A new explanation for the explosive nature of magnetic reconnection

A new explanation for the explosive nature of magnetic reconnection
Model of a current sheet of plasma with magnetic field lines that are ready to reconnect showing plasmoid instabilities in the center of the sheet. Credit: Yi-Min Huang.

Magnetic reconnection, which occurs when magnetic lines of force break apart and reconnect with a violent burst of energy, gives rise to many beautiful and powerful phenomena in the natural world. These include solar flares, the Northern Lights, and geomagnetic storms that can disrupt cell-phone service or knock out power grids. Scientists have long known that the Sweet-Parker model typically used to describe magnetic reconnection was unable to explain the speed at which it operates. Now, researchers have gone beyond the framework of that model to include new mechanisms that speed up reconnection, providing new insights into the process.

At the U.S. Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), researchers found that the Sweet-Parker model itself is flawed. To solve the problem, the researchers turned their attention to plasmoids—instabilities that occur in plasma containing the reconnecting lines of force—as the possible cause of fast reconnection (Figure 1). These instabilities take place very rapidly and change the predictions described by the Sweet-Parker model.

The new model predicts a novel regime in which the fast reconnection rate appears to be independent of the resistivity—or resistance to electrical current—of the system. "This fundamental discovery has attracted a great deal of interest from theorists as well as experimentalists in laboratory and space ," said Amitava Bhattacharjee, head of the Theory Department at PPPL. Bhattcharjee will present the findings in a talk to the 57th annual meeting of the American Physical Society-Department of Plasma Physics in Savannah, Georgia.

This new nonlinear model was developed by Bhattacharjee and Yi-Min Huang, a research scholar in Princeton University's Department of Astrophysical Sciences. The model is based on an earlier of the linear instability by Nuno Loureiro, a former post-doctoral fellow at PPPL. Loureiro now heads the Theory and Modeling Group at the Institute for Plasmas and Nuclear Fusion in Lisbon and will receive the Thomas H. Stix Award for Outstanding Early Career Contributions to Plasma Physics Research at the APS meeting.


Explore further

Scientists take key step toward solving a major astrophysical mystery

More information: Abstract: NP112.00107 Effects of Guide Field on Plasmoid-Instability-Mediated Turbulent Reconnection
Session Session NP12: Poster Session V (MHD, Heating, Current Drive, HBT-EP; Magnetic Reconnection; Astrophysical and Space Plasmas)
Citation: A new explanation for the explosive nature of magnetic reconnection (2015, November 10) retrieved 15 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-11-explanation-explosive-nature-magnetic-reconnection.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
43 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 11, 2015
sub;Magnetic Fields orientation and Re-connection-reflecting Regions
one may find many modes of Magnetic Fields orientation -regulation and control is very critical at the milky-way Galactic Plane. plasma Regulated EM phenomena in Magnetic Fields- holds the keys for Galactic dataand orientation at the inter-Galactic region . . see projections in my books -2010- available through LULU.http://www.lulu.c...039.html

Nov 11, 2015
"Magnetic reconnection" is pseudoscience" Hannes Alfven

It would seem some of these plasma theorists are finally catching on. Next step is to "rediscover" Alfven's research which describes these processes.

Nov 11, 2015
I would like to apply this fix to valance electrons, so I could fix all my broken drill bits.

Nov 16, 2015
It would seem some of these plasma theorists are finally catching on
@cant drive OR read
perhaps you missed this?
researchers have gone beyond the framework of that model to include new mechanisms that speed up reconnection, providing new insights into the process
and this is from PPPL, the site which i tried to get you to read RE: magnetic reconnection
they are PLASMA PHYSICISTS working experiments
At the U.S. Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL)
and
"This fundamental discovery has attracted a great deal of interest from theorists as well as experimentalists in laboratory and space plasma physics,"
if you can't learn to read, perhaps you should invest in a tool that will let your computer read aloud the words?
or hire an interpreter?
because you are failing epically to make a single point WRT plasma physics or even your eu religion

Nov 16, 2015
Unfortunately I had the great displeasure of visiting this page when I was not signed in, and lo and behold there is Captain Stupid defining his complete idiocy for all to see!

perhaps you missed this?

researchers have gone beyond the framework of that model to include new mechanisms that speed up reconnection, providing new insights into the process


You obviously missed thew point, dolt. They have "gone beyond the framework" that I have been critical of, and you try and spin it to support you POV?!?!?!? Damn, you are truly the Captain of the Stupids. Take your meds, your Alzheimers with the twist of dementia is acting up again you stupid SOB.

