MMS Flock Leaves Earth
Magnetospheric Multiscale Spacecraft Launched
“Following a successful launch at 10:44 p.m. EDT Thursday, NASA’s four Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) spacecraft are positioned in Earth’s orbit to begin the first space mission dedicated to the study of a phenomenon called magnetic reconnection. This process is thought to be the catalyst for some of the most powerful explosions in our solar system.”
Watched a bit of the prelaunch briefings by the science team on NASA TV last night. It was like watching the movie dumb and dumber. For example at the event some professor from University of West Virginia claimed that magnetic reconnection occurs in air at room temperature when two magnets are attract to each other. This guy really needs to re-learn his college electromagnetism! Further, if magnetic reconnection is so common on earth why should NASA spent $1+ billion to study it in space?! NASA seriously needs to improve the quality of their scientific presentations at such PR events.
Thanks for the comment! The prof from WVU (who happens to be me) actually said that magnetic field lines break when magnets come together, even at room temperature. This is a true statement. To see this, just get some iron filings and put oppositely directed magnets nearby, then bring the magnets together – you’ll see the magnetic fields break. As I mentioned during the briefing, it’s not magnetic reconnection until you’re in a plasma, which occurs in the magnetosphere where MMS will measure it. Keep watching the skies!
Dear Prof. Paul, thanks for chipping in. My apologize for the harsh words. My point is not against you, but to provide some feedback from the receiving end of the presentation, so that NASA can improve the quality of Public outreach, so please don’t take it personally.
Allow me to explain my point. We all know that Maxwell Eqns. are linear in vacuum (and in air at room temperature they are pretty close to linear). Therefore, when two magnets are put together as you demonstrated in your presentation, their vector fields simply add together, as already known in the 19th century, nothing interesting there. You can call that “breaking magnetic field lines” when fields of opposite directions cancel, but I won’t because that would be misleading. This phenomena has nothing to do with the problem of magnetic reconnection in ionized gas. In highly ionized gas magnetic fields and matter are tightly bounded thanks to the extremely large conductivity in space plasma (the so called “frozen-in” condition), “breaking” the magnetic field lines simply means breaking this “frozen-in” condition, which turns out to be none trivial.
I found your magnets demonstration confusing and misleading, and your talk had not established the science case for MMS clearly to any interested lay person/ tax payer like me in the audience. I am sorry to say that.
Since Mr. Simkin has kindly provided the link to the video of the presentation, I have the chance to review a few things in more detail, and I would like to add an additional comment related to the topic.
In the presentation you stated that magnets attract to each other as a result of breaking and “shooting-out” of magnetic field lines. I am not sure what you meant by “shoot-out”, and I cannot say if you are right or wrong in this case, but I think what you made is the kind of statements physicists should avoid. First there is no causal relationship in general between rearrangement of field lines and attraction forces. Further, I know perfectly well how to calculate the attraction using Maxwell equations, but can’t figure out how to do that in your field-line breaking picture. More importantly, Maxwell Eqns are more fundamental than magnetic reconnection, and what you did was explaining basic physic laws (field addition) with far narrower applications, i.e. magnetic reconnection, which is loop reasoning.
Hi again, Einstein. You are right that vector fields simply add together. What you can do to see that they actually break when magnets come together is either draw a picture on transparencies or write a computer code that adds up the field lines from two point magnetic dipoles pointing opposite directions that are initially separated by some distance, and then bring the two dipoles together. It’s really striking to see the field lines break with nothing more than simple vector addition as you mentioned. I did this and animated it and it looks remarkably like reconnection even though it is in a vacuum, with magnetic field lines shooting out the top and bottom like in reconnection, and it’s totally consistent with Maxwell’s equations. Reconnection in a plasma is also consistent with Maxwell’s equations. Cool stuff!
About the causal relationship between field lines and attraction forces, there definitely is one. I’ll forgo the mathematical description of it here, but suffice it to say that you can look at field lines to determine the forces. There’s a really interesting way to interpret why magnets in a vacuum attract/repel based on the concept of magnetic pressure that you would not normally see until a graduate MHD class. When the magnets are aligned, the fields between the magnets add, leading to higher magnetic pressure and forcing the magnets apart. When the magnets are anti-aligned, the fields cancel, leading to lower magnetic pressure and the magnets attract. Not the way we usually teach it in 100 level physics classes, but true nonetheless. If you’re interested, look into magnetic tension (curvature) and magnetic pressure forces in MHD and that will show you how to figure out the forces just from the magnetic fields.
