Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[Michael Mozina]

Discharges like lightning, for example?

Discharges as in quickly releasing stored EM energy for example. Lighting is *ONE* such example. Dungey's description of a "discharge" at the null point is another. Get it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Reconnection.gif[/qimg]

Do you really, honestly think it actually works like that PS?

If it actually worked like that you/they could demonstrate it with a couple of Earth magnets and some plasma. Theoretically you could do it on a single plane like that *WITHOUT* the need for any plasma threads (that happen to be carrying large amounts of current through them. You could heat plasmas to to millions of degrees like discharges do. You could ionize iron like that without the need for electricity at all. Where's any laboratory evidence that magnetic fields rather than current flows do any "reconnecting"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Contrary to your previous posts, current switching in saturated transistor logic does not change the circuit diagram or the circuit topology. If it did, the change in current would not be seen by the part of the circuit to which that signal is being sent.

In the world of solids, that is true of course, but in plasma it's a bit different since nothing is solid or rigid.

If we sprayed the circuit board black and the only thing that we could "observe" at some distance from the board were the "magnetic fields", we might be tempted to call them "magnetic lines". We might even notice that the topology of the magnetic line arrangement changes over time. We might be tempted to call that current flow change a "magnetic reconnection" event, but the topology and strength of the magnetic lines we observe are directly related to the current running through the "circuits" and the topology change of the change in currents.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Since the Wikipedia diagram for the Casimir effect represents conclusive scientific evidence for the non-existence of negative pressure, one may wonder why the wikipedia diagram for magnetic reconnection doesn't have the same weight.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Since the Wikipedia diagram for the Casimir effect represents conclusive scientific evidence for the non-existence of negative pressure, one may wonder why the wikipedia diagram for magnetic reconnection doesn't have the same weight.

I'm sure it has the same weight in terms of the process it's trying to describe, and the direction of force. I simply 'lack belief' that magnetic fields individually disconnect from or reconnect to any other magnetic lines. I'm sure that the topology of the current changes over time and therefore the magnetic field line topology changes with it, but that has nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection" and everything to do with the flow of current.

Notice also that none, not one single experiment anyone has cited to support MR theory works without electricity. Why is that?

 

[Tubbythin]

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Reconnection.gif[/qimg]

That diagram... after several units of alcohol... not good!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In the world of solids, that is true of course, but in plasma it's a bit different since nothing is solid or rigid.

So you were full of it when you said magnetic reconnection works "exactly" the same way that currents "rewire" the "motherboard" on your "computer":

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.

This is the point where we actually seem to disagree. The topological change is directly related to a "current flow" change, like a change in a riverbank due to the flow of the water, or a change in a transistor state. You keep ignoring the possibility that he currents will simply "rewire" themselves into a new topological arrangement. That's exactly HOW it's going to occur! That is the only "physical" way for your "magnetic lines' to actually change their topology.

If we sprayed the circuit board black and the only thing that we could "observe" at some distance from the board were the "magnetic fields", we might be tempted to call them "magnetic lines". We might even notice that the topology of the magnetic line arrangement changes over time. We might be tempted to call that current flow change a "magnetic reconnection" event, but the topology and strength of the magnetic lines we observe are directly related to the current running through the "circuits" and the topology change of the change in currents.

That's one of the least wrong paragraphs you've written in quite a while, but you're still wrong.

Magnetic reconnection can be demonstrated without any change in circuit topology. A modest increase or decrease in current along one of the four conducting rods in the experiment I've been suggesting causes a modest shift of the neutral X lines, resulting in dramatic magnetic reconnection at points between the before and after positions of a neutral line.

You're in denial about that, and have been for months if not years.

 

[Reality Check]

....what you insist on ignoring is that the "cause" is irrelevant! For months upon end I've been telling you and everyone that a flare (even if it's due to "reconnection") is an electrical discharge event just like Dungey, and just like Peratt. It's the "sudden release of stored EM energy" that is important, not the 'cause' or the change that releases the energy. Get it?

And for months you have been wrong:

• Dungey uses electrical discharge as a term for high current density.
• Peratt defines electrical discharge as sudden release of stored EM energy along with the breakdown of a dielectric medium (not in those terms but his example of lightning makes it explicit that this is what he means).

The fact that Peratt's defintion includes the breakdown of a dielectric medium is relevant.
Get it?

