ARRELL said:

He seems oblivious to the entire field of Magnetohydrodynamics.

Not so at all. Magnetohydrodynamics is the notion that you can describe magnetic fields and plasma as a "fluid" with "magnetic effects" more-or-less. In fact, one of the papers I cited in the original post (which you obviously didn't read very thoroughly before beginning your invectives), refers specifically to one of Alfvén's papers. It deals explicitly with the insufficiency of "magnetofluids" to describe things such as double layers, circuits, etc. Granted, that paper is aging gracefully. But, still interesting...

Specifically, Alfvén stated (at that time):

"As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models (Lyons and Williams, 1985) and circuit theory (Alfvén, in Chapter III of Cosmic Plasma, 1981, hereafter referred to as CP)."

On RE-reading the magnetohydrodynamics page on Wikipedia (yes, I've read it before, contrary to your baseless assertion that I've never heard of the field or an oblivious to it), it seems to me that Two-Fluid MHD or Hall MHD are potentially better models than the original "ideal MHD." IE, plasmas are not necessarily "perfect conductors," "superconductors," etc.

With respect to the "frozen-in" field line situation with plasmas, Alfvén recants the notion that magnetic fields in plasma can be accounted for without considering the particle model.

A. Frozen-In Field Lines B A Pseudo-Pedagogical Concept

In Cosmical Electrodynamics, I tried to give a survey of a field in which I had been active for about two decades. In one of the chapters, I treated magnetohydrodynamic waves. I pointed out that in an infinitely conductive magnetized fluid the magnetic field lines could be considered as "frozen" into the medium -- under certain conditions -- and this concept made it possible to treat the waves as oscillations of the frozen-in medium.

The "frozen-in" picture of magnetic field lines differs from Maxwell's views. He defined a magnetic field
line as a line which everywhere is parallel to the magnetic field. If the current system which produced the field changes, the magnetic field changes and field lines can merge or reconnect. However, if the current system is constant the magnetic field is also constant. To speak of magnetic field lines moving perpendicular to the field makes no sense. They are not material.

I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became very popular. In reality, however, it was not a good pedagogical concept but a dangerous "pseudo-pedagogical concept." By pseudo-pedagogical I mean a concept which makes you believe that you understand a phenomenon whereas in reality you have drastically misunderstood it.

B. Magnetic Merging -- A Pseudo-Science ["Magnetic reconnection," in other words.]

The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics.

A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

Even today, it seems, the magnetofluid model dominates theoretical discussion. If it's incorrect, a correction in course may be needed. As I said, it sounds like the Two-fluid MHD (which deals with actual electron and ion motions) and Hall MHD (in which there seems to be no "magnetic reconnection") might be closer to accuracy than the original formulations. Whether or not they are 100% *correct* may still be a matter of debate. That there seem to be many different ways of treating the same phenomena with different equations and approaches, some of which may give different results, is not a ringing endorsement that science has sufficiently "settled" the issue of plasma behaviors on Earth and/or in space.

I have also suggested reading Don Scott's treatment of "magnetic reconnection" from the perspective of known electrical engineering principles and E/M science. It also comes to the conclusion that "magnetic reconnection" is pseudo-science (IE, not correct) and offers an alternative interpretation of some MR diagrams (again from the viewpoint of EE's).

(Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos)

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

I would also refer you to the answer from Dr. Charles W. Smith of NASA's Ask-A-Physicist program at their Cosmicopia site:

(Is there any way a magnetic field can be stopped or broken?)

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_gp_elm.html#stopmag

You can't cut magnetic fields ... it all comes back to the assumption that there are no magnetic monopoles. If there were magnetic monopoles, then at that point in space there would be more magnetic field lines exiting a region than entering it (or vice versa) ... in spite of many experiments looking for magnetic monopoles, none have been found. If they are found, then we know how to revise the theory of magnetism to allow for "cut" field lines, but so far those changes have not been needed ... Then, if you want to take the next step, Google "magnetic reconnection" and open a whole new world of questions regarding the cutting of magnetic field lines.

I'd also refer you to the coursework at University of Texas, Austin. Specifically professor Richard Fitzpatrick's intermediate-level course on classical electromagnetism:

(Magnetic monopoles?)

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node35.html

...field-lines of B never begin or end ... the statement that magnetic fields are solenoidal ... is equivalent to the statement that there are no magnetic monopoles ... In fact, permanent magnetism is generated by electric currents circulating on the atomic scale, so this type of magnetism is not fundamentally different to the magnetism generated by macroscopic currents ... In conclusion, all steady magnetic fields in the Universe are generated by circulating electric currents of some description. Such fields are solenoidal: that is, they never begin or end, and satisfy ... the second of Maxwell's equation. Essentially, it says that there is no such thing as a magnetic monopole.

For much the same reason, as explained by Dr. Charles W. Smith, magnetic fields cannot be "cut", drift about, and "reconnect." "Magnetic reconnection," according to Maxwell, Alfvén, Scott, Smith and Fitzpatrick (indirectly), is not a valid physical model.

Magnetic fields are continuous. Magnetic field strengths are predicated upon current strength (permanent magnets being a special case), magnetic field topology is predicated upon the geometry of the currents giving rise to them. Reconfigure the currents, and the magnetic fields follow suit.

Hopefully we're all on the same page now? Food for thought, at the minimum.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

P.S. Apologies for double-posting... There's no preview function that I can see & I had to correct a HTML tag that was in error "b" instead of "/b" and caused the entire document to be "bolded" rather than normal text. If a mod could delete the prior message and leave this properly formatted version I'd be very appreciative. Hopefully all the tags are now correct. *Crosses his fingers and hopes for the best!*