About your criticisms about the briefing, there certainly was some simplification going on at the briefings, but that’s necessary because most people are not as familiar with Maxwell’s equations as you are – if we had mentioned Maxwell’s equations, 98% of the audience (literally) would have not understood it. We have to make sacrifices to make it accessible to the audience, though it’s understandable that people with a background in science would find that unsatisfying. I don’t see a way around it. I will say, though, that the press folks at NASA that I worked with were amazing – they are incredibly hard working and care deeply about sharing exciting science with the public, and I think they did a fantastic job of helping to make this difficult topic more accessible!
Just a few points.
* The magnetic field of two magnets put side-by-side may look like some configuration of magnetic reconnection in plasma, but that’s not really interesting and may just confuse people to think reconnection happens in air. You never define what magnetic reconnection is, and you talked about magnetic lines in air can break and reconnect, of course I have to think that’s magnetic reconnection. That’s why I think mentioning magnets in air is misleading, at least in the way you did it.
* I didn’t say there is no causal relation between field lines and magnetic force, what I said was ” there is no causal relationship in general between rearrangement of field lines and attraction forces.” That’s a comment on your assertion that `breaking and “shooting-out” of magnetic field lines’ are the causes of attraction. Breaking field lines etc are dynamical processes, and the attraction does not depend on such process, you can hold the magnet perfectly still and still have the same attraction. No need for MHD here.
* What I don’t like about these press events (not just yours) is the dumb down of science. If NASA press people think the target audience is some average person, then they are dead wrong. The average person would rather see a movie than watching some NASA press conferences or rocket launches. Your audience are nerds around the world, and nerds are the people who care about NASA enough to write online comments and even write to the congress on NASA’s behalf. It is important to present your science right. You don’t need to talk about Maxwell equation to explain clearly the concepts of magnetic reconnection. There are many great popular science books by top scientists, most employ no equations but still able to explain clearly the concepts of the most abstract type such as quantum gravity, you may want to check out some?
Cheers!
Hi again. On the first point, I was aware that it might be confusing but it was a risk I was willing to take to reach a greater number of people. There’s no perfect way to do it, and you have the right to disagree with the approach. On the second point, the magnetic pressure between the magnets decreases as the magnets are brought together, and that happens by the magnetic field getting weaker in that region. That can’t happen unless the field lines break and move out. So, yes, it is related to the dynamics. The force between two magnets, even at rest, can be thought of in terms of magnetic pressure and tension forces. On the third point, there is some truth to what you say, but some is not quite right. For example, science reporters are part of the target audience; they can be extremely knowledgeable about some areas of science but can be less knowledgeable about others, so it would lock them out to talk too technically. Same goes for kids interested in science that haven’t gotten to Maxwell’s equations. I’ve been talking about reconnection for a long time and have a good feel for what is needed to explain it to non-experts. But again, feel free to disagree. But there is nothing wrong with making science accessible to all (provided
it is still factual), and that’s what we did. Maybe the way we did it wasn’t the best way to resonate with you, but you can’t teach anything
in a way that resonates with everyone. There is a critical need to get people interested in science, and talking above their heads is not the best approach to do that.
I’ll finish by saying that I encourage you as someone knowledgeable about science to continue to do your part to bring science to everyone and I encourage you to use whichever approach you like in doing so. I’m happy to hear that you advocate to Congress for NASA; we need more people doing it too! I gotta sign out now; nice chatting with you.
With due respect, I would just repeat that your understanding of basic concepts in electromagnetism is fundamentally wrong. You need to relearn the subject. There is no shame in that. Presenting wrong science is definitely not the way to make science accessible to anyone. Thanks again for joining in this discussion.
“With due respect, I would just repeat that your understanding of basic concepts in electromagnetism is fundamentally wrong. You need to relearn the subject.”
REALLY????!!!
