Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

For quite a while now I have been recommending that you try to understand magnetic reconnection sans plasma before moving on to the more complex situation of magnetic reconnection interacting with plasma.

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 do not know what I've been talking about.

If you did, you'd understand some basic facts about magnetic reconnection.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It seems unnecessary to use all those words just to agree that lightning can't happen in plasma,

But something very similar to that short lived, but very high current state CAN happen in a plasma as well. Not all plasmas are NECESSARILY actively conducting current, even if they are "conductive". Not all copper pipes are necessarily conducting electricity in every moment only because the copper is conductive.

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 circuits can and do "break down' in plasmas and electrical discharges can and do ionize the elements to *much* higher states than they might achieve, were it not for the current.

But none of that answers to the question about what, exactly, are the supposed problems with magnetic reconnection.

I already answered this question now about 1/2 dozen times for you. It does not account for, nor describe the "charge separation" that is the actual "cause" of the process. In fact it actively ignores the fact that there is current running along the so called "magnetic line". In terms of physics, it fails to correctly describe the *CAUSE* of the "magnetic line", and the experiments are all based upon "charge separation" and "current flow".

We know it occurs.

If like Dungey you mean that "discharges happen" at "reconnection" points, I agree.

We all agree the math supports its existence.

Actually, that part was never in debate, just the physics part (as usual).

We can even make magnetic reconnection happen with a couple of refrigerator magnets, no electricity required.

Boloney. Where's the million degree temps? Where's the x-rays? Where are the gamma rays? You can't tell the difference between magnetic attraction/repulsion and "reconnection" events that involve "electrical discharges" through the 'conductive media".

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.

Lot's of folks do not believe in magnetic reconnection, not just me and the guy that wrote MHD theory. I'm not going to 'buck up' based on an appeal to popularity fallacy.

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.

There's more than a 'few' of us actually. Pretty much every EU proponent I know of rejects it outright. I'm actually a lot more "liberal" than most EU proponents on this specific topic.

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

Is English not your first language? What about "It fails to account for or describe the charge separation process that actually "causes" the filaments to form in the plasma" do you not understand? Those filaments are much more than 'magnetic lines' in terms of the kinetic energy they *already* posses *BEFORE* reconnection/discharges occur.

 

[Michael Mozina]

For quite a while now I have been recommending that you try to understand magnetic reconnection sans plasma before moving on to the more complex situation of magnetic reconnection interacting with plasma.


You do not know what I've been talking about.

If you did, you'd understand some basic facts about magnetic reconnection.

IMO, you're simply confusing magnetic 'repulsion/attraction' and/or an ordinary "discharge" with 'reconnection' of individual magnetic lines.

 

[Michael Mozina]

From the abstract in Tim's first MR link:

The behavior and interaction of magnetic flux ropes have long been a topic of interest to solar and space plasma physicists, but few laboratory experiments have been performed as it is necessary to have a relatively collisionless plasma and currents with significant self-generated fields. Movable lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) cathodes have been developed to study the 3D dynamics of flux ropes in the Large Plasma Device (LaPD).

Now of course Alfven specifically compares a "magnetic rope' to a "Bennett Pinch". Notice also that their "experiment" begins and ends with movable 'cathodes' and an ordinary "current carrying filament" like we might find in a plasma ball. There's nothing here that can't be explained as a 'short circuit' between two circuits, and a change in the topology between the two circuits. Every single one of these MR experiments *NEEDS* electricity to work. Without current running through the thread, the whole thing is total dud. All you're doing IMO is nailing the coffin shut on MR theory in Alfven's eyes. He specifically and consistently switched to a 'circuit' orientation any time that currents were involved in the process. That's why he wrote so many papers on circuit theory, and double layers, and he wrote no papers on MR theory. Any place that he saw the formation of a double layer, he switched to a particle/circuit orientation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Fast magnetic reconnection in laser-produced plasma bubbles

Actually, that's one I hadn't seen. From the abstract:

Based on fully kinetic particle simulations we find that fast reconnection in these strongly driven systems can be explained by magnetic flux pile-up at the shoulder of the current sheet and subsequent fast reconnection via two-fluid, collisionless mechanisms.

Ah, a current sheet, AKA a "double layer" formed, and discharges flowed through the double layer. Another nail in the coffin of MR theory according to Alfven.

 

[tusenfem]

Ah, a current sheet, AKA a "double layer" formed, and discharges flowed through the double layer. Another nail in the coffin of MR theory according to Alfven.

No *****! If you would actually read the paper you would know that the current sheet has NOTHING to do with double layers. The current sheet is the orange region in Figure 1 and if you would know electrodynamics you would know that the current is going into the plane of the figure.

Did Alfvén ever write a paper in which a current carrying double layer had an electric field in the direction perpendicular to the magnetic field?

