Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[W.D.Clinger]

In the following excerpts from Michael Mozina's recent posts, all highlighted statements are false.

You're going to join in on the "liar liar, pants on fire" choir now?

Only when led to that conclusion by evidence.

Show me a *PUBLISHED* experiment (not one you did in your college days and never published) where the authors wrote about 'magnetic reconnection' where charged particle kinetic energy was not the "cause" of the "reconnection" process and magnetic field energy was the 'cause" of charged particle kinetic energy *ONLY* at the point of "reconnection".

Your demand for "kinetic energy *ONLY* at the point of" reconnection is disingenuous/dishonest. Particles that acquire kinetic energy at a point of reconnection tend to retain that energy as they leave the region of reconnection, so magnetic reconnection has the effect of converting field energy into kinetic energy throughout a broader region.

As for your belief that "charged particle kinetic energy" is the "cause" of the "reconnection" process: Yes, magnetic fields can be generated by currents that consist of charged particles moving with kinetic energy. On the other hand, you are wrong to think that the motion of charged particles within plasma is necessary for magnetic reconnection, and you often confuse currents that generate the reconnecting magnetic fields with currents created by magnetic reconnection.

In the experiment I suggested,

The experiment you suggested only demonstrates magnetic attraction and magnetic repulsion which is why you are never going to produce a *PUBLISHED PAPER* that makes the claim that this kind of an experiment is an example of "magnetic reconnection".

No. You're just guessing, and you're guessing wrong.

What's funny is that you believe your uninformed guesses have more authority than the knowledge of scientists who are working and publishing in the field.

Because we know better than to share your Kruger-Dunning faith in the infallibility of your guesswork, you say we are in denial. Ha ha.

none of the four currents ever change their direction.

In the PUBLISHED PAPER that Tim provided, the currents *DID* change direction. Did you not notice that? What does that tell us? It tells us that the CURRENT is the CAUSE of "reconnection" and in fact it is the "currents" that do the actual 'reconnecting' at the level of physics, not the magnetic lines.

In experiments that use plasma, the currents within the plasma do indeed tend to change direction. Because you have wrongly interpreted that fact to mean that the changing direction of the plasma currents is cause rather than effect, I have suggested a plasma-free experiment in which none of the currents ever change direction.

That is one of the reasons I have been suggesting that experiment. It would eliminate your continuing confusion between currents that generate the magnetic field and plasma currents that result from magnetic reconnection.

In the experiment I suggested, no current ever reconnects. The topological changes occur within the magnetic field.

As I have stated now on *NUMEROUS* occasions, you first science experiment is *NOT* an example of "magnetic reconnection'. If other scientists agree with you, they *SURELY* you could supply us with a *PUBLISHED PAPER* to support that claim. Where is it?

The experiment I have been suggesting most definitely provides an example of magnetic reconnection. Your continuing denials of that fact demonstrate nothing more than your continuing state of denial.

Genuine scientists agree that magnetic reconnection involves changes to the topology of the magnetic field, not (as you would have it) changes to the topology of a circuit or current. Here are a few examples of what real scientists have to say about that:

....Understanding magnetic reconnection, a topological rearrangement of magnetic field lines, provides a key to these questions....

....Magnetic reconnection involves a topology change of a set of field lines....

....Through soft-x-ray pictures, which are considered to represent magnetic field-line configurations, we can visualize examples of global topology change of plasma configurations (Masuda et al., 1994; Tsuneta, 1996; Gabriel et al., 1997; Golub et al., 1999; Lin et al., 2003). As shown in transition region and coronal explorer (TRACE) satellite data (Golub et al., 199) (Fig. 1), the topologies of soft-x-ray images are seen to change within a time scale of minutes or hours in the solar atmosphere....

....Dungey (1953) showed that such a current sheet can indeed be formed by the collapse of the magnetic field near an X-type neutral point as shown in Fig. 3 and suggested that lines of force can be broken and rejoined in the current sheet....When the field lines are reconnected, the topology of magnetic configuration changes and j×B forces result in the conversion of magnetic energy to kinetic energy....

