Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[Michael Mozina]

Not so far as I'm aware?

So your analogy is pointless.

No. If I could be bothered I'd research his claims in more detail to see why he felt the way he did.

Oh, you mean how I (but not you or GM or RC) actually read Cosmic Plasma and many of his "circuit" oriented papers?

Then I'd compare that with how scientific understanding of the topic at hand had progressed in the meantime.

Had you done that, you'd find that none of that so called "progression" (which had already started during his life) fails miserably to meet the criteria listed in the last line of that quote I just posted.

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.

Good thing I actually read his work for myself, understood his objections as a result and have made my own decisions about "circuit reconnection" theory.

Too bad RC and GM and you haven't even bothered to read Cosmic Plasma, let alone made any attempt to "understand" the nature of his objections.

 

[Reality Check]

Alfven didn't call GR theory pseudoscience, did he?

No he did not. So what?
He stated his opinion that the frozen concept was often misapplied. He was right - 30 years ago.
He is now wrong because plasma science has progressed. Plasma scientists have better theories to use and better criteria to know when to use them.

He never states that all of MR theory is wrong.

ETA

Call me a liar it that somehow floats your boat RC, but plasma can and do experience electrical discharges

I call you a liar because

• You continue to lie about Alfven rejecting all of MR theory.
• You lie about the simple physics that by definition (e.g. Anthony Peratt's defintion for which he gives the example of lightning) electrical discharges cannot happen in plasma.

Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

Your ignorant obsession on the opinion of Alfven about magnetic reconnection has ben demonstrated many times, e.g. your reliance on a keynote speech at a conference!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Quote:

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.

Which part of this sentence is not clear to you?

Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

He called MR theory 'pseudoscience', he didn't just call the "frozen in" concept pseudoscience:

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science

 

[Michael Mozina]

No he did not. So what?

So you're comparing apples to oranges. Alfven didn't just have "no" view on this topic, he rejected it outright.

He stated his opinion that the frozen concept was often misapplied. He was right - 30 years ago.]

It's still being misapplied to this very day.

You continue to lie about him rejecting all of MR theory.

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science

Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

Who's the liar RC?

 

[Reality Check]

Which part of this sentence is not clear to you?

Which part of this paragraph is not clear to you?

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.

He called MR theory 'pseudoscience', he didn't just call the "frozen in" concept pseudoscience:

Once again with the lies. The speech is about the use of the frozen-in concept.

ETA
Missed the comment about the title of this section of the speech. This is similar to the ignorance between Peratts title and his definition:
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011

Titles are short. It is the content of the section that actually says what he is talking about. The subject of the section is the danger of using the frozen-in concept.

 

[Reality Check]

It's still being misapplied to this very day.

Now you are just displacing a total ignorance of modern plasma physics.
Magnetic reconnection is being successfully applied in many experiments and observations as reported in hundreds of papers.

Try backing up this unsupported assertion, MM: Instead of relying on the outdated opinion of one person, maybe you can cite some of the modern textbooks and papers that show that magnetic reconnection does not exist?

 

[Tubbythin]

So your analogy is pointless.

Not in the slightest. The point I was making was that the papers people haven't written can't be read.

Oh, you mean how I (by not you or GM or RC) read Cosmic Plasma and many of his "circuit" oriented papers?

Huh? You're not getting this are you? I said "If I could be bothered". I'm not in the least bit bothered about what Alfven said. I don't believe his words to be immutable and have no particular concerns for his personal opinions which have been made largely irrelevant by more than two decades of scientific progress.

Had you done that, you'd find that none of that so called "progression" (which had already started during his life) fails miserably to meet the criteria listed in the last line of that quote I just posted.

That's nice. But you're assuming the words of Alfven are immutable. They are not.

Good thing I actually read his work for myself, understood his objections as a result and have made my own decisions about "circuit reconnection" theory.

I'd be surprised if you really understood them. Physics is an inherently mathematical subject and you seem to run at the slightest sign of quantitative evidence. But anyway, this is about problems with magnetic reconnection. Its not a thread about the nice warm feeling you get inside when you read the words of scientist you have an obsession with.

Too bad RC and GM and you haven't even bothered to read Cosmic Plasma, let alone made any attempt to "understand" the nature of his objections.

Well if you could explain them quantitatively we might get somewhere. Sadly most of what we have is your repeated claims that your divine authority called MR "pseudoscience".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Which part of this paragraph is not clear to you?



Once again with the lies. The speech is about the use of the frozen-in concept.

The only lies are coming from you RC. The title of that part of his speech compares *MR THEORY* to pseudoscience, not just the "frozen in" concept. Just as you ignored the fact that Perratt's definition of an electrical discharge begins *IN A PLASMA*, you're in pure denial of what Alfven actually said on this topic. You're in pure denial at this point and no amount of calling me a liar is going to change history RC. Alfven utterly, totally and completely rejected MR theory. If I were lying to you, you would be able to find us several pro-MR theory papers written by Alfven. You can't and you never will.

 

[Tubbythin]

It's still being misapplied to this very day.