Edited, breach of Rule 0.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[GeeMack]

But something very similar to that short lived, but very high current state CAN happen in a plasma as well. Not all plasmas are NECESSARILY actively conducting current, even if they are "conductive". Not all copper pipes are necessarily conducting electricity in every moment only because the copper is conductive.

And nothing like a lightning bolt can happen in a copper rod either. I'm glad we can all agree on that and maybe now leave behind the ridiculous notion that solar flares and CMEs are somehow analogous to lightning.

But circuits can and do "break down' in plasmas and electrical discharges can and do ionize the elements to *much* higher states than they might achieve, were it not for the current.

That doesn't speak to the issue of problems with magnetic reconnection. Irrelevant.

I already answered this question now about 1/2 dozen times for you. It does not account for, nor describe the "charge separation" that is the actual "cause" of the process. In fact it actively ignores the fact that there is current running along the so called "magnetic line". In terms of physics, it fails to correctly describe the *CAUSE* of the "magnetic line", and the experiments are all based upon "charge separation" and "current flow".

So where are the flaws, specifically, in the experiments and research that Tim has linked?

If like Dungey you mean that "discharges happen" at "reconnection" points, I agree.

I mean magnetic reconnection occurs. I do not mean some bastardized and dishonest contortion of the words I actually used.

Actually, that part was never in debate, just the physics part (as usual).

Actually the math bears out the physics. It would be dishonest and/or irrational to suggest that the math supporting the existence of magnetic reconnection is valid, yet the phenomenon does not occur. In fact, it would be definitively an argument from ignorance.

Boloney. Where's the million degree temps? Where's the x-rays? Where are the gamma rays? You can't tell the difference between magnetic attraction/repulsion and "reconnection" events that involve "electrical discharges" through the 'conductive media".

The unsupported denial and incredulous protestations aside, we can make magnetic reconnection happen with a couple of refrigerator magnets, no electricity required.

Lot's of folks do not believe in magnetic reconnection, not just me and the guy that wrote MHD theory. I'm not going to 'buck up' based on an appeal to popularity fallacy.

The real scientists in this discussion, and others where the unsupported claim is made that there are problems with magnetic reconnection, don't believe in magnetic reconnection. Many of them have studied and/or participated in relevant contemporary research. They understand it. So why has nobody demonstrated the alleged flaws in the experiments and research that Tim has linked or any other contemporary research that bears out the existence of magnetic reconnection?

There's more than a 'few' of us actually. Pretty much every EU proponent I know of rejects it outright. I'm actually a lot more "liberal" than most EU proponents on this specific topic.

Pretty much every EU proponent is a crackpot, and pretty much none of them has demonstrated any qualification to understand the physics that they hold in such contempt. And none of them has ever been able to properly, objectively, and quantitatively criticize magnetic reconnection in a valid, legitimately scientific way.

Is English not your first language? What about "It fails to account for or describe the charge separation process that actually "causes" the filaments to form in the plasma" do you not understand? Those filaments are much more than 'magnetic lines' in terms of the kinetic energy they *already* posses *BEFORE* reconnection/discharges occur.

I see that kind of assertion made again and again, but it's just a bunch of sciency sounding words strung together, not supported by legitimate science. I fail to see any actual objective quantitative criticism of magnetic reconnection in it, however.

 

[caniswalensis]

*********** magnets, how do they work?

 

[Michael Mozina]

And nothing like a lightning bolt can happen in a copper rod either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)

A section of the crushed lightning rod studied by Pollock and Barraclough.[10] The rod is in the collection of the School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia.

False. You're ignoring physics and reality again. An electrical discharge can not only happen in plasma, it occurs through ALL conductors given the proper release of EM energy.

I'm glad we can all agree on that and maybe now leave behind the ridiculous notion that solar flares and CMEs are somehow analogous to lightning.

The only thing that is 'ridiculous' is your denial of the fact that electrical discharges can and do happen in plasma. That's the ridiculous part.

That doesn't speak to the issue of problems with magnetic reconnection. Irrelevant.

Baloney. Denial.

So where are the flaws, specifically, in the experiments and research that Tim has linked?

They violate the strict requirements that Alfven placed on the idea and they're an example of "circuit reconnection", nothing more.

The real scientists in this discussion....

They've all read the appropriate materials and none of them seem to deny that discharges happen in plasma, unlike you on both counts.

The rest of your post is pure rehash and pure denial, but this line was a real gem..

Pretty much every EU proponent is a crackpot, and pretty much none of them has demonstrated any qualification to understand the physics that they hold in such contempt.

Pretty much every EU opponent is a crackpot that has never bothered to actually read the materials in question, and therefore don't have the first clue about Alfven's work, and could not find a flaw in it if they tried. They don't have the first clue about the physics they hold in such contempt. Look in the mirror my friend.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...and on the seventh day, Alfven rested and said, "Let there be no magnetic reconnection."