Or maybe you can explain

• 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

Then there is your inability to understand the difference between a title and a definition:
Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011
Together with the recent question: MM: Why does the title of Anthony Peratt's book appear in the section 1.5 title?
Shouldn't the title be "Electrical discharges in Plasma"?
Or what is the magical property of "cosmic" plasmas that allows lightning in them when lightning is impossible in normal plasmas?

 

[Reality Check]

Discharges as in quickly releasing stored EM energy for example. Lighting is *ONE* such example. Dungey's description of a "discharge" at the null point is another. Get it?

The stupidity of quote mining Peratt's definition and just defining an electrical discharge as releasing stored EM energy is obvious, it means that all sorts of things magically become electrical discharges:

• an electron emitting a photon.
• turning up a heater.
• turning on any electrical apparatus.
• unrolling Sellotape (this emits x-rays!)
• etc.

And one more time: Dungey's description of a "discharge" at the null point has nothing to do with releasing stored EM energy. He defines a discharge at the null point as a high current density.

 

[Reality Check]

Notice also that none, not one single experiment anyone has cited to support MR theory works without electricity. Why is that?

Because you are ignorant?

Magnetic reconnection is often done using light (not electricity).

• Fast magnetic reconnection in laser-produced plasma bubbles
• Magnetic Reconnection and Plasma Dynamics in Two-Beam Laser-Solid Interactions
• Observation of Megagauss-Field Topology Changes due to Magnetic Reconnection in Laser-Produced Plasmas
• Bidirectional jet formation during driven magnetic reconnection in two-beam laser–plasma interactions

Let us hope that the next claim is not the idoitic "but the lasers are powered by electricity"!

Also:
Resistivity and Energy Flow in a Plasma Undergoing Magnetic-Field-Line Reconnection (1980)
Why did this experiment not detect and report your 'current reconnection" Why do they still call it magnetic reconnection?

 

[Reality Check]

If it actually worked like that you/they could demonstrate it with a couple of Earth magnets and some plasma.

Actually they often do this in magnetic reconnection experiments. For example look at the expermental set up in Fast compression of a current sheet during externally driven magnetic reconnection (PDF).
It is basically separate sets of magnets creating the magnetic fields that reconnect. They then introduce plasma to study what happens.

In fact magnetic field reconnection can be done with a couple of fridge magnets. Just move them past each other as noted on 28th January 2010.

 

[GeeMack]

Discharges as in quickly releasing stored EM energy for example. Lighting is *ONE* such example. Dungey's description of a "discharge" at the null point is another. Get it?

Okay, but of course we all know lightning can't happen in a plasma. An electrical discharge like lightning requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium. Plasma is a conductor. No dielectric medium. No breakdown. No lightning in plasma. Simple as that.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Real Plasma Physics & Magnetic Reconnection III

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Reconnection.gif[/qimg]

Do you really, honestly think it actually works like that PS?

Him, and the entire discipline of plasma physics. You're the "odd man out" here.

If it actually worked like that you/they could demonstrate it with a couple of Earth magnets and some plasma.

They have demonstrated exactly that very process of magnetic reconnection, as diagrammed. I have already documented that fact repeatedly. However, you have chosen to summarily reject the experiments on the basis of prejudice alone, never once bothering to actually look at the experiments, or the data from them. You have yet to produce a scintilla of scientific argument or evidence for your outrageous claim that magnetic reconnection does not happen.

Theoretically you could do it on a single plane like that *WITHOUT* the need for any plasma threads ...

For that configuration I doubt it, since sharp X-points like that don't form in a vacuum. However, magnetic reconnection is easy to accomplish in a vacuum (or in air) simply by moving magnets around each other, as explained already quite some time ago.

Where's any laboratory evidence that magnetic fields rather than current flows do any "reconnecting"?

Next, we have the significant hypocrisy of Mozina demanding that only controlled laboratory experiments will do, but then denying the existence of phenomena we can actually see happen in real plasma, once the desired experiments are brought forth. I first posted a small list of papers referring to laboratory experiments demonstrating magnetic reconnection, and links to laboratory experiments with webpages, in 2009 ...

Representative comments; clearly Mr. Mozina, and others no doubt, reject the concept of "magnetic reconnection" altogether. This is an uncomfortable position to take, since "magnetic reconnection" is directly observed in controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments (i.e., Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008; Cheng, et al., 2008; Yamada, et al., 2007; Yamada, Ren & Ji, 2007; Yamada, et al., 2006; Sarff, et al., 2005 & etc.; Yamada, 1999 reviews the previous 20 years of laboratory plasma studies of magnetic reconnection).
{ ... }
Magnetic reconnection is a phenomenon verified by controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments. See, for instance, the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) at the Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory. MRX has been measuring magnetic reconnection in laboratory plasma since 1995, but there are experimental observations of reconnection that predate that.
{ ... }
Magnetic reconnection, as a physical phenomenon, regardless of the argument over words, is an integral & fundamental aspect of plasma physics. Denying the validity of magnetic reconnection is quite the same as simply denying the validity of laboratory plasma physics altogether.

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.

Aside from the Princeton MRX, there are also the Todai Spheromak 3 & 4 experiments at the University of Tokyo in Japan, the Swarthmore Spheromak Experiment (SSX) at Swarthmore College, the Versatile Toroidal Facility at MIT, and the Reconnection Scaling Experiment (RSX) at Los Alamos National Laboratory. All are controlled laboratory plasma devices, all produce & study copious magnetic reconnection events in real time. These, and the papers & experiments cited above all constitute the very evidence that Mozina asks for, and much of it has already been presented. But of course, Mozina asks "where is the evidence?", as if none has ever been presented. And of course Mozina will reject it all on the grounds of bias, without ever examining any of the experiments.

The real data are in. Magnetic reconnection is in and physically impossible "circuit reconnection" is out. But I will have more to say about circuit reconnection later in more detail. Meanwhile, I will simply make note of one salient fact that Mozina has always ignored, but I have pointed out before: The topology of the magnetic field changes first, and accelerated/energized particles appear afterwards. The order of events is significant. If we were seeing "circuit reconnection" (a phrase that has never been properly defined by the way), then we should see the particles "reconnect" (whatever that is) and energize first, and the magnetic field topology change afterwards, in response to the changing currents. So what we actually see is consistent with magnetic reconnection, and inconsistent with "circuit reconnection", for any reasonable definition of the term.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Okay, but of course we all know lightning can't happen in a plasma.

We all know that electrical discharges can and do happen in plasmas, well, except for you and RC evidently.

An electrical discharge like lightning requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium.

That is but *ONE* example of *AN* electrical discharge, it is not the *ONLY* such example of a quick release of stored EM energy. A "discharge" between two oppositely charged plasmas might be another such example.

Plasma is a conductor.

So is copper. It can still experience a "discharge" if stored EM energy is released through it. An obvious example would be to "discharge" a stored charge through the copper. The fact it's a "conductor" is *necessary* in terms of whether or not it can experience a "discharge"!

No dielectric medium. No breakdown.

So what? Actually even that is *WRONG*. All plasmas contain non ionized elements or partially ionized elements that can and do become "ionized" and/or more highly ionized during the 'discharge' process.

No lightning in plasma.

Actually the "bright light we see" is a direct result of a "discharge" running through the conductor. As long as the discharge process is sustained, the output of light is also sustained. The moment the discharge is finished, the light show is over and the particles cool down again.

Simple as that.

The "simple" part that you and RC refuse to grasp is that it is the "release of stored energy" that makes it an 'electrical discharge', not whether or not it's ionized or it's a "conductor". A copper pipe can experience a NO discharge state, and a "discharge" state even though it's a "conductor". Additional ionization can and often does take place during "discharges" through plasmas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The stupidity of quote mining Peratt's definition and just defining an electrical discharge as releasing stored EM energy is obvious,

Irony overload! You're the one "quote mining" from Peratt, all the while ignoring the fact that he's *DEFINING* the fact that electrical discharges can and do occur in plasmas and explaining what an electrical discharge is a plasma looks like and acts like. You won't even try to find *YOUR OWN* quote that substantiates, your absurd claim that discharges are impossible in plasmas.

You have a rationalization related to Dungey's *consistent* use of the term "electrical discharges", even though his use of the term is *COMPLETELY* (not a little) consistent with Peratt's definition. Dungey specifically uses the term in relationship to solar flares and in relationship to 'reconnection' events. He literally bridges the gap between a "reconnection" event and an electrical discharge, even using it in relationship to solar flare events. Dungey literally tied it all together for us, but you refuse to go there. Why might that be? Can't admit you're wrong perhaps?

"Discharges" have been *EMPIRICALLY* (not just mathematically) linked to the following observed features of solar flares:

Million degree plasmas.
x-ray emissions of plasmas.
High ionization states of iron.
gamma ray emissions here on Earth.

Not one of the things on this list has been experimentally linked to 'magnetic reconnection'. The only thing that links "reconnection" theory back to these observations is Dungey's explanation that a 'discharge' *IS* a "reconnection" event.

Now you can either accept that Dungey was correct, or you can claim to be more enlightened on this topic than Dungey. I don't personally have to do either of these things. I can simply accept Dungey at his word. You go right ahead and deny the validity of his work if you like. You'll probably just try to deny or rationalize away the fact that he specifically talked about a short term release of "stored EM ENERGY" during 'discharge' processes that occur in 'reconnection' events.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That diagram... after several units of alcohol... not good!

That's funny.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you were full of it when you said magnetic reconnection works "exactly" the same way that currents "rewire" the "motherboard" on your "computer":

If you're going to be a stickler about the term "exactly", well, ok.

That's one of the least wrong paragraphs you've written in quite a while, but you're still wrong.

Well, thanks for the "almost" pat on the back before the rejection at least.

Magnetic reconnection can be demonstrated without any change in circuit topology.

Not in plasma it cannot. In fact the "circuits" do in fact change their shape during such experiments.

A modest increase or decrease in current along one of the four conducting rods in the experiment I've been suggesting causes a modest shift of the neutral X lines, resulting in dramatic magnetic reconnection at points between the before and after positions of a neutral line.

You're talking about magnetic *attraction* and/or repulsion, not "reconnection". Reconnection and "discharges" go hand in hand in plasmas.

You're in denial about that, and have been for months if not years.

Not me. I'm not the one in denial of the mathematical validity of either the B or E orientations. I'm simply noting that they come together in 'discharge' processes. Your posse, though maybe not you personally, seem to be in hard core denial of the fact the discharges can and do occur in plasmas. The only thing you personally seem(ed) (not sure now) to deny is the fact that Alfven outright rejected MR theory, and you therefore blamed me for misrepresenting him. Nothing could have been further from the truth, but I have yet to hear you retract your accusation that I have misrepresented him on this topic. I've yet to hear you accept that fact that Alfven put *SEVERE* restrictions on where MR theory can even be considered, or the fact that none of the experiments done to date satisfy his list of requirements.

If and when you come to terms with Alfven's views on MR theory, then and only then should you even think about lecturing me about denial. I'm not the one in denial of historical and written fact of Alfven's position on MR theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Because you are ignorant?

Magnetic reconnection is often done using light (not electricity).

We've already been through those experiments RC. They shot a *BEAM* of ordinary light that is NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY PARTICULAR "MAGNETIC LINE", at atoms and they see "pretty patterns". By such a definition, Thompson scattering must also be a "magnetic reconnection" event. That's just baloney. The light reflects and is absorbed in patterns that are directly related to the atomic structures they are aimed at. It's pure subatomic physics, not "magnetic reconnection". The beams of light are not even associated with any particular "magnetic line". The laser itself is a stream of photons that are all "organized" into a pattern, but the stream splits the moment there's an atomic collision of some sort. By your definition "Thomson scattering" is also "magnetic reconnection".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Him, and the entire discipline of plasma physics. You're the "odd man out" here.

Not really. At least I have Alfven on my side.

They have demonstrated exactly that very process of magnetic reconnection, as diagrammed.

No they have not, or you would be able to do it *WITHOUT* electrical input.

I have already documented that fact repeatedly. However, you have chosen to summarily reject the experiments on the basis of prejudice alone,

They are not *my personal* prejudices, they are limitations set by Alfven himself on where MR theory could be considered useful and when it was more useful to look at the transaction as a double layer transfer. I simply prefer Alfven's orientation over the mainstream orientation because you folks keep ignoring the "discharge process" and "charge separation" that actually drive the process in your lab tests.

never once bothering to actually look at the experiments, or the data from them.

Actually, that isn't true. I went through several papers at space.com and I've read a number of papers you've cited here as well. I've noticed a pattern in each and every one of them. They all violate the conditions set forth by Alfven, and they all involve charge separation and current flow to make them work. The circuit approach is equally valid in such instances, and MR theory is ultimately not necessary in such instances. If I *MUST* choose one or the other, I'll take circuit theory. If you'll meet me in the middle, I'll accept that your math is right, even if you're physics is messed up (again).

