Problems With Magnetic Reconnection

[Reality Check]

No, DISCHARGES are directly observed in laboratory plasmas. PARTICLES AND CIRCUITS do the "reconnecting", not *JUST* the magnetic field topology! That's the whole problem with your claim. You can't even produce the process without *CURRENT* and "circuits".

The errors (and crackpot quoting and uppercasing ) are obvious in that post:

• Particles do not reconnect.
• There are are no circuits in magnetic reconnection.
• There are no "discharges" possible in plasma.
  Discharge in this context is an electrical discharge.The scientific meaning of electrical discharge includes the breakdown of a dielectric medium (as in lightning). Plasma is a conductor.
  N.B. In older papers discharges in the context of plasma have been used to describe high current densities.
• Currents are used to create the plasma, not to power the magnetic reconneciton.
  Magnetic reconnection can be produced without currents, e.g. by hitting targets with laser beams (from memory - needs confirmation).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Breach of rule 12 removed.

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

Particles do not reconnect.

Bzzzzt. Atom are composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. They connect and reconnect in various pairs and spares and that reconnection and rearrangement of those three basic particles is what creates the periodic table of elements.

There are are no circuits in magnetic reconnection.

Of course there are. Show me one physical experiment that didn't require "current flow"?

Discharge in this context is an electrical discharge.The scientific meaning of electrical discharge includes the breakdown of a dielectric medium (as in lightning). Plasma is a conductor.

None of those things are meaningful or relevant in a plasma. A powerful and quick release of stored EM energy is still possible in plasma. That's called a "discharge".

N.B. In older papers discharges in the context of plasma have been used to describe high current densities.
[*]Currents are used to create the plasma, not to power the magnetic reconneciton.

So you have moving streams of charged particles slamming into each other at a "short circuit" in the plasma. So what? The magnetic fields don't "reconnect", the kinetic energy in the 'current" is what "reconnects"' and produces the heat. The whole process is *CURRENT DRIVEN* from start to finish.

Magnetic reconnection can be produced without currents, e.g. by hitting targets with laser beams (from memory - needs confirmation).

If I recall the experiment they were trying to ignore the fact that the particles in the atom are moving and "scattering happens" as a result. That's hardly an example of a magnetic field in a pure vacuum "reconnecting".

Show me an experiment in a vacuum that is devoid of plasma entirely where "magnetic reconnection' happens. Then and only then can you tell me it's not the particles in the plasma and circuits doing the "reconnecting".

 

[Michael Mozina]

It seems those denying the existence of magnetic reconnection missed some of these...

Which one involved no current and no plasma?

If someone disagrees with the above references, maybe some quantitative objective analysis is in order.

Been there, done that!
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

Care to comment this time?

Maybe it's time those arguing against the existence of magnetic reconnection point out where all that research has failed, specifically, quantitatively, and objectively.

It fails to explain what is physically unique and different about magnetic reconnection that can be isolated and shown to be unique and different from ordinary particle collisions inside current carrying plasma, and "induction" which already has a proper scientific term. The fact the circuit topology changes over time is not evidence that "magnetic fields' did the actual reconnecting. It's the "current" that is simply being "redirected', it's not the magnetic lines that "reconnect". They just follow the current.

For some reason contemporary research seems to be off limits to the crackpots, and no such legitimate refutation is ever offered.

You ignored Alfven for his entire life when he called MR theory "pseudoscience", which essentially makes you the "crackpot" as long as we're just appealing to authority.

Why should the entire world of legitimate physicists concede to the ranting of a half dozen cranks who obviously don't understand math and offer nothing more than arguments from incredulity and ignorance?

Because Alfven said so and he understood math and physics better than your "experts", not to mention you personally.

Why should folks engaged in real science pay any heed to those who dishonestly misrepresent the research of a handful of dead scientists?

You're the one trying to ignore Alfven's claim about MR theory being pseudoscience, not me. The rest of your post isn't worth my time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Alright, cut to the chase. Collectively pick ONE (we'll start with only one) paper that relates to LABORATORY experiments (not just computer sims) of MR theory. Show me how it specifically isolated MR processes from ordinary particle collisions, and ordinary induction processes. Show me how they specifically were able to rule out these other more mundane and otherwise 'explained" kinetic energy transfers between ordinary particles in plasmas. Extraordinary claims (like new forms of energy transfers) requires extraordinary evidence. So far I've yet to see it. In fact I see little or no evidence at all that they made any attempt to specifically eliminate ordinary kinetic energy transfers of energy, and/or ordinary induction processes. They simply ASSUME the electric field stayed constant in some/most cases I've read thus far.