 

[GeeMack]

Pretty much every EU opponent is a crackpot that has never bothered to actually read the materials in question, and therefore don't have the first clue about Alfven's work, and could not find a flaw in it if they tried. They don't have the first clue about the physics they hold in such contempt. Look in the mirror my friend.

And this is why thousands of people more intelligent and more rational than EU proponents are gainfully employed in teaching, research, experimentation, and application of the relevant physics, and all what... fourteen?... EU proponents have nothing to offer the world of science but a bunch of babbling on the Internet. Funny how that handful of alleged EU geniuses, even with their total combined knowledge, don't have what it takes to get themselves into the profession where they might be able to move the world of physics back a couple of decades the way they want to. Damn that conspiracy among real scientists to move science forward rather than backwards!

So where are we so far? Magnetic reconnection exists, demonstrably, experimentally in labs, empirically, on Earth, on the Sun, in real life, mathematically, and physically. No actual problems with it have been presented here in a scientific, objective, quantitative way. And that brings us to this...

Other than complaining about the name, just what are the problems with magnetic reconnection?

 

[Tim Thompson]

The Lightning Rod

And nothing like a lightning bolt can happen in a copper rod either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/77/Crushed_rod_pollock_barraclough.jpg/128px-Crushed_rod_pollock_barraclough.jpg[/qimg]

A section of the crushed lightning rod studied by Pollock and Barraclough.[10] The rod is in the collection of the School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia.

False. You're ignoring physics and reality again. An electrical discharge can not only happen in plasma, it occurs through ALL conductors given the proper release of EM energy.

Nice try, but you are the one ignoring both physics & reality, not GM. The picture you show is a hollow tube, not a solid rod, and the discharge event (lightning) did not happen in the tube, it passed through the tube, starting & ending well outside the tube. Discharges as GM chooses to define them, consistent with standard usage, cannot and do not happen inside any highly electrically conducting material, because the breakdown potential is too low. Your chosen definition, "A sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy", is very much non-standard and therefore not acceptable to most people. But even by your definition, it's hard to justify a claim that the discharge event "happened inside the conductor" since the event was actually initiated outside the conductor. It is far more informative, and far more correct, to simply state the obvious fact that a substantial electric current passed through the conductor.

So it is now your contention that all electric currents everywhere are, by definition, electrical discharges?

 

[Vermonter]

I'm very curious as to why Alfven's word alone carries more weight than every other scientist who studies magnetic reconnection combined? Is it because Alfven's views are also your own, so you pick the guy who agreed with you? I'm very curious. It seems odd that he'd be the definitive end-all-be-all of a topic because of something briefly mentioned (in the incorrect context) during a keynote speech (not a peer-reviewed paper).

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm very curious as to why Alfven's word alone carries more weight than every other scientist who studies magnetic reconnection combined? Is it because Alfven's views are also your own, so you pick the guy who agreed with you? I'm very curious. It seems odd that he'd be the definitive end-all-be-all of a topic because of something briefly mentioned (in the incorrect context) during a keynote speech (not a peer-reviewed paper).

That's what EU groupies do.

 

[Vermonter]

That's what EU groupies do.

I know there's something to be said about sticking to one's guns in the face of overwhelming disagreement, but sometimes...a person's just wrong about something. Science has moved on. Do people honestly think we should stop advancing and "stay with the tried and true methods"? (not like that's true in this case) That's dogma, not science. It changes and adapts. Irrelevant stuff is discarded into the history bin. It doesn't stay static. If it did, there would be no innovation.

 

[tusenfem]

So it is now your contention that all electric currents everywhere are, by definition, electrical discharges?

Not only that, Tim, every current sheet is a double layer, apparently.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm very curious as to why Alfven's word alone carries more weight than every other scientist who studies magnetic reconnection combined?

They don't. If they did, I wouldn't be happy just calling it "circuit reconnection", I'd just reject it outright as he did.

Is it because Alfven's views are also your own, so you pick the guy who agreed with you?

Well, no. I did however "go to the source" so to speak when I wanted to understand plasma physics, so I started with Alfven's books on this topic. In the sense that I 'learned from Alfven', yes his views were my own views in terms of circuit theory, a particle orientation, and a double layer orientation, because that is how I was introduced to these topics.

It was the same in fact with GR, because I did in fact start with Einstein's work on the subject when I wanted to understand the concepts.

I'm very curious. It seems odd that he'd be the definitive end-all-be-all of a topic because of something briefly mentioned (in the incorrect context) during a keynote speech (not a peer-reviewed paper).