I suppose, if you are so certain of this, you'll be able to give us quantitative analysis of relevant papers.

 

[Tubbythin]

If I were lying to you, you would be able to find us several pro-MR theory papers written by Alfven.

You cannot possibly think referencing papers scientists never wrote constitutes a sensible, coherent argument... can you?

 

[GeeMack]

The only lies are coming from you RC. The title of that part of his speech compares *MR THEORY* to pseudoscience, not just the "frozen in" concept. Just as you ignored the fact that Perratt's definition of an electrical discharge begins *IN A PLASMA*, you're in pure denial of what Alfven actually said on this topic. You're in pure denial at this point and no amount of calling me a liar is going to change history RC. Alfven utterly, totally and completely rejected MR theory. If I were lying to you, you would be able to find us several pro-MR theory papers written by Alfven. You can't and you never will.

Since this entire argument is constructed from severe misunderstandings and/or intentionally dishonest misinterpretations of legitimate physics, Alfvén's actual position, Peratt's actual position, what an electrical discharge is, what plasma is, and the personal attack involved in dishonestly challenging knowledgeable, rational people to meet some impossible conditions constructed from convoluted logic, it can be dismissed as irrelevant gibberish.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not in the slightest. The point I was making was that the papers people haven't written can't be read.

But Alfven's comments about MR theory can be read. None of them were favorable.

Huh? You're not getting this are you? I said "If I could be bothered". I'm not in the least bit bothered about what Alfven said. I don't believe his words to be immutable and have no particular concerns for his personal opinions which have been made largely irrelevant by more than two decades of scientific progress.

There hasn't been much real progress in that time. All the so called 'experiments" require current flow and Alfven explicitly rejected MR theory in such conditions as that last line demonstrates. The only 'progress' has been more political "formalism" as Alfven called it.

That's nice. But you're assuming the words of Alfven are immutable. They are not.

No, I am not assuming any such thing, or I wouldn't be calling it "circuit reconnection', I'd be calling it "pseudoscience" like Alfven did. I simply see no evidence that MR theory has actually "advanced" since the models are *STILL* based on the same models that Alfven studied and rejected.

I'd be surprised if you really understood them. Physics is an inherently mathematical subject and you seem to run at the slightest sign of quantitative evidence. But anyway, this is about problems with magnetic reconnection. Its not a thread about the nice warm feeling you get inside when you read the words of scientist you have an obsession with.

Well, I'd be even more surprised if you understood them without ever reading them. I've picked out very specific objections in specific MR papers over the years. I've yet to see anyone pick out a specific mathematical error or assumption in Alfven's work that they could demonstrate to be an error.

Well if you could explain them quantitatively we might get somewhere.

Where would that actually get us? I don't deny the validity of the math, at least not since reading Birn's paper 3 or 4 years ago.

Sadly most of what we have is your repeated claims that your divine authority called MR "pseudoscience".

Not at all. You've just given me no logical or scientific reason to believe that Alfven was wrong about this topic. More importantly you've shown me every indication that you (collectively) aren't even able to asses his position on this topic in an emotionally detached way, let alone based upon 'education' as to his actual writings. You keep objecting to the notion that Alfven rejected MR theory, but he certainly did reject it. That lack of acceptance is directly related to a lack of reading IMO. Had you actually read his materials in an emotionally detached way, there's no way to actually miss or misrepresent his position on this topic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Since this entire argument is constructed from severe misunderstandings and/or intentionally dishonest misinterpretations of legitimate physics, Alfvén's actual position, Peratt's actual position, what an electrical discharge is, what plasma is, and the personal attack involved in dishonestly challenging knowledgeable, rational people to meet some impossible conditions constructed from convoluted logic, it can be dismissed as irrelevant gibberish.

Since your entire argument is based on extreme ignorance of the topic, you haven't read Peratt's book or Alfven's book for yourself nor pointed out any flaws in their work, your statements can be dismissed as irrelevant uneducated gibberish. Who cares what you think?

 

[Reality Check]

Do you know the difference between a title and contents

The only lies are coming from you RC. The title of that part of his speech compares *MR THEORY* to pseudoscience, not just the "frozen in" concept. Just as you ignored the fact that Perratt's definition of an electrical discharge begins *IN A PLASMA*, you're in pure denial of what Alfven actually said on this topic.

Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011

Alfven utterly, totally and completely rejected MR theory. If I were lying to you, you would be able to find us several pro-MR theory papers written by Alfven. You can't and you never will.

That is idiotic.
The fact is that 30 years ago Alfven wrote papers that pointed out the misuse of the frozen in concept as stated in his speech.
The fact that he did not write any "pro-MR theory" means nothing. I will never find them. I never will. Looking for non-existant stuff is stupid.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I suppose, if you are so certain of this, you'll be able to give us quantitative analysis of relevant papers.

According to Alfven, every paper and/or experiment where E != 0 drives another nail in the coffin of MR theory, and *EVERY SINGLE EXPERIMENT* to support Mr theory requires electrical current to drive the process, nailing the coffin shut.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011


That is idiotic.
The fact is that 30 years ago Alfven wrote papers that pointed out the misuse of the frozen in concept as stated in his speech.
The fact that he did not write any "pro-MR theory" means nothing. I will never find them. I never will. Looking for non-existant stuff is stupid.

No RC, the denial stuff is stupid. It's just stupid to ignore the fact that "electrical discharges" have been associated with solar flares for more than 60 years starting with Dungey. It's just stupid to ignore a definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma by Peratt and then try to use that very same *DEFINITION* to peddle some nonsense about how discharges are not possible in a plasma! You're doing mental gymnastics in ways that would make a creationist proud. You can't produce any published claim that says discharges cannot occur in a plasma, and you outright ignore the fact that even Dungey claimed they *DID* occur in solar flare events.

You can argue that Alfven was wrong about MR theory, but what's the point in claiming that he didn't reject the concept when clearly he certainly *DID* reject the idea and talked about nailing shut the coffin of that "pseudo-scientific"' monstrosity? You're just in hard core denial of historical fact, not to mention being in denial of scientific fact, starting with scientific *definitions* of electrical discharges in plasmas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

Which part in yellow do you not understand RC?

 

[Tubbythin]

But Alfven's comments about MR theory can be read. None of them were favorable.

To be honest Michael, I don't really care. If you can show quantitative evidence that he was right then do it. If all you have is the claim "Alfven said it therefore it must be true" then you don't have anything at all in terms of the thread title.

There hasn't been much real progress in that time. All the so called 'experiments" require current flow and Alfven explicitly rejected MR theory in such conditions as that last line demonstrates. The only 'progress' has been more political "formalism" as Alfven called it.

But you haven't shown that the words of Alfven are immutable. Without that the above is just an irrelevance.

No, I am not assuming any such thing, or I wouldn't be calling it "circuit reconnection', I'd be calling it "pseudoscience" like Alfven did. I simply see no evidence that MR theory has actually "advanced" since the models are *STILL* based on the same models that Alfven studied and rejected.

Ok. Say, for the sake of argument, there has been no advancement (this is almost certainly complete nonsense given Moore's law). So what? Unless you can show the claims of ALfven to be correct then you have not provided any evidence that there are problems with magnetic reconnection.

Well, I'd be even more surprised if you understood them without ever reading them. I've picked out very specific objections in specific MR papers over the years.

Have you shown them to lead to quantiatively false results?

I've yet to see anyone pick out a specific mathematical error or assumption in Alfven's work that they could demonstrate to be an error.

Would you know if someone had? Surely you need to be able to analyse there claims in terms of the mathematical tools used and quantitatively assess their results?

Where would that actually get us? I don't deny the validity of the math, at least not since reading Birn's paper 3 or 4 years ago.

Science is all about comparing quantitative predictions with quantitative results. Its far more scientific to do that than to pick a favoured scientist and assume their words to be immutable.

Not at all. You've just given me no logical or scientific reason to believe that Alfven was wrong about this topic.

You've given us no quantitative reason to assume that one single scientist who died decades ago was more clued up then than the sum total of all researchers in the field today.

More importantly you've shown me every indication that you (collectively) aren't even able to asses his position on this topic in an emotionally detached way, let alone based upon 'education' as to his actual writings.

Well me (personally) certainly isn't emotionally attached. Like I say. I couldn't care less who said what. All I really care about is which theories are scientifically useful.

You keep objecting to the notion that Alfven rejected MR theory, but he certainly did reject it.

Fine. Since I don't really care we'll say he rejected it. Now you can either prove that he (or anybody else) was right to do it (the scientific approach) or you can assume his words to be immutable (the fanatical approach). Which is it Michael? Which approach do you think would be more productive.

That lack of acceptance is directly related to a lack of reading IMO.

How do you know the same cannot be said for you?

Had you actually read his materials in an emotionally detached way, there's no way to actually miss or misrepresent his position on this topic.

Do you think you read his materials in an emotionally detached way? If the answer is yes, do you think your constant reference to his words as if they are immutable might lead others to think otherwise?

 

[Tubbythin]

According to Alfven, every paper and/or experiment where E != 0 drives another nail in the coffin of MR theory, and *EVERY SINGLE EXPERIMENT* to support Mr theory requires electrical current to drive the process, nailing the coffin shut.

Ok:
1) Do you think the words of Alfven are immutable?
2) Do you realise that I don't think the words of Alfven are immutable?
3) Do you know what "quantitative analysis" means?
4) Do you think accusing others of emotional attachment and then responding to virtually every point with "According to Alfven" or "Alfven said this" or "Alfven said that" does not wreak of hypocrisy?

 

[Michael Mozina]

To be honest Michael, I don't really care.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7169410&postcount=469

Now you've lost me. Our conversation started because you claimed that Alfven did not reject MR theory. I showed you from his own words from that conference on Double Layers that he absolutely rejected the idea of magnetic reconnection theories. Are we shifting the goal posts now?