Nov 17, 2015
You obviously missed thew point
[sic] @still-cant-read
perhaps you should re-read what you quoted very slowly... especially that last part... you know
to include new mechanisms that speed up reconnection, providing new insights into the process
for starters, you have claimed this was impossible for years here... and yet, there it is!
black and white!
proving you wrong (yet again)

worst yet, this is, by definition, a direct refute to your previous claims WRT the eu BS that you regurgitate here

more to the point, my last quoted part directly refutes (yet again) your previous claims about astro's not knowing plasma physics, etc

i knew you wouldn't get it without it being spelled out to you in small words
were those small enough for you?

thank you for proving my point about your illiteracy problem
it is helpful to have something to link to when you get all eu stupid

Nov 17, 2015
@still-can't-read cont'd
i have another question for you: you stated
Unfortunately I had the great displeasure of visiting this page when I was not signed in
WHY?

you don't come here to learn anything...
you get proven wrong with every new astrophysics finding...
your eu is pseudoscience and thus, by definition, religious and not based upon evidence...
you can't actually talk physics WRT things like: Moon/Grand Canyon craters, Mars, dust devils, or asteroids/comets...

so it is far more likely that you were here in one of your many sock puppets and got mad because you've been proven wrong yet again

why the fanaticism?
how much do you collect in dues for your cult?

your eu cult is the reason people need to learn about science...
http://media-cach...f521.jpg

Nov 17, 2015
Hi cantdrive, CapS. :)

Still animosity/prejudice, I see. Why can't you two have a decent, polite, dignified conversation re new evidence/development reported above? :)

Anyway, I long suggested 'plasmoid' processes/jets of great energy were involved in solar flares/coronal mass ejections; most recently about a year ago I repeated same suggestion to a poster (Da Schneib?) who didn't know that flux tubes, currents and plasmoids were common features/processes within sun, its 'surface', its 'atmosphere/corona'. No biggie!

It seems the above team decided to pursue what I (and others) pointed out that could explain previously 'inexplicable' (according to then conventional theory) aspects of solar flares/mass ejections etc. No more than that.

Let's all 'sides' be gracious enough to acknowledge that theory was not correct/complete without allowing for 'plasmoid' etc processes/features within solar plasma dynamics. Modification was inevitable.

Move on from old 'feuds'. Cheers. :)

Nov 18, 2015
Still animosity/prejudice, I see
@rc
it's not animosity or prejudice, it is an eu CULT spreading pseudoscience... you know, the stuff that has no evidence and can't support it's claims
Why can't you two have a decent, polite, dignified conversation
because religious fanatics cant have decent, logical conversation because that would require evidence... see pseudoscience above
Move on from old 'feuds'.
this is a SCIENCE site, not a pseudoscience site

science requires evidence to substantiate a claim (even says it in the posting rules)

that is why people who make false claims, or unsubstantiated conjectures, always look like idiots...
Modification was inevitable.
until you learn more about the scientific method you should stop now, rc

that comment was just plain ignorant
the scientific method is all about change... but it still requires EVIDENCE


Nov 18, 2015
Hi CapS. :)
until you learn more about the scientific method you should stop now, rc
the scientific method is all about change... but it still requires EVIDENCE
PLease "don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs" when it comes to scientific method, mate. :)

And evidence for plasmoids at many scales/levels in solar plasma dynamics was there, known for decades. It only needed someone to connect that known science to 'unexplained' flares/mass ejection processes/dynamics which conventional Sweet-Parker model could not account for.

I connected that 'plasmoid' evidence to flares/mass ejections long ago. Now above study has come to the same connection. :)

That is science in action from many sources which eventually converge to real explanation. I did it. Now the above team have too. Congratulations to them.

So CapS, just relax; science can be done by many, not just by 'anointed/approved'. No need to keep insulting/attacking. Just discuss the evidence. Cheers. :)

Nov 18, 2015
I connected that 'plasmoid' evidence to flares/mass ejections long ago
and the link to your published study proving this, earthling boy? or is this part of your legendary ToEjam?
Now above study has come to the same connection
no, there is the above study, and there are your unsubstantiated claims... unless, of course, you have evidence (other than your word or a claim, which holds the same weight as eyewitness testimony in that it is worthless)
of course, you knew this, right... as you are so well versed in the scientific method?

this isn't about "science can be done by many"... it's about validation
it's about evidence... it's about being able to prove a claim... it's about not being a pseudoscience pratt attempting to claim some prior knowledge when you can't justify it's existence

science is NOT about making unsubstantiated claims

Nov 19, 2015
@rc cont'd
Just discuss the evidence.
WHAT evidence?

that is my whole point... to the eu, and to YOU

cd continues to insist Magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience-debunked by the above study AND this - http://www.pppl.g...nnection

you state
I connected that 'plasmoid' evidence to flares/mass ejections long ago
but you don't validate the claim

at best, this is an "Untested claim" - because you have NO evidence, and didn't link any
otherwise this is called "opinion"
unless we consider your history, then it becomes a false claim
http://www.auburn...ion.html

IOW- even if we talk only about evidence, there isn't ANY evidence above to actually talk about, because the eu doesn't conform to the scientific method, and neither do you, as you've not validated your claims

there is no evidence, and it is typical
so i say again: what evidence?

Nov 19, 2015
Hi CapS.
What evidence?
Mate, either you have aging-related memory problems or 'convenient' memory loss. :)

Here:

https://www.ras.o...ruptions

That evidence enough for you? :)

Nov 20, 2015
Mate, either you have aging-related memory problems or 'convenient' memory loss
Here
https://www.ras.o...ruptions
@rc-the-illiterate
1- that wasn't the evidence that i was talking about, but it still isn't evidence for your claims: you said
I connected that 'plasmoid' evidence to flares/mass ejections long ago
there was absolutely NO mention of you or proof of your comments

2- this still doesn't justify the complete lack of evidence for the eu at all

3- my point still stands... you can't discuss evidence that isn't there, and you are not being specific or clear about your said evidence

linking a random page as proof you linked something when you're not mentioned or commented on it?
this is a perfect example of your delusional typical post
-you don't offer evidence of your claims
-you ignore all the points
-you have a "brittle ego" https://www.psych...ttle-ego


Nov 20, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

Mate, your posts (on a science site) are still full of personal hate/aggression. Don't you ever think it's time to mellow and just stick to scientific discourse/facts instead of perpetuating the 'feuding' language/attacks? There's more than enough of it in the wider world lately without also bringing it to a science site, don't you think? :)

Now this:
linking a random page
I wasn't "linking a random page". That link was originally contributed by cantdrive in the thread/discussion you also posted in:

http://phys.org/n...per.html

Despite Da Schneib's stubborn denials, insults/accusations of lying etc (egged on by trollish/personal comments by anti-alias, you and others), Da Schneib eventually (and credit to him) had to admit that plasmoids DO occur in the sun's plasma dynamics just like I said. I also pointed out that such explosive plasmoid processes could explain mass ejection etc.

Did you forget? Chill, CapS. :)

Nov 20, 2015
your posts...are still full of ...
@rc
only when you get stupid

so ... if your link
was originally contributed by cantdrive in the thread/discussion you also posted in
then it means that cd did NOT contribute evidence in this thread, as I noted (see above)

and as i also said, this also does NOT in any way validate YOUR claim, which was
I connected that 'plasmoid' evidence to flares/mass ejections long ago
so what was the relevance of the link and your post... other than to distract and redirect the conversation topic onto you and create a faux victim out of yourself, thus validating my point and this??
https://www.psych...ttle-ego

worst part is, you had to make it all about you

science is NOT about making unsubstantiated claims

you gave NO evidence to your comment and cd gave NO evidence at all

so suck your grandma's eggs back at ya

Nov 20, 2015
Hi CapS. :)
only when you get stupid
Come on, mate, who's getting stupid here? :)

You forget/fail to consider past context/posts; you forget/fail to consider that I was correct and Da Schneib, you, anti-alias etc wrong (more than once now); you forget/fail to acknowledge that I've long been pointing out to ALL 'sides' that the observed features/dynamics, at practically all scales, involve a HYBRID resultant interaction between GRAVITY and ELECTROMAGNETIC feedbacks/loops etc to produce what we see.

It certainly would be stupid, if, every time you forget/fail in that way, I continued to fall for your now-well-known 'tactic' of 'deny-and-demand' what was already on the record for years now.

No more. It's all there. You forget/deny it all and continue with this sort of 'game' in order to 'justify' your continuing 'feuding and challenging'...while scientific facts and the polite world pass you by.

Come on, CapS, drop the irrelevant animosity/denials/attacks. Chill. :)

Nov 20, 2015
@rc
1- TL;DR
2- saw you post and figured that you are going to argue about your past posts... except that you have YET to be able to even validate most of that BS at all... and that is here in black and white, your own words... so...
i figured you were getting stupider

so i am not going to read what you posted because i can see by the first sentence that you are IGNORING the evidence above and attempting a tangential red-herring that is not only irrelevant, but a false claim, because you are predictable
http://www.auburn...ion.html

Nov 21, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

More blatant denial/convenient 'forgetfulness' and evasion/personal attack, mate? :)

My posts evidence my longstanding understanding/perspective re plasmoid processes in our sun, and their connection to mass ejections etc which conventional theory had been unable to explain (as above article again confirms). I even provided link which supports my understandings based on known science re plasmoids in sun dynamics:

https://www.ras.o...ruptions

I also linked to the thread where that reference was posted as part of exchange with Da Schneib:

http://phys.org/n...per.html

See exchange dated 10 Oct, 2014.