You know, he was trying to let you down easy, but you returned his kindness with a gratuitous insults, Lets see who actually understands basic concepts of electromagnetism:
Lets take a peek at his background:
Ph.D., Physics, December 2006
Thesis: “Catastrophe Model for the Onset of Fast Magnetic Reconnection”
• Chair, Geospace Environment Modeling (GEM) Focus Group on “Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere” for a 5 year term December 2012 – Present
• Associate Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics
March 2010 – February 2014
• Co-organizer, Parker Workshop on Magnetic Reconnection, Sao Jose de Campos, Brazil,
SELECTED REFEREED PUBLICATIONS
1.“Fast Magnetic Reconnection Due to Anisotropic Electron Pressure,”
Submitted to Physics of Plasmas, December 2014.
2.“Comparative analysis of dayside magnetic reconnection models in global magnetosphere simulations,”
J. Geophys. Res., in press, doi:10.1002/2014JA020587 (2014).
3.“Observation of a Retreating X-Line and Magnetic Islands Poleward of the Cusp During Northward Interplanetary Magnetic Field Conditions,”
J. Geophys. Res., in press, do:10.1002/2014JA020453 (2014).
4.“Theory and Modeling for the Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission,”
Space Sci. Rev., in press, doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0078-y (2014).
5.“Electron Heating During Magnetic Reconnection: A Simulation Scaling Study,”
Phys. Plasmas, 21, 122902 (2014).
6.“On the 3-D structure and dissipation of reconnection-driven flow-bursts,”
Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 3710 (2014).
7.“A New Electric Field in Asymmetric Magnetic Reconnection,”
Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 135001 (2013).
8.“A New Model of Supra-Arcade Downflows,”
Ap. J. Lett., 775, L14 (2013).
9.“Tracing magnetic separators in global magnetospheric simulations and their dependence on IMF clock angle,”
J. Geophys. Res., 118, 4998 (2013).
10.“Spontaneous Ion Beam Formation in the Laboratory, Space, and Simulation,”
Phys. Plasmas, 20, 072118 (2013).
11.“On Phase Diagrams of Magnetic Reconnection,”
Phys. Plasmas, 20, 061207 (2013).
12.“Guide Field Dependence of 3D X-line Spreading During Collisionless Magnetic Reconnection,”
J. Geophys. Res., 117, A10101 (2012).
13.“Reconnection events in two-dimensional Hall magnetohydrodynamic turbulence,”
Phys. Plasmas, 19, 092307 (2012).
14.“Magnetic Reconnection for Coronal Conditions: Reconnection Rates, Secondary Islands and Onset,”
Space Sci. Rev., 172, 283 (2012).
15.“Model for Incomplete Reconnection in Sawtooth Crashes,”
Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, 255002 (2011).
16.“Magnetic reconnection as an element of turbulence,”
Nonlin, Processes Geophys., 18, 675 (2011).
17.“Theory and Simulations of the Scaling of Magnetic Reconnection with Symmetric Shear Flow,”
Phys. Plasmas, 18, 072106 (2011).
18.“Scaling of the Magnetic Reconnection Rate with Symmetric Shear Flow,”
Phys. Plasmas, 18, 074501 (2011).
19.“Estimates of Densities and Filling Factors from a Cooling Time Analysis of Solar Microflares Observed with RHESSI,”
Ap. J., 736, 75, 2011 July 20.
20.“Three-dimensional simulations of the orientation and structure of reconnection X-lines,”
Phys. Plasmas, 17, 110704, 2010.
21.“Scaling of asymmetric magnetic reconnection: Kinetic particle-in-cell simulations,”
J. Geophys. Res., 115, A10223, 2010.
22.“Magnetic Reconnection with Asymmetry in the Outflow Direction,”
J. Geophys. Res., 115, A09206 (2010).
23.“Comparison of secondary islands in collisional reconnection to Hall reconnection,”
Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 015004 (2010).
24.“A saddle-node bifurcation model of magnetic reconnection onset,”
Phys. Plasmas, 17, 062105 (2010).
25.“Statistics of Magnetic Reconnection in Two-Dimensional Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence,”
Phys. Plasmas, 17, 032315 (2010).
26.“Scaling of Sweet-Parker Reconnection with Secondary Islands,”
Phys. Plasmas, 16, 120702 (2009).
27.“The Impact of Microscopic Magnetic Reconnection on PreFlare Energy Storage,”
Ap. J. Lett., 707, L158, 2009 Dec 20.
28.“A magnetic reconnection mechanism for ion acceleration and abundance enhancements in impulsive flares,”
Ap. J. Lett., 700, L16 (2009).
29.“Ion Heating Resulting from Pickup in Magnetic Reconnection Exhausts,”
J. Geophys. Res., 114, A05111 (2009).
30.“The Hall effect in magnetic reconnection: Hybrid vs. Hall-less hybrid simulations,”
Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L07107 (2009).
31.“Kinetic dissipation and anisotropic heating in a turbulent collisionless plasma,”
Phys. Plasmas, 16, 032310 (2009).
32.“Structure of the dissipation region in fluid simulations of asymmetric magnetic reconnection,”
Phys. Plasmas, 16, 055704 (2009).
33.“Magnetic reconnection in two dimensional magnetohydrodynamic turbulence,”
Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 115003 (2009).
34.“The Scaling of Asymmetric Hall Reconnection,”
Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L19102 (2008).
35.“From Solar and Stellar Flares to Coronal Heating: Theory and Observations of How Magnetic Reconnection Regulates Coronal Conditions”
Ap. J. Lett., 676, L69 (2008).
36.“Scaling of Asymmetric Magnetic Reconnection: General Theory and Collisional Simulations”
Phys. Plasmas, 14, 102114 (2007).
37.“Onset of Fast Magnetic Reconnection”
Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 215001 (2007).
38.“Catastrophic Onset of Fast Magnetic Reconnection with a Guide Field”
Phys. Plasmas, 14, 054502 (2007).
39.“A Model for Spontaneous Onset of Fast Magnetic Reconnection”
Ap. J. Lett., 644, L145 (2006).
40.“Catastrophe Model for Fast Magnetic Reconnection Onset”
Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 235002 (2005).
SELECTED INVITED TALKS
1. “Theoretical Studies of Energy Conversion in Magnetic Reconnection”
2014 Fall American Geophysical Union Meeting
San Francisco, California, December 18, 2014
2. “Multi-Scale Aspects of Magnetic Reconnection for Solar Applications”
Solar Heliospheric and Interplanetary Environment (SHINE) Conference
Telluride, Colorado, June 26, 2014
3. “Quantitative Predictions of Magnetic Reconnection at the Dayside Magnetopause”
Parker Reconnection Workshop
Sao Jose dos Campos, Brazil, March 20, 2014
4. “Ideas on How and When Reconnection Occurs in the Corona and Inner Heliosphere”
Solar Probe Plus Science Working Group Workshop
San Antonio, Texas, February 26, 2014
5. “Signatures of Finite Length X-line Reconnection”
ISSI Meeting on Ion and Electron Bulk Heating by Magnetic Reconnection
Berne, Switzerland, October 10, 2013
6. “On The Cause of Supra-Arcade Downflows in Solar Flares”
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Seminar
Cambridge, Massachusetts, July 31, 2013
7. “Properties of Asymmetric Reconnection at the Dayside Magnetopause”
THEMIS/ARTEMIS Science Working Group Meeting
Fairbanks, Alaska, March 28, 2013
8. “Magnetic Reconnection – What is NASA’s MMS for Anyway?”
