:

NASA Conference Publication 2469
Double Layers
in Astrophysics
Proceedings of a workshop held at
George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, Alabama
March 17-19, 1986

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science

Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfvén, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in 1.3, 11.3, and 11.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.

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.

I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

In those parts of solar physics which do not deal with the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region (fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid), the state is even worse. It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made necessary (see Section VIII).

I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.

How much more clear could he have been in his rejection of MR theory TBT?
 
Last edited:
Did he call evolutionary theory pseudoscience? If he had called it pseudoscience and claimed it could not occur, would you "cover up" that little scientific gem too?


Einstein didn't write any papers on evolution, therefore using the logic presented in this thread challenging the science of magnetic reconnection, evolution cannot occur. The logic fails using Alfvén or Einstein.

And to look at it another way, if Einstein had called evolution pseudo-science and claimed it could not occur, he would have been wrong. Again the logic fails using Alfvén or Einstein.

And that would be if Alfvén did reject magnetic reconnection as an impossibility. But of course it has been shown many times right in this thread that he didn't. Any claim that he did is not true.

Science moves forward. No legitimate scientist rejects 20 years of advancement in any area of research simply because someone with some alleged expertise made some declarations on some particular and narrow application of it a couple decades ago. No legitimate scientist would reject it.
 
How much more clear could he have been in his rejection of MR theory TBT?

Very well. Alfven though MR was entirely pseudoscience. Now. science has progressed somewhat over the last 25 years without Alfven. Please do explain why we should pretend it hasn't?
 
How much more clear could he have been in his rejection of MR theory TBT?
Quote:
B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science
Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfvén, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in 1.3, 11.3, and 11.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.
...
How much more clear could Alfven have been in his rejection of using the frozen-in concept. MM?

FYI: The frozen-in concept is not MR theory. It is an approximation used in magnetohydrodynamics that allows the ideal MHD theory to be used. Plasma science has nmoved on in the 30 years since Alfven stated this opinion in a speech that you obsess about.
 
Did he call evolutionary theory pseudoscience?
Not so far as I'm aware?

If he had called it pseudoscience and claimed it could not occur, would you "cover up" that little scientific gem too?
No. If I could be bothered I'd research his claims in more detail to see why he felt the way he did. Then I'd compare that with how scientific understanding of the topic at hand had progressed in the meantime.
What I would not do is assume the word of Einstein to be immutable and reject out of hand all scientific progress in the field of evolution since Einstein said such things.
 
Did you even read the Mann and Onel paper RC? How did they release all that energy in less than 1 million years?
More ignorance, MM.
They use a circuit model to replace the actual physical processes that are happening. That means throwing away the length scales. Thus the inductance of the electronic components in the model release energy instantly. I would guess that it is the capacitance in the circuit model that governs the time scale of the energy release.

The actual physics of solar flares states that induction would take a million years to release the observed energy:
MM: Do you know that 100 seconds is a lot less thanh a million years?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom