Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[GeeMack]

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

Tough. He made no favorable comments on evolution, either. Therefore, following this line of distorted logic, his position on evolution was that it doesn't exist. And since we know it does, it can be reasonably concluded that Alfvén was a dyed-in-the-wool idiot, a true crackpot to the maximum degree. That is if we accept this dishonestly constructed line of logic. We don't. The argument has failed.

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.

Alfvén didn't call anything anything for many years now. It's sane, intelligent, and honest to say he doesn't know the progress. He's dead, dust, worm food. Tim, Ziggurat, W.D.Clinger, tusenfem, and many others do, on the other hand, know of the progress. Tim has provided innumerable references sources, contemporary stuff that does provide an up to date discussion of the issue. The fact that those references have been intentionally ignored does not make them cease to exist. It is a lie to say there hasn't been much real progress in that time.

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.

And yet no scientific evidence has been put forth to show how "circuit reconnection" would be a better term for the actual existing phenomenon that is magnetic reconnection. And no, arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, unfounded assertions, and intentionally dishonest misrepresentations of real science are not evidence.

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.

That's called cherry picking, and it's commonly known to be a dishonest way to construct an argument, much akin to flat out lying.

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.

When the argument is built on an intentional misrepresentation of Alfvén's work, any criticism of his actual work is moot. To demand a critique of his actual position is dishonest.

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.

All legitimate science is explained quantitatively. So it would get us into the realms of genuine science rather than the Alfvén worship and argument by dishonestly distorting real science that makes up the bulk of the argument so far. But if we go to the math being valid, then magnetic reconnection is real, it works, and it is supported by empirical science. That's what the validity of the math shows us.

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.

Thousands, maybe tens of thousands of real scientists who are familiar with the subject of plasma physics disagree with the premise of this thread, the wholly unsupported claim that there is some problem with the concept of magnetic reconnection. The suggestion that they miss or misrepresent Alfvén's position because none of them has read work in an emotionally detached way is ludicrous. An argument created by insulting pretty much every professional physicist on the planet cannot be considered a rational argument.

 

[Tubbythin]

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?

Urm. I'm quite happy to say that he did reject it if we can move back to the topic of this thread. Now, if you can quantitatively show why he was right to do so and quantitatively show why people today are still getting it all wrong then we might be getting somewhere in that respect. Otherwise its just unsubstantiated claims along the lines of "Alfven said it therefore it must be true". Which aint science.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Why does the title of Anthony Peratt's book appear in the section 1.5 title

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.

No, MM the ignorance stuff is stupid. Dungey called high current densities electrical dicharges.
These have nothing to do with the electrical discharges such as lightning that Anthony Peratt defines.

It's just stupid to ignore a definition of a 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!

It is stupid to think that Peratt defines an electrical discharge in plasma just because of a title.
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011


It is stupid to think that his defintion applies to plasma when he never discusses electrical discharges 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

Quoted by Michael Mozina from Cosmic Plasma by Anthony Peratt

1 .5 Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent processes such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation.

See Advances in numerical modeling of astrophysical and space plasmas (PDF) where he seems to repeat that page from his book.

It is probable that the "Cosmic Plasma" in the section is the title of the book !
MM: Why does the title of Anthony Peratt's book appear in the section 1.5 title
Alternately: What is the difference between "cosmic plasma" and ordinary plasma that allows the same electrical discharges that happen in lightning to happen in it.

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 continue to lie: You gave a published definition (Peratts) of electrical dicharges. That is the published claim that I cited that says discharges cannot occur in a plasma.

Dungay never states that electricl discharges (as in lightning) occur in plasma. He uses the term electrical discharges as a replacement for the term high current densities that do occur in plasma.

 

[Reality Check]

What are the problems with magnetic reconnection, Michael Mozina

Which part in yellow do you not understand RC?

I understand all of the parts in yellow.

What part of this is the opinion of one person in a speech do you not understand, MM?
What part of the first bit is a title do you not understand, MM?
What part of the topic of this section is stated in the first paragraph (as is done in English) do you not understand, MM?
That topic is:

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.

But if you want we can just live with your fantasy that one person (Alfven) rejected all of magnetic reconection theory.
This means nothing in science unless you have a unhealthy obsession with Alfven that forces you to assume that whatever he says is correct. In which case you are going to be bitterly disappointed since at least one of his theories has been shown to be wrong (Plasma cosmology - not to be confused with the current non-science that is plasma cosmology).

This has nothing to do with the science as Tubbythin points out.

Just what are the problems with magnetic reconnection, Michael Mozina?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Urm. I'm quite happy to say that he did reject it if we can move back to the topic of this thread.

Alright, that sounds like a plan.

Now, if you can quantitatively show why he was right to do so and quantitatively show why people today are still getting it all wrong then we might be getting somewhere in that respect.

Ah, but therein lies the rub. I can't do that. I could "physically" reject "some" early brands of 'magnetic reconnection' theory based upon their use of "monopoles" to do the actual energy exchange, since monopoles violated Guass's law of magnetism. I could not however reject the concept on mathematical grounds once I reached Birn's paper on this topic, and therefore my confusion over Alfven's position. I really had to do some more reading of Alfven's work to fully "understand" his position since his objections could not have been mathematical in nature either. They weren't mathematical in nature.

This is ultimately where I had to "bridge the gap" between Alfven's "circuit" oriented approach to coronal loops, and Birn's understanding of a "magnetic line" (with current running along the line). I finally "bridged that gap" by calling it "circuit reconnection".

From the start, Alfven's objections were not simply 'mathematical' in nature, but "physical" in nature, and ultimately "scientific" in nature IMO at the level of particle physics.

Otherwise its just unsubstantiated claims along the lines of "Alfven said it therefore it must be true". Which aint science.

I don't really have to prove any such thing by the way. *If* I were really all that interested in disproving 'circuit' reconnection theory, that might be true. All I'm really noting in the final analysis is that Alfven's circuit oriented approach is equally valid at both the level of mathematics and physics. Two "circuits" that exchange particle energy through a double layer is essentially what we're discussing and in all such cases Alfven's writings already account for these events *without* any need for "magnetic reconnection". From the standpoint of pure mathematics, it's equally valid to look at this issue from either an E (circuit) or B(magnetic) orientation, but at the level of physics, there is a difference. Alfven's "circuit energy" was a product of the ELECTRIC field between two points on the surface. The electric field was the motive force. You're trying to suggest that the magnetic field is the motive force, yet every experiment you put before me begins and end with "charge separation" between two or more cathodes/anodes.

Ultimately at the level of physics it's "charge separation" that drives the parade, not "magnetic lines". Those "magnetic lines" (composed of moving charged particles) exist because of the currents that sustain them. The moment we remove the current, the show is over, the energy dissipates, and the rest of the plasma in the loop comes crashing to the ground.

http://www.sawfnews.com/Health/34957.aspx

Another surprise sighting is that of giant magnetic field loops crashing down onto the Sun's surface as if they were collapsing from exhaustion, a finding that Golub describes as "impossible".

Previously, scientists thought they should emerge from the Sun and continue blowing out into space.

Astronomers do not yet know what to make of the surprises, but they hope Hinode will help solve many big puzzles.

That collapse is a direct result of the termination of the charge separation. It not only "possible", it's 'predictable' in a circuit oriented approach to coronal loops.

This whole debate ultimate comes down to an Occum's razor argument IMO. If both approaches are equally valid, but one of them requires a "new kind" of energy exchange that incorrectly 'predicted" the fact that coronal loops could fizzle out, run out of steam, and even flow in opposite directions from time to time, then clearly it's not as good as "circuit" theory in explaining plasma events.

Alfven ultimately didn't need no stinking MR theory to explain current flow exchanges of energy in plasma. He used a circuit approach instead, and used double layers as a "typical" part of such circuitry. He didn't need it, so why write about it or worry later about why astronomers can't figure out the behaviors of circuits with only a "magnetic" oriented view of events.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Tough. He made no favorable comments on evolution, either.

It's hard to imagine that you're really oblivious to the difference between making only negative comments about an idea, and making no comments at all. He published NO papers in support of the theory and he gave speeches railing against that theory and set very specific, very stringent requirements on where it could even be considered, none of which are satisfied in experiments today.

Are you in pure denial or what?

 

[GeeMack]

So Tubbythin says...

Urm. I'm quite happy to say that he did reject it if we can move back to the topic of this thread.

... and the response is...

Alright, that sounds like a plan.

Followed by over 500 words repeatedly invoking Alfvén's name and essentially continuing to insist that since Alfvén didn't seem to dig magnetic reconnection it must not exist...

[...] Alfven [...] Alfven [...] Alfven [...] Alfven [...] Alfven [...] Alfven [...] Alfven [...] Alfven [...]

... mixed in with a bunch of unsupported guessing about cathode this, electric that, and anode something else, a few offhand arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and rehashing of some material already shown to be wrong and/or irrelevant, but not one single valid scientific criticism of magnetic reconnection.

Just what are the problems with magnetic reconnection, Michael Mozina?

Really. Just what are the problems with magnetic reconnection?

 

[GeeMack]

[...] He published NO papers in support of the theory [...]

So if we all accept that Alfvén didn't publish any papers on magnetic reconnection, he can be dismissed as an expert on the subject. Invoking his name is therefore a meaningless distraction, irrelevant and off topic for this discussion.

So, just what are the problems with magnetic reconnection?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Really. Just what are the problems with magnetic reconnection?

Reread the post and tell me when you get to the part about Occum's razor. Note that 'circuits' allow for the plasma to rise, fall, go back and forth a bit, and come crashing back the the surface. Notice how the "magnetic reconnection' proponents were all "surprised" by the Hinode findings? That's the difference in a nutshell. MR theory ignores the actual motive force, charge separation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So if we all accept that Alfvén didn't publish any papers on magnetic reconnection, he can be dismissed as an expert on the subject. Invoking his name is therefore a meaningless distraction, irrelevant and off topic for this discussion.

No. He was an "expert" in MHD theory, in fact he wrote it. It wasn't that he didn't just NOT write about MR theory, he wrote *AGAINST* it, something you refuse to accept or deal with evidently. That's called "denial" and it's an ugly thing. Care to own up to the fact that he rejected MR theory yet, or shall I add that to your list of beliefs that is propped up by pure denial?

 

[Reality Check]

Ah, but therein lies the rub. I can't do that.

You have no quantitative evidence of problems with magnetic reconnection?
Then there are no problems with magnetic reconnection since it is allowed in theory, i.e. does not violate Maxwell's equations.

I could "physically" reject "some" early brands of 'magnetic reconnection' theory based upon their use of "monopoles" to do the actual energy exchange, since monopoles violated Guass's law of magnetism.

Can you cite any of these early brands of magnetic reconnection and where they used actual monopoles?

I could not however reject the concept on mathematical grounds once I reached Birn's paper on this topic, and therefore my confusion over Alfven's position
...more Alfven stuff....

Once again - we accept Alfven's outdated opinion of the misuse of the frozen in field concept that you think is a rejection of all MR theory.

Once again - his outdated opinion has no relevance to magnetic reconnection science. His decision to throw away the details of the physics involved in solar flares and just use circuit models is understandable but nothing to do with the modern understanding of solar falres.

 

[GeeMack]

Reread the post and tell me when you get to the part about Occum's razor. Note that 'circuits' allow for the plasma to rise, fall, go back and forth a bit, and come crashing back the the surface. Notice how the "magnetic reconnection' proponents were all "surprised" by the Hinode findings? That's the difference in a nutshell. MR theory ignores the actual motive force, charge separation.

This argument is comprised of unsupported assertions and neglects to scientifically address the issue of any alleged problems with magnetic reconnection. It is essentially an argument from incredulity, not evidence for or against anything, and can therefore be rejected as invalid and irrelevant.

 

[Reality Check]

This whole debate ultimate comes down to an Occum's razor argument IMO. If both approaches are equally valid, but one of them requires a "new kind" of energy exchange that incorrectly 'predicted" the fact that coronal loops could fizzle out, run out of steam, and even flow in opposite directions from time to time, then clearly it's not as good as "circuit" theory in explaining plasma events..

Missed this: You need to look up Occam's razor and note that it only applies when 2 theories give the same predictions.

• Magnetic reconnection theory gives details predictions about solar flares, e.g. where the flares happen, Alfven waves, etc.
• Circuit models of solar flares give large scale predictions, e.g. total energy.

These are not the same predictions. Occam's razor cannot be applied.

Circuit theory predicts nothing about the coronal loops. As far as the circuit model itself is concerned they do not exist. The model could just as easily be a model of an economic system or a hydrodynamic system.

You are also showing your ignorance again: There is no "new kind" of energy in magnetic reconnection. It is good old standard electromagnetism.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Solar "Electrical Discharges" II

Of the three of us, I've yet to hear you or tusenfem admit that electrical discharges can and do occur in plasmas. What does that tell us?

It tells us your memory stinks.
From "Electric Sun and Coronal Heating III", 7 January 2011:

As we have seen in the last several pages, and especially the very informative post 1441 from tusenfem, what the words "electric discharge" actually means seem to be user dependent. It would appear that Mozina wishes to limit the meaning to the phrase "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy" ignoring everything else. I have always argued that electrical discharges were impossible in a plasma, but then I always simply assumed that the words meant what everybody would naturally expect them to mean in a colloquial sense, the catastrophic reunion of separated charges across a breakdown potential (lightning, for instance). Only now, after so many years, has Mozina actually defined those words and only now do I (we) realize that the colloquial meaning is not what he had in mind (or at least not what he has in mind now).

Assuming that you intend the definition for "electrical discharge" to be what I said here ("An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy") then of course electrical discharges happen in a plasma. However, I will point out for the record that magnetic reconnection produces copious sudden releases of electric or magnetic stored energy in a plasma. Therefore magnetic reconnection is an example of electrical discharge in a plasma.

Now, if you are going to argue, as you seem to be arguing now, that "electrical discharge" is supposed to be some process that is mistaken for "magnetic reconnection" by physicists far less intelligent & capable than you are, then I can only assume that the definition you were using for "electrical discharge" 4 months ago is no longer the one you are using now.

So, you give me a clear & adequate physical definition of what you think "electrical discharge" is this month, and I will tell you whether or not I think it happens in a plasma. Then you can change your definition again next month and we can do this all over again.

 

[tusenfem]

Reread the post and tell me when you get to the part about Occum's razor. Note that 'circuits' allow for the plasma to rise, fall, go back and forth a bit, and come crashing back the the surface. Notice how the "magnetic reconnection' proponents were all "surprised" by the Hinode findings? That's the difference in a nutshell. MR theory ignores the actual motive force, charge separation.

Impossible, because "circuits" do not show any dynamics. That is why the Onel & Mann paper does not describe reconnection, they just represent all the processes that may occur in a loop as a representative circuit approximation, show that the energy in the circuit is comparable with to what is seen to be released in a solar flare.

MRx describes all the processe that happen in the plasma, the magnetic field, the (Hall)currents, the particle acceleration, the demagnetisation of ions and electrons, etc. etc.

Circuit theory, however, gives a long wavelength approximation of all these different kind of processes and puts them in global variables as R, V, I, etc. Circuit theorists ignore the real physics going on in a plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So where are we in this denial-go-round?

Besides me, Tim and tusenfem are the only other two to have actually read Alfven's work for themselves. They both (I think) seem to be"ok" with notion of "electrical discharges" in plasmas as defined by Peratt.

RC and GM on the other hand are in complete denial of this *typical* process in plasma and neither of them have read Alfven's book or found any flaw in any of Alfven's work. Mr. Clinger, GM and RC seem to be in pure denial of the fact that Alfven rejected MR theory, even though Alfven called it "pseudoscience" and even talked about putting nails in it's coffin. Never mind the fact he wrote *hundreds* of papers on circuit theory and zero positive papers on MR theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Assuming that you intend the definition for "electrical discharge" to be what I said here ("An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy") then of course electrical discharges happen in a plasma. However, I will point out for the record that magnetic reconnection produces copious sudden releases of electric or magnetic stored energy in a plasma. Therefore magnetic reconnection is an example of electrical discharge in a plasma.

I agree that circuit reconnection is an example of an "electrical discharge" by the way. If you accept this premise, then you must also admit this statement was false?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5462361#post5462361

Besides, induction is strictly limited by the diffusion timescale of the plasma, whereas reconnection is impulsive. The two processes are distinctly different both in theory and in practice. Impulsive energy release, such as a solar flare, is quite impossible for any induction process.

You mean *besides* a discharge process?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Impossible, because "circuits" do not show any dynamics.

The circuits inside my computer show *lots* of "dynamics", as do the circuit diagrams that describe the motherboard. It seems to me that you keep ignoring/denying the fact that we can add additional circuits to describe the system as required.

That is why the Onel & Mann paper does not describe reconnection, they just represent all the processes that may occur in a loop as a representative circuit approximation, show that the energy in the circuit is comparable with to what is seen to be released in a solar flare.

No. They simply *did not need* MR theory to explain the energy released in the solar flare. Why use something you don't need?

MRx describes all the processe that happen in the plasma,

Except the charge separation that drives the process you mean?

 

[Michael Mozina]

This argument is comprised of unsupported assertions and neglects to scientifically address the issue of any alleged problems with magnetic reconnection.

This statement is another great example of pure denial on your part, specifically your denial of the fact that MR theory does *NOT* describe the charge separation that drives the process.

It is essentially an argument from incredulity, not evidence for or against anything, and can therefore be rejected as invalid and irrelevant.

Your arguments are essentially arguments from pure ignorance and pure denial since you've never bothered to read Alfven's work for yourself, nor have you found any flaws in his work, and you refuse to acknowledge the *FACT* that he outright rejected MR theory as "pseudoscience" even when presented with the written evidence.

 

[tusenfem]

So where are we in this denial-go-round?

Besides me, Tim and tusenfem are the only other two to have actually read Alfven's work for themselves. They both (I think) seem to be"ok" with notion of "electrical discharges" in plasmas as defined by Peratt.

Note that that is YOUR choice cut from the definition from Peratt.
For the rest I could not care less about the term discharge.

... fact that Alfven rejected MR theory, even though Alfven called it "pseudoscience" and even talked about putting nails in it's coffin. Never mind the fact he wrote *hundreds* of papers on circuit theory and zero positive papers on MR theory.

Ofcourse the claim by Alfvén that any parallel electric field or double layer is a nail to the coffin of MRx is ludicrous, because, as I also already commented, double layer in the auroral acceleration region are at a place where MRx will never ever be considered to happen.

Well *HUNDREDS* of papers on circuit theory is a bit over the top, as according to ADS he only has 148 paper published, many of which don't deal with circuits.

Also, the time the MRx really became a good topic, was at a time that Alfvén had already lost interest in that kind of stuff, and was more occupied with his ideas about resonances in the Saturnian rings, which was evidenced by a huge plot on the walls of his laboratory, where he led me past trying to explain what he was thinking. This was in 1991.