NASA Goddard Scientific Colloquium
Greenbelt, Maryland, March 1, 2013
9. “Ion-Scale Signatures of Magnetospheric Magnetic Reconnection”
MMS Fast Plasma Investigation (FPI) Team Meeting
Greenbelt, Maryland, September 10, 2012
10. “Theory of Magnetic Reconnection for Magnetospheric Applications” (Plenary Talk)
2012 Geospace Environment Modeling Workshop
Snowmass, Colorado, June 21, 2012
11. “X-line Spreading in Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection”
Seminar at NASA-GSFC Reconnexion Forum
Greenbelt, Maryland, May 29, 2012
12. “Guide Field Dependence of X-line Spreading in Three-Dimensional Magnetic
Reconnection”
2012 US-Japan Workshop on Magnetic Reconnection
Princeton, New Jersey, May 23, 2012
13. “The Scaling of Asymmetric Magnetic Reconnection and Magnetospheric Applications”
Rice Space Physics Seminar
Houston, Texas, March 29, 2010
14. “Extending Hall Reconnection to Large-scale Reconnection in the Corona”
Yosemite 2010 Workshop on Magnetic Reconnection
Yosemite, California, February 11, 2010
15. “The Onset of Fast Reconnection in the Corona”
Workshop of the International Space Science Institute
Berne, Switzerland, January 27, 2010
16. “Catastrophic Explosions in Space: The Physics of Magnetic Reconnection”
Physics Department Colloquium
Montana State University, December 12, 2009
17. “Secondary Islands in Sweet-Parker Reconnection: Scaling, Onset, and Coronal Energy Storage”
2009 Thin Current Sheets Workshop
Yellowstone, Wyoming, September 28, 2009
18. “Theory of Magnetic Reconnection for Solar Applications” (Plenary Talk)
2009 SHINE Workshop
Wolfville, Nova Scotia, August 6, 2009
19. “The Scaling of Asymmetric Magnetic Reconnection”
“The Structure of the Dissipation Region in Asymmetric Collisionless Magnetic
Reconnection”
2009 Geospace Environment Modeling (GEM) Summer Workshop
Snowmass, Colorado, June 22-24, 2009
20. “The Nonlinear Dynamics of Magnetic Reconnection and Applications to Solar Eruptions”
(Fred L. Scarf Award Lecture)
2008 Fall AGU Meeting
San Francisco, California, December 16, 2008
21. “The Role of Magnetic Reconnection in Self-Organization of the Corona: Theory and
Observations”
2008 Fall AGU Meeting
San Francisco, California, December 16, 2008
22. “Scaling of Asymmetric Magnetic Reconnection”
50th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics
Dallas, Texas, November 18, 2008
23. “Reconnection Onset and Self-Organization in Solar and Stellar Coronae”
2008 General Meeting for the Center for Magnetic Self-Organization (CMSO)
Princeton, New Jersey, July 10, 2008
24. “The Theory of Magnetic Reconnection: Past, Present, and Future,” SPD Parker Lecture
AGU 2008 Joint Assembly
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, May 28, 2008
25. “On the Onset of Fast Magnetic Reconnection” (Invited Poster)
2007 US-Japan Reconnection Workshop
St. Michaels, Maryland, March 26-29, 2007
26. “Catastrophe Model for Fast Magnetic Reconnection”
University of Maryland Space and Cosmic Ray Physics Seminar
College Park, Maryland, March 27, 2006
27. “The Transition between Sweet-Parker and Hall Reconnection and its Impact on Onset”
Harry Petschek Symposium on Magnetic Reconnection
College Park, Maryland, March 21, 2006
28. “Catastrophe Model for Fast Magnetic Reconnection Onset”
NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center Laboratory for Solar and Space Physics Seminar
Greenbelt, Maryland, February 24, 2006
29. “The Onset of Fast Magnetic Reconnection: A Catastrophe Model’”
P. A. Cassak, M. A. Shay, J. F. Drake, and B. Eckhardt
47th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics
Denver, Colorado, October 25, 2005
CONTRIBUTED TALKS AND POSTERS AT CONFERENCES
1. “The “Space Weather” Exhibit at the Children’s Discovery Museum of West Virginia”
2014 Fall AGU Meeting, Contributed Poster
San Francisco, California, December 18, 2014
2. “Asymmetric Reconnection with a Shear Flow and Applications to X-line Motion at the Polar
Cusps”
2014 Fall American Geophysical Union Meeting, Contributed Poster (for Chris Doss)
San Francisco, California, December 15, 2014
3. “Three-Dimensional Spreading of Magnetic Reconnection in Solar Flares and the Solar
Wind”
Solar Heliospheric and Interplanetary Environment (SHINE) Conference, Contributed Poster
Telluride, Colorado, June 26, 2014
4. “Testing Models of the Location of Magnetic Reconnection at the Magnetopause”
2013 Fall AGU Meeting, Contributed Talk
San Francisco, California, December 10, 2013
