Magnetic Reconnection – Why Einstein Was Wrong

Lets start off with the dictionary definition of “magnetic reconnection

Magnetic reconnection is the process whereby magnetic field lines from different magnetic domains are spliced to one another, changing their patterns of connectivity with respect to the sources. It is a violation of an approximate conservation law in plasma physics, and can concentrate mechanical or magnetic energy in both space and time. Solar flares, the largest explosions in the solar system, may involve the reconnection of large systems of magnetic flux on the Sun, releasing, in minutes, energy that has been stored in the magnetic field over a period of hours to days. Magnetic reconnection in Earth’s magnetosphere is one of the mechanisms responsible for the aurora, and it is important to the science of controlled nuclear fusion because it is one mechanism preventing magnetic confinement of the fusion fuel.

Magnetic reconnection is something that has supposedly been “tested” and proven in the lab yet for some reason the lab results keep coming out “wrong.”

Currently when scientists create a “reconnection” event in the lab between two electrically charged plasma sheets the “reconnection” event takes place at twice the speed MHD theory predicts.

So far no one has been able to rectify this problem, nor have they been able to produce a “reconnecting” magnetic field without first applying current to the plasma sheets they are observing. The reason being obvious of course, in order to create a magnetic field, one must first induce an electrical current. So far, this is the only known way of producing a magnetic field in a plasma that can be tested.

As soon as the current shuts off, so too does the magnetic field.

Magnetic reconnection is proposed to account for the sudden bursts of observed kinetic energies that power the aurora’s substorms and light up the polar skies. It’s also proposed to account for about a billion other phenomena that I will not get into here including explanations of the Sun and comets.

So what’s the problem?

The known laws of physics say it is impossible.

Only an electric current can produce a magnetic field in a plasma, without moving electrons a magnetic field is impossible.  Nearly all standard theory explanations of plasma and magnetic fields in space assume a “frozen in” state, where there is no current flowing in the plasma.  If this was actually the case, there would be no magnetic fields in space since there would be no moving electrons.

Don Scott sums it up nicely here:

Hannes Alfvén was explicit in his condemnation of the reconnecting concept:

Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.  Despite.. this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept.

I was naïve enough to believe that [magnetic reconnection] would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems.  To my great surprise the opposite has occurred: ‘merging’ … seems to be increasingly powerful.  Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group.

They have reinvented the wheel and done a bad job of it. If you are going to come up with an alternative explanation for something – at least get one that is defensible scientifically.

If we look closely at the reason for this reinvention, it becomes clear that, having adamantly refused to acknowledge the effects (let alone the existence) of electric currents in space, astrophysicists had to come up with an explanation that avoided mentioning them.  Moreover, in giving this explanation a catchy name – “reconnection” – that appears repetitively, they can avoid restating the details of their invented explanation each time they use it and thus avoid having to defend it. We hear “Oh, that is an example of reconnection.”  “Yes, another effect of the reconnection process.” Etc., ad nauseum.

In the law, a well known principle is that ‘Ignorance of the law is no defense.’  Similarly in science, intentional ignorance of the work of an entire academy of scholars and researchers that has applicability to the area in which you are involved, is evidence of either incompetence or a lack of ethical behavior.  There can be no excuse for astrophysicists ignoring the work of investigators such as Nobel laureates Hannes Alfvén and Irving Langmuir.


From my knol article:

“Magnetic reconnection,” as it applies to its use in explaining the Sun and the auroras, violates conservation laws of physics. Magnetic field lines can not merge and snap imparting force. A paper by Don Scott demonstrates this.[14] This was also shown to be unnecessary by Falthammar here and Alfven himself rejected this idea in Cosmic Plasma and in this paper here.[15][16][17]

There are no such things as “frozen in magnetic fields in plasma.”  Such a plasma is purely abstract formalism and cannot be demonstrated in a lab.  A simple discharge tube experiment proves that plasma is not an ideal conductor (a superconductor with zero-valued resistance). Voltage in a real plasma never drops to zero and therefore resistance never drops to zero, ergo plasma is not a superconductor.  Hence, any theory that relies on plasma being regarded as an ideal conductor having “frozen in” magnetic fields is in error.  This is also covered in the above point, but I feel it needs to be highlighted in a separate point.  The use of MHD models to describe entire systems of plasma interaction is a classic example of “reification.”  It is interesting to note that the man who won the Nobel prize for creating MHD theory (Alfven) flatly disagrees with its use in modeling astrophysical phenomena.

As Don Scott says:

Laboratory measurements demonstrate that a nonzero-valued electric field in the direction of the current (E parallel > 0) is required to produce a nonzero current density within any plasma no matter what mode of operation the plasma is in. Negative-slope regions of the volt-ampere characteristic (negative dynamic resistance) of a plasma column reveal the cause of the filamentary properties of plasma, but all static resistance values are measured to be > 0.