You have yet to produce a scintilla of scientific argument or evidence for your outrageous claim that magnetic reconnection does not happen.

I have already admitted that 'circuit reconnection' happens all the time, typically in 'discharge' events inside a 'double layer'. You've yet to admit the fact that the process can be view from either the B or the E orientation with equal validity.

For that configuration I doubt it, since sharp X-points like that don't form in a vacuum. However, magnetic reconnection is easy to accomplish in a vacuum (or in air) simply by moving magnets around each other, as explained already quite some time ago.

No, that is not true. You're blurring the distinction between *MAGNETIC ATTRACTION/REPULSION and "reconnection" where individual field lines somehow "disconnect" and "reconnect" themselves individually, and also release *MASSIVE* amounts of energy in the process. You can't do that in vacuum or you'd site an experiment that produced the following results:

Million degree temps
x-rays
gamma rays
highly ionized particles (from your magnetic?)

None of that stuff happens when you more magnets around each other. They attract and repulse, that's it. No massive releases of energy, no million degree plasmas. No FEXX ions. No gamma rays. No nothing.

Aside from the......

......experiments which fail to satisfy Alfven's criteria, you've got absolutely nothing. In fact each and every one of those 'experiments' fails to produce *anything* without *ELECTRICITY* to make the process work correctly. No current flow, no show.

That alone says volume IMO. You can't produce one thing on that list that is directly related to high energy flares *WITHOUT* an electrical power source and *WITHOUT* current running through the thing you are calling a "magnet line".

 

[GeeMack]

We all know that electrical discharges can and do happen in plasmas, well, except for you and RC evidently.

That is but *ONE* example of *AN* electrical discharge, it is not the *ONLY* such example of a quick release of stored EM energy. A "discharge" between two oppositely charged plasmas might be another such example.

So is copper. It can still experience a "discharge" if stored EM energy is released through it. An obvious example would be to "discharge" a stored charge through the copper. The fact it's a "conductor" is *necessary* in terms of whether or not it can experience a "discharge"!

So what? Actually even that is *WRONG*. All plasmas contain non ionized elements or partially ionized elements that can and do become "ionized" and/or more highly ionized during the 'discharge' process.

Actually the "bright light we see" is a direct result of a "discharge" running through the conductor. As long as the discharge process is sustained, the output of light is also sustained. The moment the discharge is finished, the light show is over and the particles cool down again.

The "simple" part that you and RC refuse to grasp is that it is the "release of stored energy" that makes it an 'electrical discharge', not whether or not it's ionized or it's a "conductor". A copper pipe can experience a NO discharge state, and a "discharge" state even though it's a "conductor". Additional ionization can and often does take place during "discharges" through plasmas.

It seems unnecessary to use all those words just to agree that lightning can't happen in plasma, because lightning is a spark that occurs across a dielectric (non-conductor) breakdown, and plasma is a conductor. But at least we all agree.

But none of that answers to the question about what, exactly, are the supposed problems with magnetic reconnection. We know it occurs. We all agree the math supports its existence. We observe it in experiments and have the research papers to show that...

Aside from the Princeton MRX, there are also the Todai Spheromak 3 & 4 experiments at the University of Tokyo in Japan, the Swarthmore Spheromak Experiment (SSX) at Swarthmore College, the Versatile Toroidal Facility at MIT, and the Reconnection Scaling Experiment (RSX) at Los Alamos National Laboratory. All are controlled laboratory plasma devices, all produce & study copious magnetic reconnection events in real time. These, and the papers & experiments cited above all constitute the very evidence that Mozina asks for, and much of it has already been presented. But of course, Mozina asks "where is the evidence?", as if none has ever been presented. And of course Mozina will reject it all on the grounds of bias, without ever examining any of the experiments.

We can even make magnetic reconnection happen with a couple of refrigerator magnets, no electricity required. If it's just a matter of a disagreement on the name, if only one or two people on Earth think the term "magnetic reconnection" is a lousy name for the phenomenon, then maybe those two people should just buck up and accept the proper terminology. It seems much more sane than continuing to fight a futile battle to get thousands of physicists to use a different term just to make the one or two complainers happy.

So really, other than the complaint about the name, just what are the problems with magnetic reconnection?