5. “Properties of Asymmetric Reconnection at the Dayside Magnetopause”
Magnetospheric MultiScale Mission Science Working Team Meeting, Contributed Talk
Boulder, Colorado, March 21, 2013
6. “Reconnection with a Shear Flow and Applications to Solar Wind-Magnetospheric Coupling”
AGU Chapman Conference on Fundamental Properties of Processes of Magnetotails,
Contributed Poster
Reykjavik, Iceland, March 11, 2013
Curriculum Vitae, Paul A. Cassak
Curriculum Vitae – Page 9
7. “An Interpretation of Supra-Arcade Downflows as Reconnection Onset Bursts”
2012 Fall AGU Meeting, Contributed Poster
San Francisco, California, December 6, 2012
8. “Electron Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability and Generation of Demagnetized Electron Rings”
54th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Contributed Poster
Providence, Rhode Island, October 31, 2012
9. “X-line Spreading in Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection and Solar Applications”
2012 SHINE Workshop, Contributed Poster
Wailea, Maui, Hawaii, June 28, 2012
10. “Spreading of Magnetic Reconnection X-lines in Three Dimensions”
2012 APS April Meeting (with the Sherwood Fusion Theory Conference), Contributed Poster
Atlanta, Georgia, April 2, 2012
11. “On the Location of Reconnection on the Dayside Magnetopause”
2011 Fall AGU Meeting, Contributed Poster
San Francisco, California, December 8, 2011
12. “Incomplete Reconnection in Sawteeth due to Diamagnetic Effects”
53rd Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Contributed Poster
Salt Lake City, Utah, November 16, 2011
13. “The Scaling of Dayside Magnetic Reconnection with a Shear Flow”
CEDAR/GEM 2011 Summer Workshop, Contributed Poster
Santa Fe, New Mexico, June 28, 2011
14. The Effect of Shear Flow on the Scaling of 2D Magnetic Reconnection”
2010 Fall AGU Meeting, Contributed Poster
San Francisco, California, December 17, 2010
15. “The Effect of Shear Flow on the Scaling of 2D Magnetic Reconnection”
52nd Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Contributed Poster
Chicago, Illinois, November 8, 2010
16. “Secondary Islands in Sweet-Parker Reconnection: Scaling, Onset, and Impact on Coronal
Energy Storage”
2009 Fall AGU Meeting, Contributed Poster
San Francisco, California, December 16, 2009
17. “Secondary Islands in Sweet-Parker Reconnection: Scaling, Onset, and Impact on Coronal
Energy Storage”
2009 SHINE Workshop, Contributed Talk
Wolfville, Nova Scotia, August 3, 2009
18. “The Catastrophic Onset of Magnetic Reconnection in Solar and Stellar Coronae due to TwoFluid Effects: Theory and Observations”
2008 GEM/SHINE Workshop, Contributed Talk
Midway, Utah, June 23-25, 2008
19. “The Scaling of Asymmetric Magnetic Reconnection”
2008 GEM/SHINE Workshop, Contributed Talk
Midway, Utah, June 23-25, 2008
20. “The Scaling of Collisionless Asymmetric Magnetic Reconnection and Applications to the
Magnetopause”
AGU 2008 Joint Assembly, Contributed Talk
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, May 30, 2008
21. “The Importance of the Hall Effect in Magnetic Reconnection: Comparisons of Hybrid and
Hall-less Hybrid Simulations”
AGU 2008 Joint Assembly, Contributed Talk
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, May 27, 2008
22. “From Solar and Stellar Flares to Coronal Heating: Theory and Observations of How
Collisionless Magnetic Reconnection Regulates Coronal Conditions”
US-Japan Workshop of Magnetic Reconnection 2008, Contributed Talk
Okinawa, Japan, March 5, 2008
23. “The Scaling of Asymmetric Magnetic Reconnection”
US-Japan Workshop of Magnetic Reconnection 2008, Contributed Poster
Okinawa, Japan, March 3, 2008
24. “Observational Evidence of the Role of Collisionless Magnetic Reconnection in SelfOrganization of Solar and Stellar Coronae”
AGU 2007 Fall Meeting, Contributed Talk
San Francisco, California, December 13, 2007
25. “Asymmetric Magnetic Reconnection: General Theory and Collisional Simulations”
AGU 2007 Fall Meeting, Contributed Poster
San Francisco, California, December 13, 2007
26. “The Scaling of Asymmetric Magnetic Reconnection”
“The Catastrophic Onset of Fast Magnetic Reconnection”
“Nonlinear Dynamics of Magnetic Reconnection and the Localization of Onset”
2007 Cambridge Workshop on Magnetic Reconnection, Contributed Talks
St. Michaels, Maryland, September 11-13, 2007
27. “The Catastrophic Onset of Fast Magnetic Reconnection and its Implications for CMEs”
SHINE 2007 Workshop, Contributed Poster
