Alven's Theory Crumbles !

[CraigS]

Just noticed this article (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-randomness-turbulent.html) … (about recent results of modelling in turbulent flows) ...



.. which led me to this paper …
"The Breakdown of Alfven’s Theorem in Ideal Plasma Flows" (http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0607073v1)

To cut a long story short, Alfven’s Theory prohibits magnetic reconnection.

Explaining 'fast magnetic reconnection' is a well-known problem of plasma physics, even though it is used to explain many phenomena in astrophysics. If it can be explained, lots will be accounted for in phenomena like dynamo action, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.



As I understand it, since Alven’s Theory prohibits reconnection, any fundamental theory proposing fast reconnection, must also explain why the plasmas stop behaving like fluids, and revert back to the 'rubber-like' behaviours predicted by Alven.



These conditions may be sufficient however, to demonstrate that Alven's Theory prohibiting reconnection, has been all but disproven.

Our EU friends will not like this one, and will probably dance around a lot …. (again).

Cheers

[renormalised]

I agree....the EU clowns are going to be spitting chips over this one:):P

You watch....all the conspiracy theory nonsense in the world is going to be flung about to try and cover their embarrassment over this one. Their "ubermenschen" finally gets cut back down to where he should be.

In any case, Alfven was a cranky old man who thought he was right and everyone else was wrong.

[sjastro]

More importantly the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Magnetic reconnection has been confirmed in the laboratory.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

The EU clowns believe that the development of plasma physics stopped with the death of Alfven.

Now that's what I call dogma.;)

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

I wonder if they've woken upto the fact about this one, Steven. It'd be funny to see what they've got to say over at TB:):P

[CraigS]

There's something to say about not sticking too closely with old theories originally developed on empirical evidence of the day. They were good when they were developed, but with newer, more precise and more powerful technologies, one just can't turn a blind eye to the quantitative evidence they reveal, eh ?

I mean Arp's Instrinsic Redshift theories fall into the same bucket, also, as does the Big Bang/Standard Cosmology model, supported by CMBR, the brilliant concept of 'Darkness' and Inflation, ;) , etc, etc.

Imagine where the world would be if we ignored the development of computers !

Having said this, Newton, Einstein and a few others, have still stood the test of time and stand supported by modern evidence.
Few and far between were these guys, though.

Also highlights the folly of thinking that the 'Ancients' knew more than we know today ! How often is this a deliberate dogma of developing pseudosciences, eh ?

Interesting.
:)
Cheers
PS: For the record .. the link Steven posted the other day on reconnection being shown in the lab is: http://mrx.pppl.gov/ … thanks, Steven !

[renormalised]

No theory is 100% rock solid, but you can sort out the nonsense and obvious rot from something that might show some promise.

Oh, that's the standard fallback for pseudoscience...we only know a fraction of what they knew. They, themselves might be in that position, but modern scientists most certainly aren't:)

[avandonk]

AND what is wrong with being a cranky old man who is never wrong! Some of my best friends are cranky old men as am I.

You young whippersnappers should show a little respect.

My boss once said of a very senior scientist in our field 'Dr X has done more for his field by dying than he ever did in life.'
It seems he suppressed any new ideas as he tried to control publication of new ideas that refuted his pet theories..

Young fresh scientists are the life blood of our enterprise. Without them we would atrophy. All the leading scientists have always thought that having many bright young students was just as important as the work. They led by example and put in a lot of effort even if it slows things down.

A decent leading scientist would also make sure that any major contribution by any of his students was correctly attributed. In the past this work was appropriated especially from women scientists.

I have a list somewhere where this happened. Pulsars (Jocelyn Bell) and the structure of DNA (Rosalind Franklin) come to mind.

Fortunately the truth always comes out even if a bit late.

Just keep questioning!

Bert

[CraigS]

Good leaders create other leaders .. poor leaders create followers.

Leadership has nothing to do with age, sex, they way one looks, etc.

How one communicates is crucial. How one behaves, drives communication.

Grumpiness cannot be overlooked, as it is a behaviour which is detrimental to effective communications.

Mind you, Alven seemed to get his ideas across pretty well ..
:)

Cheers