All of those statements come from the introduction to a paper tusenfem recommended to us:

Masaaki Yamada, Russell Kulsrud, and Hantao Ji. Magnetic reconnection. Reviews of Modern Physics, Volume 82, January-March 2010, pages 603-664.

Even if I were incapable of doing the vector calculus needed to confirm that magnetic reconnection is a consequence of Maxwell's equations, I'd be more inclined to trust real scientists who are working and publishing in the area of magnetic reconnection than the desperate ranting of some Internet crank non-scientist who tries to compensate for inadequate math skills by throwing a fit about barking math on command while accusing all and sundry of living in denial. But hey, I understand why you have to go with the best rhetorical tactics available to you.

 

[mike3]

Your demand for "kinetic energy *ONLY* at the point of" reconnection is disingenuous/dishonest.

So this goes beyond just ignorance and incompetency?

But hey, I understand why you have to go with the best rhetorical tactics available to you.

Why would he?

 

[Perpetual Student]

So this goes beyond just ignorance and incompetency?

Yes.

Why would he?

Because he has no real science to back his naive opinions.

 

[Reality Check]

Dude, a "cathode" is a "cathode" is a "cathode", is a "cathode".

Dude, you are showing that you are incapable of undertsanding simple facts.

1. A cathode is a cathode is a cathode is a cthode.
2. Birkeland did in fact begin experimenting with a *CATHODE SPHERE* for the purpose of studying the rings around Saturn.
3. Figure 247a is an image of his analogy with Saturn's rings, not the Sun.

Thus: The idiocy of comparing a Saturn analogy (visible light) to a solar image in x-rays!

 

[Reality Check]

All MR experiemnts using lasers to create the plasma do not "begin with current"

Does *ANYONE* have a *published* paper on a controlled experiment in MR theory that does *NOT*, I repeat NOT begin with current first?

Your ignorance contunues.
All MR experiemnts using lasers to create the plasma do not "begin with current", e.g.

• 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

 

[Tim Thompson]

First the field then the current. II

NONE of them involve the flow of current first.

The first reference you gave us:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFMSM31A1706L

Each 2.5~cm LaB6 cathode can produce current densities of 5-20 A/cm2 and Δ B/B ~ 10%. The background plasma (n ~ 2 × 1012 cm-3, d ~ 60 cm, L ~ 18 m, and τrep= 1 s) is produced with a DC discharge using a pulsed barium oxide-coated cathode. The two current channels are created by biasing the LaB6 cathodes with respect to a grid anode at the opposite end of the chamber. They are emitted parallel to each other and the background B field. J × B forces cause the currents to move across the field and interact. Reconnection has been observed at multiple locations between the two currents.

The currents come first Tim. They always come first Tim.

Actually, no the currents did not come first and they never come first. The experiment was performed at the Large Plasma Device (LaPD) at UCLA (a facility that has since been expanded into the Basic Plasma Science Facility), a fact stated in the abstract just before the part you quoted. The LaPD is 16.5 meters long and surrounded by 90 magnets capable of generating a confining magnetic field as large as 4 kiloGauss. The standard operating procedure for this device is to generate currents in pre-existing, strongly magnetized plasma. Indeed, this fact is evident in the abstract you quoted, where we find the phrase, "The background plasma ...", which is created before the current channels are created, and regarding the current channels, that "They are emitted parallel to each other and the background B field". Details of the experimental setup are found in the paper Lawrence & Gekelman, 2009 (note that my reference you quote here is not a published paper, but rather an abstract only, for a talk at an AGU meeting).

Now when I say that "None of them involve the flow of current first", my point is that the currents are invariably insinuated into a pre-existing magnetic field, a pre-existing plasma, or both. That is certainly the case here, so I stand by what I said and assert that you are wrong. Furthermore, the abstract as you quoted it contains all the information needed to prove you are wrong.

Here the physical point is that the helical magnetic fields of the current filaments interact and reconnect in the quasiseparatrix region between the interacting magnetic fields. This region is directly probed with magnetometers and ammeters so the relationship between currents & fields can be quantified. And this brings us back to the main point of my post, which of course you ignored, as usual:

In each and every case the magnetic field topology changes first and then the charged particles are accelerated thereafter, in a time sequence of events that clearly traces the energy from the magnetic field to the current.

This time sequence of events dooms circuit reconnection as thoroughly as the fact that it is not possible for any kind of circuit reconnection to produce the effects attributed to magnetic reconnection (see my ignored post What is Circuit Reconnection? and ignored posts cited therein).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Now when I say that "None of them involve the flow of current first", my point is that the currents are invariably insinuated into a pre-existing magnetic field, a pre-existing plasma, or both.

Translation: Now when I say none of them involve the flow of current first, I mean they *ALL* involve the flow of current *FIRST*"!

Talk about double speak.

You know Tim, you and I have discussed a LOT of topics in astronomy over the last 5 or 6 years, and you have quite literally provided me with a *WEALTH* (and I mean wealth) of high quality *published* information on a lot topics. We've disagreed on many topics, but I've always felt like I could at least grudgingly understand your position, even if it I didn't agree with it. I watched you pick apart my published paper with professional skill and even I winced at a few of your criticisms because even I realized they were valid scientific criticisms. I've come to respect you on many levels.

As someone that typically respects your position, or at least your right to your position, you're all wet on this issue IMO. If DC discharges are the "cause" both of the "background plasma, and both "circuits/currents" inside the plasma, it is irrational, and scientifically bankrupt to be claiming that the currents do not come first. They are the CAUSE of the ionization and the CAUSE of the filaments. Without the "flow of current", the party goes nowhere.

I've heard rationalizations, but "everyone knows there is current first, so....there is no current first.", won't cut it. You'll need to do better than that Tim. These are real empirical experiments conducted in highly controlled conditions and the "control mechanisms" are electrical switches that turn on the flow of current. Current is the cause of the ionization the elements in the chamber and cause of the "magnetism" in the plasmas. The current is what "changes topology" and therefore the magnetic field topology changes.

All magnetic fields are "caused" by the movement of electrons and/or other charged particles. Even solid magnets are "caused" by the harmonic movement of electrons inside the atomic lattice of the solid. Current *ALWAYS* comes first.

That is certainly the case here, so I stand by what I said and assert that you are wrong.

You're standing in scientific quicksand. Get out now, while it's a merely a distraction from the conversation and before it become the entire focus of the conversation. You don't have a scientific leg to stand on.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your demand for "kinetic energy *ONLY* at the point of" reconnection is disingenuous/dishonest.

We'll discuss intellectual honesty in a moment, but....

At least the "acceleration and/heating" process should be concentrated at the point of "reconnection", should it not? If not, why not?

Particles that acquire kinetic energy at a point of reconnection

So we both agree that at least the *acceleration* of charged particles and the and concentration of energy should be focused at the point of "reconnection", correct?

tend to retain that energy as they leave the region of reconnection, so magnetic reconnection has the effect of converting field energy into kinetic energy throughout a broader region.

Ya, and according to the theory, the energy concentration should come out in "jets" at the point of reconnection, should it not?

As for your belief that "charged particle kinetic energy" is the "cause" of the "reconnection" process: Yes, magnetic fields can be generated by currents that consist of charged particles moving with kinetic energy.

In pure plasma that is the *ONLY* thing that creates magnetic fields. Are you insinuating that the sun is composed of something *OTHER THAN* plasma?

On the other hand, you are wrong to think that the motion of charged particles within plasma is necessary for magnetic reconnection, and you often confuse currents that generate the reconnecting magnetic fields with currents created by magnetic reconnection.

I'm afraid you're ignoring the fact that even according to "standard theory", it's internal "current" that generates those magnetic fields in the first place.

No. You're just guessing, and you're guessing wrong.

What's funny is that you believe your uninformed guesses have more authority than the knowledge of scientists who are working and publishing in the field.

Let's now talk about 'intellectual honesty" for a moment. You falsely accused me of misrepresenting Alfven on the topic of MR theory. You ignored the more than half dozen times he called it 'pseudoscience' and the fact he talked about putting nails in it's coffin. You ignored the one published NEGATIVELY slanted paper that condemned it when combined with the concept of "frozen" magnetic fields. Not once have you produced a POSITIVELY slanted published paper or comment from Alfven, and not once have you produced any evidence that I have misrepresented his position on this topic. Not once have you admitted to YOUR mistake.

I have repeatedly asked you to provide a *PUBLISHED PAPER* on the experiment you recommend that claims that this process demonstrates *MAGNETIC RECONNECTION* as opposed to magnetic attraction, and you have consistently and repeatedly refused to do so in a completely intellectually dishonest manner. You expect me personally do replicate an experiment on your word, and your word alone that this experiment demonstrates "magnetic reconnection'. Talk about dishonest behaviors. Where is your published paper on this topic?

 

[GeeMack]

Translation: Now when I say none of them involve the flow of current first, I mean they *ALL* involve the flow of current *FIRST*"!

Talk about double speak.

You know Tim, you and I have discussed a LOT of topics in astronomy over the last 5 or 6 years, and you have quite literally provided me with a *WEALTH* (and I mean wealth) of high quality *published* information on a lot topics. We've disagreed on many topics, but I've always felt like I could at least grudgingly understand your position, even if it I didn't agree with it. I watched you pick apart my published paper with professional skill and even I winced at a few of your criticisms because even I realized they were valid scientific criticisms. I've come to respect you on many levels.

As someone that typically respects your position, or at least your right to your position, you're all wet on this issue IMO. If DC discharges are the "cause" both of the "background plasma, and both "circuits/currents" inside the plasma, it is irrational, and scientifically bankrupt to be claiming that the currents do not come first. They are the CAUSE of the ionization and the CAUSE of the filaments. Without the "flow of current", the party goes nowhere.

I've heard rationalizations, but "everyone knows there is current first, so....there is no current first.", won't cut it. You'll need to do better than that Tim. These are real empirical experiments conducted in highly controlled conditions and the "control mechanisms" are electrical switches that turn on the flow of current. Current is the cause of the ionization the elements in the chamber and cause of the "magnetism" in the plasmas. The current is what "changes topology" and therefore the magnetic field topology changes.

All magnetic fields are "caused" by the movement of electrons and/or other charged particles. Even solid magnets are "caused" by the harmonic movement of electrons inside the atomic lattice of the solid. Current *ALWAYS* comes first.

You're standing in scientific quicksand. Get out now, while it's a merely a distraction from the conversation and before it become the entire focus of the conversation. You don't have a scientific leg to stand on.

More undefined quote-marked words and phrases. There is, of course, no real argument here because it's just more gibberish. But even if we assume meanings for the nonsense, there is nothing here but arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, and unsupported assertions. Nothing objective, nothing quantitative, just a bunch of words proclaiming real science to be wrong and crackpottery to be correct. Simply assembling an argument out of sciency sounding words is not science.

But in the spirit of helping move this conversation forward, assume for a moment there's actually something of substance, something meaningful in the gibberish. We know that no real scientist on the planet has ever found this nonsense to be compelling or worthy of further consideration. So what exactly is it about the argument that fails so completely to convince a single legitimate physicist? Is it wrong, or is it so poorly presented that it isn't understandable?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes.

Not in my case. I'm willing to openly look at my beliefs which are based upon the teachings of Alfven and Peratt and many others. I've explained to everyone where I got my "knowledge", where it comes from, how to go about acquiring it for yourself, etc. It's based primarily upon the teachings the guy that wrote plasma physics theory.

Because he has no real science to back his naive opinions.

You again have reality standing on it's head, including your notion of who's motives are scientifically driven, and who's motives are not. You've never read Alfven's book. It took me *MONTHS* and I mean *MONTHS* to work myself through that book, mostly because I'll admit that my math skills were quite rusty at the time and it's mostly a mathematical presentation. Peratt's book also took me months, and I'll be honest, I simply "took his word for it" at times. My opinions are born of EDUCATION and SWEAT EQUITY.

Your opinions however are not born of sweat equity. You never read Alfven's work on a circuit orientation to plasma physics. You never read Peratt's book either. You never went through many dozens of Alfven's papers like I did. You've never personally cited a flaw in his work.