Whistler, British Columbia, July 30 – Aug 3, 2007
28. “Catastrophe Model for the Onset of Fast Magnetic Reconnection”
210th Meeting of the American Astronomical Society, Contributed Dissertation Talk
Honolulu, Hawaii, May 29, 2007
29. “Bistability of Magnetic Reconnection With a Guide Field and its Impact on Onset”
AGU 2006 Fall Meeting, Contributed Talk
San Francisco, California, December 13, 2006
30. “Spontaneous Catastrophic Onset of Fast Magnetic Reconnection and Solar Flares”
AGU 2006 Joint Assembly, Contributed Talk
Baltimore, Maryland, May 26, 2006
31. “Bifurcation Model for the Onset of Fast Magnetic Reconnection”
2006 International Sherwood Fusion Theory Conference, Contributed Poster
Dallas, Texas, April 22, 2006
32. “Hysteresis and the Onset of Fast Magnetic Reconnection”
AGU 2005 Joint Assembly, Contributed Poster
New Orleans, Louisiana, May 24, 2005
Curriculum Vitae, Paul A. Cassak
Curriculum Vitae – Page 11
33. “Hysteresis and the Onset of Fast Magnetic Reconnection”
2005 International Sherwood Fusion Theory Conference, Contributed Poster
Lake Tahoe, Nevada, April 11, 2005
34. “Turbulent Magnetic Reconnection”
45th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Contributed Poster
Albuquerque, New Mexico, October 28, 2003
EXTERNAL FUNDING
1. “The Theory of Magnetic Reconnection Onset: Three Dimensional and Diamagnetic
Effects” (PI: P. A. Cassak), NSF/DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma Science and Engineering
September 1, 2009 – August 31, 2012, Amount: $360,000
2. “CAREER: The Effect of Shear Flow on the Scaling of Magnetic Reconnection and Solar
Wind-Magnetospheric Coupling” (PI: P. A. Cassak), National Science Foundation
September 1, 2010 – August 31, 2015, Amount: $426,427
3. “Remote Thermal Ion Measurements and Integrated Magnetospheric Modeling” (PI: Amy
Keesee), West Virginia Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
through NASA
July 12, 2010 – July 11, 2013, Amount: $750,000
4. “Investigation of the structure and dynamics of asymmetric reconnection at the dayside
magnetopause” (PI: Michael Shay, University of Delaware), NASA Geospace Sciences
January 1, 2011 – December 31, 2013, Amount: $355,783
Status – Active underg
yes, you too.
Let me understand your logic: because someone is a professor and published some papers and got funded by NASA, he must be correct!
What a joke you are! If you can’t contribute constructively to a topic, you have the freedom to not comment. I have already typed too much to you and I will NOT in the future.
Well, yes. By my logic, a person with a PhD in a subject, teaches that subject, and has 40 peer-reviewed papers in the subject published, is an editor of an eminent journal in that subject, has had over thirty invited presentations, had almost $2million in grants from the NSF and NASA on the subject. and is a key investigator in the latest flagship science mission, The Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS), makes the chance that his understanding of basic concepts in electromagnetism is fundamentally wrong. You need to relearn the subject. vanishingly small.
deleted. in wrong reply thread
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
If you listen to the presentation between 34:00 and 36:00 you will see that he carefully diferentiates between yhe process in the air and in a plasma, where it results in jetting the plasma.
It is best not to disparage someone without taking due diligence before hand.
Thanks for finding the video. However, as I said in my reply to Prof. Paul that the vector addition of magnetic field in air should not be called break and “shoot-out”(?) of field lines (“reconnection”?), and such trivial case should not be mentioned in the context of magnetic reconnection in space. I have apologized to Prof. Paul for my wording, but I stand-by my point about the quality of the presentation. I have read carefully about what magnetic reconnection is, and I don’t think I need your advice on how to take due diligence.
I was amazed, as I always am, by the performance of the incredible Centaur second stage. With the exception of direct use in HSF (which will change with the CST-100) for 50 years the Centaur has been at the heart of our exploration of space. Very expensive and full of liquid hydrogen, nonetheless it is incomparable in performance, maneuverability, and reliability. In the MMS flight, over an hour of activity, it performed a dance of exquisite precision and power.