You/others posted personal disparagement/distractions to encourage Da Schneib's denials etc.

But Da Schneib HONESTLY acknowledged he was WRONG to deny solar plasmoids in sun, yet you/others still haven't. Why's that? :)

Nov 22, 2015
Hi CapS
stopped there
TL;DR
OT

Nov 22, 2015
Hi CapS. :)
stopped there
TL;DR
OT
Again with denial and evasion tactics, mate? Can't you see that they are transparent to any thinking objective observer? You evaded the point and issue at hand. Namely....

Da Schneib was HONEST enough to ADMIT he was in ERROR to deny plasmoids occurred in our sun, as I tried to explain to him, and as supported by known science; and as I connected to mass ejections; and as recently confirmed/validated by this article above.

Now, CapS, instead of running away in denial again using those childish tactics above, just admit that YOU ALSO have been IN ERROR....while I have been CORRECT.

That's all it takes to restore some of your credibility and honor, mate.

Da Schneib WAS MAN ENOUGH and HONEST ENOUGH to do it. So why can't you?

Go on. Summon up the courage and integrity like Da Schneib did. You can do it too if you try. Good luck. :)

PS: CapS, ditch that 'sidekick' and 'gang', they've been BAD influences on your mind/character.

Nov 22, 2015
Hi Ca
stopped there
TL;DR
OT
reported

[edit]- cd did NOT contribute evidence in this thread, as I noted (see above)

you also did NOT in any way validate YOUR claim

it's all in black and white. above.

it's not refutable

it's not a claim.

it is fact. above.

period

Nov 22, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

You willfully shut your eyes to the facts?

And just come back with blind DENIAL of that which every objective thinking observer is already well aware of? That you/others who trolled the exchange between me and DA Schneib in that other thread were ALSO WRONG to deny plasmoids in the sun.

BUT Da Schneib was an HONORABLE MAN who eventually admitted that he was in ERROR to deny it.

But YOU/others have yet to demonstrate even an iota of honor and admit to being wrong too in that instance.

Why can't you do the honorable thing, CapS?

Is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong and me right?

Why is it so hard for you, someone who professes to be an 'investigator', who professes to 'respect the scientific method', and who preaches/spams to others, to admit that you were wrong?

Anything else, especially your latest childish use of "stopped there" and "TL;DR;OT, is lame denial evasion tactics transparent and embarrassing for all observers to watch.

Try. :)

Nov 22, 2015
@sammie-TROLL aka rc
1- http://phys.org/n...tic.html

2- TL;DR
no links/references - therefore OT
reported

Nov 22, 2015
Can't you just see him, forum? Putting his hands quickly over his eyes so he won't have to see the truth about himself being wrong/dishonorable/unscientific etc. Not very grownup. Not a good look for a self-characterized 'investigator', if he daren't look at the evidence placed before his own eyes so he can 'justify to himself' that he can just deny it all...so lamely. Poor chap.

Nov 22, 2015
@sammieBAITING/TROLLING
TL;DR
OT baiting/trolling...
this is what got you ban-hammered twice at SciForums
as RealityCheck
http://www.scifor...?page=19

and as Undefined
http://www.scifor...?page=13

& this isn't counting all your sock puppets you tried to get back in with.

Nov 24, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

It is truly amusing to watch you, who posts 'blizzards' of OT personal/ego/half-truths and evasions to avoid honestly admitting your serious error, come back (again) with such childishly transparent accusations and denials of my already proven correctness and vindication in all 'ban' instances.

CapS, why prolong the agony. Stop digging and denying. Your childish games have now gone well beyond the 'cutesy' stage, and strayed into manic denial and dishonesty territory which you cannot survive with integrity/sanity intact if you persist much longer in that self-destructive direction.

So, CapS, for your own sake if nothing else, just honestly and straightforwardly admit, as a mature adult would, that you (Captain Stumpy) were in error and I (RealityCheck) was correct. I promise not to crow or gloat etc. We can all then forgive and forget and politely move on afresh with the objective/honest science and humanity discourse for the greater good of both those things. :)

Nov 24, 2015
Hi CapS.
stopped there
TL;DR
left you my reply here... and you can quote me if you want
http://phys.org/n...ity.html

no need to cross post it like you are doing

Nov 25, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

Do the honorable thing. Da Schneib did. Why can't you et al?

Admit that I (RealityCheck) was correct and you (Captain Stumpy et al) wrong.

No more games. Time to show us you aren't total trolls. :)

PS: CapS, the forum has read my posts highlighting/proving you were in error; even if you childishly shut your eyes to it all in order to continue with your half-truths, hypocritical/false accusations spam in these threads in order to deny and evade admitting your error like an honorable man. Do the honorable thing like Da Schneib did, Stumpy. Try. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more