If there is any paper that specifically eliminated other possible processes from consideration, I would *LOVE* to read it.

 

[tusenfem]

No, DISCHARGES are directly observed in laboratory plasmas. PARTICLES AND CIRCUITS do the "reconnecting", not *JUST* the magnetic field topology! That's the whole problem with your claim. You can't even produce the process without *CURRENT* and "circuits".

So Mikey, when are we going to get your circuit model description of MRx, that I once started up for you and you then so miserably abandoned, because you had to do actual work?

Read the review paper, maybe you will learn something.

 

[tusenfem]

Alright, cut to the chase. Collectively pick ONE (we'll start with only one) paper that relates to LABORATORY experiments (not just computer sims) of MR theory. Show me how it specifically isolated MR processes from ordinary particle collisions, and ordinary induction processes. Show me how they specifically were able to rule out these other more mundane and otherwise 'explained" kinetic energy transfers between ordinary particles in plasmas. Extraordinary claims (like new forms of energy transfers) requires extraordinary evidence. So far I've yet to see it. In fact I see little or no evidence at all that they made any attempt to specifically eliminate ordinary kinetic energy transfers of energy, and/or ordinary induction processes. They simply ASSUME the electric field stayed constant in some/most cases I've read thus far.

If there is any paper that specifically eliminated other possible processes from consideration, I would *LOVE* to read it.

The Yamada et al 2010 paper. Start reading Mikey, I doubt that you will understand it, or actually bring something forward.

Look at Fig. 2 of the Gekelman paper, that michaelsuede so conveniently ignored, look at the measured magnetic fields and at the measured flows.

Look at the Runov et al 2003 paper, where the magnetic field and the plasma show exactly what one would expect from reconnection.

There are no other ways to generate the topological differences in the magnetic field, there is no way a double layer can do that, there is no way induction can do that, nor particle collisions (because MRx can happen in a collisionless plasma).

Ah, I can see another 100 page thread, going round and round and round.

 

[Reality Check]

Your standard mode of operation seems to include the emotional need for an ad hom in every single post. That's just pathetic behavior IMO.

You did note the smiley ?
I merely noted that you have the same habit that many crackpots have - inappropriate quotation and use of upper case.

Bzzzzt....

Bzzzzt, Atoms do not connect in plasmas - they collide.

Of course there are. Show me one physical experiment that didn't require "current flow"?

What is "current flow" when it is in quotes? Is it different from current flow?
In any case, circuits are not current flows or currents. Circuits are wires connecting electrical components.
Circuit models are models of physical systems that use imaginary wires and electrical components. They ignore the details of the system.

Been there, done that Dr. Denial. Don't hijack this thread please.

Been there, done that Dr. Delusion. You stated that there are DISCHARGES (your uppercasing) in magnetic reconnection experiments. The facts are:

1. The context implies electrical discharge.
2. The definition of electricl discharges require a dielectric medium to breakdown.
3. There is no dielectric medium to break down.

If you mean a high current density then use the proper term: high current density.

None of those things are meaningful or relevant in a plasma. A powerful and quick release of stored EM energy is still possible in plasma. That's called a "discharge".

No it is called a sudden release of energy.
Sudden chnages in current density are sometines called discharges.

So you have moving streams of charged particles slamming into each other at a "short circuit" in the plasma.
[/quotye]
We have currents around the neutral point in a magnetic field. There is no "short circuit" because there is no circuit.

So what? The magnetic fields don't "reconnect", the kinetic energy in the 'current" is what "reconnects"' and produces the heat. The whole process is *CURRENT DRIVEN* from start to finish.

You are wrong: The magnetic field does reconnect (see the earlier post in this thread). It is the energy that is released from the magnetic field that produces the heat.

If I recall the experiment they were trying to ignore the fact that the particles in the atom are moving and "scattering happens" as a result. That's hardly an example of a magnetic field in a pure vacuum "reconnecting".

Whatever experiment you are recall is nothing to to with magnetic reconnection. A single atom !
Try Magnetic Reconnection and Plasma Dynamics in Two-Beam Laser-Solid Interactions

Show me an experiment in a vacuum that is devoid of plasma entirely where "magnetic reconnection' happens. Then and only then can you tell me it's not the particles in the plasma and circuits doing the "reconnecting".

If you use the field

{Bx,By} = {b*y, a*x}

then when you change the ratio a/b, you will reconnect points, as shown below:

So the math clearly works. One may dislike the terminology all one wants to, but that's irrelevant. The term is well-defined, and actual magnetic fields which satisfy Maxwell's equations (you can check) fit the description.