Your motives aren't even all that "honest" IMO because you continue to *REFUSE* to read and/or address the work that I have suggested. Instead, you personally hurl insults from the peanut gallery and pretend to have some sort of superior understanding on this subject, all the while *REFUSING* to discuss any of your beliefs.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A *REAL* magnetic reconnection "experiment".

A real experiment on MR theory would by necessity require the following conditions be met to ensure that magnetic lines are reconnecting rather than "currents" as the authors of Tim's paper claimed actually "reconnected":

No "currents" would be required inside the chamber *ONCE* the ionization process is complete. The "magnetic lines" would have to be *EXTERNAL* to the chamber itself, and the only the MAGNET should be "on". No "cathodes" should be required at all, other than to perhaps heat the plasma originally, and then the cathode should be turned off.

Anything that does NOT meet this kind of criteria will NEVER be able to differentiate "current reconnection" from "magnetic reconnection".

IMO the whole nature of the MR 'experiments' underscores the nature of problem. You aren't beginning with magnetic fields. You're beginning with *ELECTRIC FIELDS* and calling it "magnetic reconnection".

 

[Michael Mozina]

But in the spirit of helping move this conversation forward, assume for a moment there's actually something of substance, something meaningful in the gibberish. We know that no real scientist on the planet has ever found this nonsense to be compelling or worthy of further consideration.

You mean besides Alfven, Peratt, Scott, etc? Do you really think lies are going to make your case look any better? IMO skepticism is given a bad name by folks that claim to be skeptics but have never actually read the material in question and simply lie, day in, day out. Have you read Alfven's book yet? You've been playing the role of skeptic for how many years now?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dude, you are showing that you are incapable of undertsanding simple facts.

1. A cathode is a cathode is a cathode is a cthode.
2. Birkeland did in fact begin experimenting with a *CATHODE SPHERE* for the purpose of studying the rings around Saturn.
3. Figure 247a is an image of his analogy with Saturn's rings, not the Sun.

1. 
   
   http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3
   
   Was the sun a "cathode" according to Birkeland? Was his sphere a "cathode" in 247A? This pure denial of scientific fact is just boring now. Did he, or did he not compare his cathode terella experiments to solar activity *LATER IN HIS BOOK*? Yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually as anyone who can read can see, it is Michael Mozina who is personally in denial of the scientific fact that in magnetic reconnection experiments the reconnection comes first and then the currents change.

No, you are in denial of scientific fact that the movement of charged particles, AKA CURRENT, is the "cause" of the magnetic fields you're talking about. You're in denial of the fact that the 'currents' do the "reconnecting", not the "magnetic lines". The term "magnetic line" is a *GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION* of a "Bennett Pinch" in plasma! Current *ALWAYS* comes first and only *CURRENTS* and circuits "reconnect".

 

[Tim Thompson]

First the field then the current. III

All magnetic fields are "caused" by the movement of electrons and/or other charged particles. Even solid magnets are "caused" by the harmonic movement of electrons inside the atomic lattice of the solid. Current *ALWAYS* comes first.

Of course that's all true, but you misunderstand me. Your claim is that all of the magnetic fields in the plasma are a direct result of the same currents flowing in the plasma that do the reconnecting. My claim is that the magnetic fields in the reconnection region are not all caused by the local currents. Currents flowing outside the reconnection region are not relevant to the reconnection process beyond the fact that they establish a background magnetic field and/or a background plasma (e.g., the magnetic field of a neutron star is the background magnetic field for reconnection physics in the plasma around the neutron star, which will also include magnetic fields generated inside the local plasma).

Your claim is that all of the laboratory experiments start with a vacuum, into which a current is injected, and that the injected current is then responsible for all of the reconnection physics, hence your appeal to "circuit reconnection" (a physically impossible process in any case). My claim, the one that is verified by an examination of the experiments in detail, is that the laboratory experiments start with a pre-existing background magnetic field (all experiments do this), and/or a pre-existing plasma (not all experiments do this), or both.

Now if you are willing to abandon your claim that the reconnecting currents are responsible for all of the magnetic fields involved in the reconnection process, then we can at least start with a proper understanding of how the experiments are actually conducted.

