"

2D versus 3D Reconnection

I'd just like to make a comment. This article does a fine job describing reconnection in 2D. The 3D generalization is not trivial though. In 3D sweet-parker or petcheck reconnection effectively becomes 3D null-point reconnection (without getting into quai-separatrix layers versus true separatricies). In addition, the application to the Magnetosphere is very different than the application to the solar corona, in that magnetospheric reconnection topologically requires a 4-flux system, whereas the solar corona requires only a 2-flux system.

Okay, I didn't realize how technical this article was going to be until I started writing it.  I'll make an effort to fill in some of the empty links, provide a diagram or three, and place links to this article on the relevant pages.

I'm currently conducting an experiment to study magnetic reconnection - if you have questions, post them here or on my talk page...  but be warned, I'll be at a conference for the next week, so my response may be slow. 00:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed an anonymous edit that claimed magnetic reconnection occurs when the magnetic pressure exceeds the plasma pressure (ie when the plasma  parameter is less than unity).  This is not the case!  Magnetic reconnection (or the lack thereof) is related to the line-tying effect of high electrical conductivity, not to the magnetic pressure.  

Zowie. While you are correct that reconnection occurs in both high and low beta plasmas, the process is local and does not depend on whether the system is line tied or not. Formally, magnetic reconnection is the tearing mode, of resistive MHD instability theory (see Furth, H.P., Killeen, J., and Rosenbluth, M. N., 1963, Phys. of Fluids, 6, 459). Several researches have shown line-tying the system simply slows the (linear) tearing mode growth rate (see Velli, M. and Hood, A. W., 1989, Sol Phys 119, 107; Velli, M., Einaudi, G., and Hood, A. W., 1990, ApJ, 350, 419).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.79.89.69   

Topology rather than current sheets

I took the liberty of reducing the discussion of current sheets, which are not directly related to reconnection (they are in some sense a symptom of lack of magnetic reconnection!) and instead introduced separatrix surfaces and separators, the topological terms describing the domain boundaries.  (Note that separatrices, and magnetic reconnection, can exist in a vacuum, while current sheets cannot).  

The discussion still needs considerable work, some work on the X-point figure (it would be nice to have the seapratrices and separator marked), an perhaps a 3-D figure to visualize domain topology  but I'm out of borrowed time for today.  

Happy new year!  

While it is true that topological separatricies exist independent of the plasma, reconnection cannot occur in vacuum. Reconnection absolutely requires a plasma, because it's the plasma that supports the dissipative current sheets that form along these separatricies.

Dissent about ""Magnetic Reconnection?""
Should notable peer-reviewed papers dissenting with the theory of magnetic reconnection be included in the article?

If so, Nobel prize winning plasma physicist Hannes Alfvén (the so-called ""Father of MHD"") has dissented in several articles (Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics, On frozen-in field lines and field-line reconnection), calling ""magnetic merging"" (""reconnection"") a pseudo-science. More recently, electrical engineer Don Scott has also published a dissenting paper (Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos).   

Of course not. That would be scientific heresy. This is about proping up failed theories and supporting misguided research.

To quote Alfvén:
The conecepts 'frozen-in magnetic field lines' and 'field-line reconnection' play a certain role in discussions of the theory of the magnetosphere.  The use of these concepts has been criticized and we shall here demonstrate that both concepts are unnecessary and often misleading. 

Oh btw, you forgot another paper show