This is so trivial that scientists have not bothered to do it.

It would make an interesting undergraduate experiment though. You could probably do it with a couple of fridge magnets. Doing it in a vacuum as you insist would be harder.

 

[Reality Check]

Alright, cut to the chase. ...
Extraordinary claims (like new forms of energy transfers) requires extraordinary evidence.

You totally misunderstand what magnetic reconnection is.
It is a standard result of Maxwell's equations. There is no "new form of energy transfer". It is the release of energy from reconfiguration of magnetic fields that is taught in undergraduate classes.
It is not extraordinary. If magnetic reconnection cannot happen then Maxwell's equations are wrong. That would be extraordinary !

The MHD theories of magnetic reconnection are slightly different because of their complexity. That is why scientists use observations, experiments and computer simulations to test it. They are also careful to use the appropriate theory for the appropriated situation. That was Alfven's complaint in the 1980's that lead him to label some uses (abuses) of the frozen-in field approximation as pseudoscience.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You totally misunderstand what magnetic reconnection is.
It is a standard result of Maxwell's equations. There is no "new form of energy transfer". It is the release of energy from reconfiguration of magnetic fields that is taught in undergraduate classes.
It is not extraordinary. If magnetic reconnection cannot happen then Maxwell's equations are wrong. That would be extraordinary !

Boloney. Alfven understood Maxwell's equations perfectly and still called MR theory "pseudoscience''. Your claims about it being related to Maxwell's equations is circumstantial. You've never demonstrated that the process is not caused by ordinary particle kinetic energy transfers and ordinary induction processes at work. All you're doing is using a computer simulation and ignoring the fact that you need *ELECTRICITY* and current and "discharges" in plasma to make your experiments work right!

The MHD theories of magnetic reconnection are slightly different because of their complexity.

They are all computer simulations that fail to work in the lab without ELECTRICITY.

That is why scientists use observations, experiments and computer simulations to test it.

A computer simm world isn't real because it "works" on a computer. Get real. You can "simulate" anything on a computer. Getting it to work in the lab is another thing entirely. Eliminating other processes from consideration is even *HARDER STILL* and that's *NEVER* been done.

They are also careful to use the appropriate theory for the appropriated situation. That was Alfven's complaint in the 1980's that lead him to label some uses (abuses) of the frozen-in field approximation as pseudoscience.

The whole thing is "pseudoscience" because without electrical current, none of it works in the lab, and the whole thing typically takes place inside of a "discharge chamber"! Come on. It's one big ruse. Particles and circuits reconnect. Magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum, without the ability to 'disconnect' or "reconnect" to individual magnetic lines. MR theory will FOREVER only work in SIMULATIONS and/or only with ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES in the lab.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Been there, done that Dr. Denial. Don't hijack this thread please.

This thread is about denials of magnetic reconnection by people who (a) turn out not to understand the freshman-level math and physics they claim to be using as the basis for their arguments, and (b) refuse to read scientific papers that report experimental observations of magnetic reconnection.

You'll fit right in.

Show me an experiment in a vacuum that is devoid of plasma entirely where "magnetic reconnection' happens. Then and only then can you tell me it's not the particles in the plasma and circuits doing the "reconnecting".

Several months ago, I described a simple experiment and suggested you conduct it in your own lab. That experiment can be conducted in a vacuum without changing its results in any way, although the vacuum will make the experiment somewhat more awkward. I suggest you perform the experiment in open air before duplicating it in vacuo.

Your refusal to do lab work does not make you an authority on the subject any more than your refusal to read the relevant literature or to learn the relevant math make you an authority on the subject.

You ignored Alfven for his entire life when he called MR theory "pseudoscience", which essentially makes you the "crackpot" as long as we're just appealing to authority.


Because Alfven said so and he understood math and physics better than your "experts", not to mention you personally.


You're the one trying to ignore Alfven's claim about MR theory being pseudoscience, not me. The rest of your post isn't worth my time.

Those of us who understand freshman-level math and physics are far better equipped to understand Alfvén than you or michaelsuede. As several of us have said, we think Alfvén's keynote address was condemning abuse of the "frozen-in" approximation, which Alfvén himself had popularized.

If Alfvén was denying the very existence of magnetic reconnection, then he was wrong. I don't think he was that stupid, but we can't stop you and michaelsuede from implying that he was.

Alright, cut to the chase. Collectively pick ONE (we'll start with only one) paper that relates to LABORATORY experiments (not just computer sims) of MR theory.

tusenfem nominated this one:

Masaaki Yamada, Russell Kulsrud, and Hantao Ji. Magnetic reconnection. Reviews of Modern Physics volume 82, number 1, January-March 2010, pages 603-664.

I'll vote for that. (It mentions Alfvén's name more than 20 times. It mentions Dungey almost 20 times, citing four of his papers, including that 1953 paper you've been so keen to misinterpret.) Why don't you start by telling us what you think is wrong with its appendix?

Extraordinary claims (like new forms of energy transfers) requires extraordinary evidence.

Magnetic reconnection is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations. Had you conducted the experiment I suggested, you'd have learned by now that magnetic reconnection can occur without changing the electric field.

The Yamada et al 2010 paper. Start reading Mikey, I doubt that you will understand it, or actually bring something forward.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The Yamada et al 2010 paper.

When you collectively agree it's *THE* paper, I'll be happy to do that. Keep in mind that which ever paper you collectively choose as your paper, I will insist that you demonstrate WHERE in the paper they actually tried to eliminate more mundane options like particle kinetic energy and ordinary induction before deciding "magnetic reconnection" did it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This thread is about denials of magnetic reconnection by people who (a) turn out not to understand the freshman-level math and physics they claim to be using as the basis for their arguments, and (b) refuse to read scientific papers that report experimental observations of magnetic reconnection.

False. Alfven rejected it too so there goes the whole basis for your argument.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This thread is about denials of magnetic reconnection by people who (a) turn out not to understand the freshman-level math and physics they claim to be using as the basis for their arguments, and (b) refuse to read scientific papers that report experimental observations of magnetic reconnection.

False. Alfven rejected it too so there goes the whole basis for your argument.

So say you. As noted below, however, we have no reason to believe you actually understand what Alfvén was condemning.

In recent months, I thought you had backpedalled from your denial of magnetic reconnection's existence and had begun to say you objected to it only because of its name. (Your objection to its name was based on your failure to understand it, but we needn't pursue that tangent.) Do we need to quote your backpedalling from all those other threads?

Those of us who understand freshman-level math and physics are far better equipped to understand Alfvén than you or michaelsuede. As several of us have said, we think Alfvén's keynote address was condemning abuse of the "frozen-in" approximation, which Alfvén himself had popularized.

If Alfvén was denying the very existence of magnetic reconnection, then he was wrong. I don't think he was that stupid, but we can't stop you and michaelsuede from implying that he was.

...snip...

Magnetic reconnection is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations.

 

[dafydd]

Boloney. Alfven understood Maxwell's equations perfectly and still called MR theory "pseudoscience''. Your claims about it being related to Maxwell's equations is circumstantial. You've never demonstrated that the process is not caused by ordinary particle kinetic energy transfers and ordinary induction processes at work. All you're doing is using a computer simulation and ignoring the fact that you need *ELECTRICITY* and current and "discharges" in plasma to make your experiments work right!



They are all computer simulations that fail to work in the lab without ELECTRICITY.



A computer simm world isn't real because it "works" on a computer. Get real. You can "simulate" anything on a computer. Getting it to work in the lab is another thing entirely. Eliminating other processes from consideration is even *HARDER STILL* and that's *NEVER* been done.



The whole thing is "pseudoscience" because without electrical current, none of it works in the lab, and the whole thing typically takes place inside of a "discharge chamber"! Come on. It's one big ruse. Particles and circuits reconnect. Magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum, without the ability to 'disconnect' or "reconnect" to individual magnetic lines. MR theory will FOREVER only work in SIMULATIONS and/or only with ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES in the lab.

Here we go round the mulberry bush,again. Yawn.

 

[Reality Check]

Boloney. Alfven understood Maxwell's equations perfectly and still called MR theory "pseudoscience''.

You are wrong on 2 counts

• The logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
• Alfven never called MR theory pseudoscience. He called inappropriate application of the frozen-in field approximation pseudoscience.

Your claims about it being related to Maxwell's equations is circumstantial.

The fact is the Maxwell's equations allow magnetic reconnection.

You've never demonstrated that the process is not caused by ordinary particle kinetic energy transfers and ordinary induction processes at work....

I do not have to. It is your assertion. You need to provide the evidence for it

They are all computer simulations that fail to work in the lab without ELECTRICITY.

How dumb - of course the labs use ELECTRICITY. They have light bulbs for example. The computer are powered by ELECTRICITY !

A computer simm world isn't real because it "works" on a computer.

That is obvious. A computer simulation is real when it matches the experimental data. That is what computer simulations of magnetic reconnection do.

The whole thing is "pseudoscience" because without electrical current, none of it works in the lab, and the whole thing typically takes place inside of a "discharge chamber"!

More ignorance from you MM:
Plasma experiments typically take place in plasma discharge chambers. They are called plasma discharge chambers because plasma is discharged from the neutral gas. It is a discharge of plasma in the same way that a dam discharges water. It is not an electrical discharge.
There are various methods of creating the plasma. These seem to be mostly heating the neutral gas using radio or micro waves along with electrical arcs.

MR theory will FOREVER only work in SIMULATIONS and/or only with ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES in the lab.

No ELECTRICAL DISCHARGE here MM:
Magnetic Reconnection and Plasma Dynamics in Two-Beam Laser-Solid Interactions

What about here: Modified microwave-induced plasma discharge chamber
Do you think that microwaves are electrical dicharges, MM?




How come there is magnetic reconnection in collisionless plasma, MM?

• In situ detection of collisionless reconnection in the Earth's magnetotail
• Experimental Verification of the Hall Effect during Magnetic Reconnection in a Laboratory Plasma
  

  In this Letter we report a clear and unambiguous observation of the out-of-plane quadrupole magnetic field suggested by numerical simulations in the reconnecting current sheet in the magnetic reconnection experiment. Measurements show that the Hall effect is large in the collisionless regime and becomes small as the collisionality increases, indicating that the Hall effect plays an important role in collisionless reconnection.

• Experimental study of two-fluid effects on magnetic reconnection in a laboratory plasma with variable collisionality
  You will really like this paper - the MRX device creates plasma using electrical discharges from banks of capacitors.

MR theory also happens to work on observations, e.g. solar flares (except that the current theory predicts that they happen orders of magnitude faster than observed flares) and the Earth's magnetosphere (see above).

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you think that microwaves are electrical dicharges, MM?

Why wouldn't he? It wouldn't be close to the silliest thing he ever said.

 

[dafydd]

Why wouldn't he? It wouldn't be close to the silliest thing he ever said.

In the face of some stiff competition,considering all the other silly things he has said.

 

[Reality Check]

When you collectively agree it's *THE* paper, I'll be happy to do that. Keep in mind that which ever paper you collectively choose as your paper, I will insist that you demonstrate WHERE in the paper they actually tried to eliminate more mundane options like particle kinetic energy and ordinary induction before deciding "magnetic reconnection" did it.

That ordinary induction cannot supply the energy observed in magnetic reconnection is too basic for scientific papers.
You will have to read a textbook on plasma physics.
Or better yet read and understand the many posts in this forum that have already addreessed the issues. But Tim Thompson's posts alone show your total inability to understand the physics.

• Electric Sun: Reconnection vs Induction II (25 Jan 2011)
• Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection X (18 Jan 2011)
• Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection VIII (13 Jan 2011)
• Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection I (30 Nov 2010)
• Magnetic Reconnection Redux V (30 Dec 2009) & etc.

Also

• tusenfem explains magnetic diffusion for MM
• W.D.Clinger explains the different time scales of induction and reconnection.

As for "particle kinetic energy", I have no idea how MM thinks that the particles will magically gain energy without magnetic reconnection (it cannot be induction - see above)

 

[tusenfem]

They are all computer simulations that fail to work in the lab without ELECTRICITY.

Neither wil computer simulations work without electicity.

The whole thing is "pseudoscience" because without electrical current, none of it works in the lab, and the whole thing typically takes place inside of a "discharge chamber"! Come on. It's one big ruse.

Ahh, let's see, Cluster was specifically designed to be able to do so-called curlometry, i.e. to use the 4 spacecraft to measure the magnetic field, calculate the gradients in the field and therefrom determine the currents (one of the very few methods one can measure currents in space) and lo-and-behold, the found the currents flowing at the reconnection sites, just like all the other parameters that one finds from theory and that are simulated on computers and studied in the laboratory................

 

[tusenfem]

When you collectively agree it's *THE* paper, I'll be happy to do that. Keep in mind that which ever paper you collectively choose as your paper, I will insist that you demonstrate WHERE in the paper they actually tried to eliminate more mundane options like particle kinetic energy and ordinary induction before deciding "magnetic reconnection" did it.

No, why don't YOU explain how induction, "particle reconnection", circuits, collisions or whatever other pink unicorns you can come up with works to explain all the observations .

Dungey made it quite clear that reconnection is the only viable process.