Thus, although plasmas are excellent conductors, they are not perfect conductors. Weak longitudinal electric fields can and do exist inside plasmas. Therefore, magnetic fields are not frozen inside them.[14]

14. Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos

Scott D. E., IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., Vol. 35, No. 4, August 2007

15. On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field Lines

Falthammar C. ,Eos, Vol. 88, No. 15, pp.169–170, 10 April 2007

16. Cosmic Plasma

Alfven H. ,Cosmic Plasma ,ISBN 90-277-1151-8

17. On Frozen-In Field Lines And Field-Line Reconnnection

Alfven H. ,Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 81, No 22, August 1st 1976, 4019-4021


A summary of my claims:

Claim #1:

The condition B × curl [B(E•B/B2)] = 0 is not satisfied in standing theories of magnetic reconnection, therefore they are wrong. – As is demonstrated by Alfven, Falthamar, and proofed by Mozer.

Claim #2:

Plasma is quasi-neutral and therefore must obey Kirchhoff’s rules, which are violated by a perfectly conductive magnetized plasma field that has 0 resistance (such a state is required of a “frozen in” plasma).

Claim #3:

Magnetic fields are only produced by electric currents. They can not exist without moving electrons / ions, as such, if all charged particles were to stop moving in a field of plasma, there would be no magnetic field.


F. S. Mozer Journal of Geophysical Research Volume: 110 Issue: A12 Year: 2005


Oh by the way, if anyone wants to know the real explanation as to why we see explosive releases of energy at the boundary of differing plasmas, look no further.

Alfven explains here:

Double layers and circuits in astrophysics

Alfven, Hannes IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 779-793

Summarized here:

Stability: Double layers in laboratory plasmas may be stable or unstable depending on the parameter regime. [Torven, S. High-voltage double layers in a magnetised plasma column] ” (1982) “Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics”, Volume 15, Issue 10, pp. 1943-1949] Various types of instabilities may occur, often arising due to the formation of beams of ions and electrons. Unstable double layers are “noisy” in the sense that they produce oscillations across a wide frequency band. A lack of plasma stability may also lead to a dramatic change in configuration often referred to as an explosion (and hence “exploding double layer”). In one example, the region enclosed in the double layer rapidly expands and evolves. [B Song, N D Angelo and R L Merlino Stability of a spherical double layer produced through ionization] ” (1992) Journal of “Physics D: Applied Physics”, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp. 938-941] An explosion of this type was first discovered in mercury arc rectifiers used in high-power direct-current transmission lines, where the voltage drop across the device was seen to increase by several orders of magnitude. Double layers may also drift, usually in the direction of the emitted electron beam, and in this respect are natural analogues to the smooth–bore magnetron. [ Koenraad Mouthaan and Charles Süsskind, Statistical Theory of Electron Transport in the Smooth-Bore Magnetron] (1966) “Journal of Applied Physics” June 1966, Volume 37, Issue 7, pp. 2598-2606 ] ) (not to be confused with a unit of magnetic moment, the Bohr magneton, which is created by the “classical circular motion” of an electron around a proton).

There is no such thing as magnetic reconnection, only exploding double layers of electrified plasma.


I’ll provide some research material for those brave enough to attempt to challenge my claims.

After 50 years of research attempting to tell us just how magnetic reconnection can happen, they have this to say:

“In addressing these global issues, we note that all classical models fail when particularly long global lengths are assumed for the current layers.”

I’ll try and summarize the futility of their efforts.

You see, the criminals you call standard cosmologists assume all plasma in space has no electrical current passing through it. They assume that all of the magnetic fields we see in space are magically frozen into the plasma, enough though the laws of physics say this is impossible.


Because if they were to acknowledge that electrical current flows in large scale space plasmas and those currents are responsible for all the magnetic fields we see in space, they would have to throw Einstein’s retarded theories of warping space into the trash can.

This assumption that magnetic fields are “frozen” into the plasma leads to some epic problems. Namely how to explain why that “frozen in” field should ever become “unfrozen.” An “unfrozen” state is required in order for their models to meet with observation.

The “unfrozen” state means that an electric current has been created along the boundary of the plasma, which essentially describes an exploding double layer (a real event that does not violate the laws of physics). They describe this “unfreezing” by adding back in the resistivity that they took out in the first place in order to create their “frozen in” nonsense.

The great question is why should this plasma suddenly decide to become resistive?

When they attempt to model reconnection events using standard MHD theory, which assumes the plasma never becomes “unfrozen,” they find that they can’t explain the speed at which the reconnection takes place. Only by mimicking a real double layer explosion (which requires resistive plasma,) can they explain what is occurring.

All attempts to describe how this plasma can become “unfrozen” violate the known laws of physics yet again. The physicists are forced to deal with the first violation, which is a “frozen in” plasma, in order to account for the second violation, which is “unfreezing” a “frozen” plasma hahaha.

They can’t do it.

They will never be able to do it.

Not without concocting a new force of the universe to explain it.

When the scientists say “the observed reconnection rate can be explained by a generalized Sweet-Parker model which incorporates compressibility, downstream pressure, and the effective resistivity.” They are acknowledging that “resistivity” (ie. electrical current) is necessary to explain the “reconnection event.”

And when they say “at least half of the increased ion energy must be due to nonclassical processes, consistent with the resistivity enhancement. ” They are acknowledging that there is nothing in MHD theory that can explain how the plasma can suddenly decide to become resistive.


The MRX is the experimental team trying to reproduce reconnection in a lab.…

Study of Local Reconnection Physics in a Laboratory Plasma…

Magnetic reconnection (the 2010 bible on reconnection from the MRX team)
Masaaki Yamada, Russell Kulsrud, and Hantao Ji