 

[GeeMack]

You mean besides Alfven, Peratt, Scott, etc? Do you really think lies are going to make your case look any better? IMO skepticism is given a bad name by folks that claim to be skeptics but have never actually read the material in question and simply lie, day in, day out. Have you read Alfven's book yet? You've been playing the role of skeptic for how many years now?

I mean exactly what I wrote. There are 16,000 physicists in the US, probably tens of thousands on Earth, and not a single one of them finds any of this problems-with-magnetic-reconnection nonsense compelling or worthy of scientific consideration. Why? Because it's wrong? Or because the argument is so poorly assembled that no real scientist can understand it?

If it's wrong, it's wrong. And if it has just never been presented in an understandable way, then repeating the same lies, arguments from ignorance, unsupported assertions, insults, and idolatry of dead scientists isn't likely to work. If there's something to it, a new approach is required.

So the question remains, is it wrong, or has it just never been presented in a compelling, understandable, objective, quantitative, legitimately scientific way?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I mean exactly what I wrote. There are 16,000 physicists in the US...

Name them and tell me how you got their OPINION on this topic. Me thinks you're pulling stuff out of your back pocket again. So what? Did Alfven every write *POSITIVELY* about MR theory, yes or no? Who cares what you think about what other scientists think since you can't be bothered to read Alfven's work for yourself? Why did you dodge my direct question about whether or not you've read his book yet? How many years have you been a "skeptic" of Alfven's "PC/EU" theories now?

 

[GeeMack]

Name them and tell me how you got their OPINION on this topic. Me thinks you're pulling stuff out of your back pocket again. So what? Did Alfven every write *POSITIVELY* about MR theory, yes or no? Who cares what you think about what other scientists think since you can't be bothered to read Alfven's work for yourself? Why did you dodge my direct question about whether or not you've read his book yet? How many years have you been a "skeptic" of Alfven's "PC/EU" theories now?

My question remains. Why is it that the contemporary scientific community doesn't accept the electric Sun nonsense and the wholly unsupported claim that there is some kind of problem with the physics of magnetic reconnection? Is it that there is no such problem? Or has the position not been argued effectively? And if it hasn't been argued effectively, then isn't it irrational to continue assembling the argument using the same failed strategy? What would be a better argument to use to actually support the claim?

 

[Michael Mozina]

My question remains. Why is it that the contemporary scientific community doesn't accept .....

....any other minority viewpoint in science?

In other words, your basic argument amounts to nothing more than an appeal to popularity fallacy, nothing more. Who knows? Who cares? Science is only concerned with empirical fact, and the empirical fact of the matter is that current always comes first, and all magnetic fields in plasma are the direct result of the movement of charged particles.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Of course that's all true, but you misunderstand me. Your claim is that all of the magnetic fields in the plasma are a direct result of the same currents flowing in the plasma that do the reconnecting. My claim is that the magnetic fields in the reconnection region are not all caused by the local currents.

It seems to me that is an "extraordinary" claim, one that is not even supported by your own experiments, or those two authors in question.

Let's put a little distance between the cathodes and not let the current streams "reconnect" for a moment. If we looked at the magnetic field topology inside the chamber, we would in fact see a direct empirical cause effect link between the flow of charged particles and the magnetic field arrangements inside the chamber. The current channel filaments will "wiggle around" and we'll see a corresponding change in the magnetic field topology inside the chamber.

The authors of that first paper make it quite clear that currents do in fact "reconnect" throughout the process Tim. They openly discuss the electric fields that drive the process. They aren't actually claiming what you are claiming. I'm completely fine with their actual description of events because they are in fact associating the current streams and the movement of current with the magnetic field topology, even at the point of "reconnection". This presentation is much like Birn's paper by the way. That is why I accept the terms "current reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" as a valid description of events.

The only "point" that seems to be in "dispute" as far as I can tell is the point of "reconnection" between the two "currents". What evidence suggests to you that charged particle kinetic energy is not responsible for the "magnetic lines" at the point of 'reconnection' when all the other "lines" in the chamber are known to be directly related to the flow of charged particles? You're barking up the wrong tree on this issue IMO.