I'm not suggesting he's the "final authority" on MHD theory as a whole, but I have very strong opinions about his circuit orientation to plasma physics. It's at least as "correct" in every mathematical and physical sense as any 'magnetic line' orientation, perhaps more so in terms of it's congruent "lingo" with standard physics. Electrical engineers like Alfven think "naturally" in terms of circuits and voltages and amps, and language that is congruent with "discharge" and "current" flow activity.

The key issue IMO comes down to "cause" and "effect" in terms of the physics. In Alfven's presentations, the "cause" of the "current flow" was "charge separation". The flow of current through the "Bennett Pinch" filaments was due to that current flow, along with the magnetic field that formed around the plasma thread. That's a very "natural' way to look at these events that are congruent with both particle physics and electrical engineering branches of physics.

IMO "MR" theory simply attempts to mathematically 'dumb down" the entire discharge/current carrying process to "magnetism", and attributes these high energy events to "magnetic fields" releasing themselves into particle kinetic energy. They utterly ignore the "currents" and "discharges" that are actually responsible for these high energy events.

When they get to the lab however they are *constantly* producing them in a "discharge chamber" and they create ordinary plasma filaments that are driven by ordinary cathodes. The whole filament can be seen as a 'circuit". Any rewiring of the circuit topology due to a change in the flow of current is simply 'circuit reconnection'.

It's clear even from the 'experiments" that are used to support MR theory that electricity is doing all the work, not "magnetism". Pull the plug on the electricity and the "reconnection" event is over. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Michael Mozina]

...and on the seventh day, Alfven rested and said, "Let there be no magnetic reconnection."

FYI most good "skeptics" of Christianity accurately quote from the Bible when discussing theistic topics with Christians.

The amusing part from my perspective is that 'skeptics' of Alfven's work have never read Cosmic Plasma, so their "quotes" aren't even from the proper holy book, or not accurate at least. It's like the lazy man's guide to debating the Nobel Prize winning physicist. If you ignore the utter sadness of the whole ignorance thing, it's actually pretty funny. Sorry, but that line isn't in the holy book, but thanks for playing!

 

[Michael Mozina]

I know there's something to be said about sticking to one's guns in the face of overwhelming disagreement, but sometimes...a person's just wrong about something. Science has moved on.

How so? Since Alfven last publicly called it 'pseudoscience', what is really 'new' about it? Alfven explicitly and intentionally switched to a 'circuit' oriented approach in all current carrying plasmas and he considered the whole of space to be a 'current carrying' environment. Nowhere under the sun did Alfven use, or condone the use of 'magnetic reconnection' theory, but he constantly and overwhelming published papers on "circuit" theory. More importantly, he used circuit theory in the same basic places that "magnetic reconnection' theory was used then and is still being used today, specifically solar flares and magnetospheric activities.

If anything the so called "experiments" done on MR theory in lab simply "nail shut" the whole thing since the whole experiment is predicated ENTIRELY upon current and charge separation, and 'circuits' in plasmas.

Do people honestly think we should stop advancing and "stay with the tried and true methods"?

If the tried and true methods work to describe flares and magnetospheric behaviors, why should I look anywhere else for an answer?

(not like that's true in this case) That's dogma, not science. It changes and adapts. Irrelevant stuff is discarded into the history bin. It doesn't stay static. If it did, there would be no innovation.

Consider their 'innovation' as it relates to their empirical tests. They start (and end) with 'charge separation' between a cathode and an anode and they intentionally move the two circuits into contact with one another and reorient the flow of current through the plasma! That's not innovation, that's ignoring electrical engineering principles entirely and "making up" your own "dumbed down" (to magnetism alone) lingo. Why?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nice try, but you are the one ignoring both physics & reality, not GM. The picture you show is a hollow tube, not a solid rod,

Yes, I know that. That is why it was crushed by the magnetic field when the discharge passed through it.

and the discharge event (lightning) did not happen in the tube, it passed through the tube, starting & ending well outside the tube.

So what if the discharge current started and/or ended outside of the copper tube? It starts well outside of most of the plasma lightning bolt too. So what? The electrical discharge passed through the copper tubing, and the magnetic field created by the electrical discharge current crushed the copper tubing.

Discharges as GM chooses to define them, consistent with standard usage,

I want to see a published claim to support this statement. Where is a "standard definition" of a *GENERAL* definition of an "electrical discharge" that *REQUIRES* an ionization process to occur? I'm stopping here until you personally produce one.

You're talking about a *VERY SPECIFIC* kind of "electrical discharge", one that occurs in a gas, and one that happens to ionize the gas and turn it into a plasma. That is only *ONE KIND* of an electrical discharge! Discharges can occur through liquid mercury. They can occur through solids. They can occur through plasmas. They can occur through a gas *IF* they first ionize the gas and turn it into a "conductor". Now you're on the hook to demonstrate that you aren't intentionally and personally "dumbing down" the electrical discharge process to *ONE KIND* of discharge. Good luck with that.