## Magnetic reconnection and dynamos in the presence of plasma turbulence

Allen H Boozer

Columbia University, New York, NY 10027

ahb17@columbia.edu

(Dated: April 8, 2025)

Evolving magnetic fields are frequently embedded in plasmas that are turbulent. When the primary interest is in effects that are on a large scale compared to that of the turbulence, it is desirable to average over the turbulence to obtain equations for mean-field magnetohydrodynamics. An obvious constraint on the validity of the averaging is that large-scale quantities that evolve slowly using the exact evolution equations must remain slowly evolving in the mean-field theory. Magnetic helicity is the primary example of such a quantity and maintaining its slow evolution has been controversial in mean-field magnetohydrodynamics. A full theory of magnetic reconnection in turbulent plasmas is not the intent of this paper. What is the intent is to show how exact results from Maxwell's equations explain why fast reconnection is so ubiquitous and what constraints these results place on the theory of magnetic field evolution, including dynamos, whether the plasma is turbulent or not. These constraints are commonly broken in the reconnection literature, which has been heavily influenced by two-dimensional theory that is not applicable to three-dimensional problems.

## I. INTRODUCTION

A white paper written in 2020 by 108 members of the world reconnection community listed nine challenges to our understanding of magnetic reconnection [1]. In the same year, seven of those members wrote a review on plasma turbulence [2] as a way of addressing reconnection challenges. As shown by Boozer [3] in 2023, the reconnection challenges can in large part be addressed by rectifying fundamental assumptions-many of which came from twodimensional theories. This paper has two purposes: more complete explanations (1) of the physics basis of required changes in assumptions and (2) of the constraints on the theory of reconnection in turbulent plasmas.

The validity of Maxwell's equations is fundamental to our knowledge of physics. Any result derivable from Maxwell's equations provides a constraint on the validity of any magnetohydrodynamics simulation or mean-field theory-not the other way around. Five results that are derivable from Maxwell's equations and simple mathematics provide particularly important constraints.

## A. Results from Maxwell's equations

(1) Section II A derives the exact electric field representation ⃗ E + ⃗ u ⊥ × ⃗ B = -∇ ⃗ Φ + E∇ ⃗ ℓ . This implies that Faraday's Law for ∂ ⃗ /∂t B can always be written in the advection-diffusion form. The component of electric field along the magnetic field is E || = -∂ Φ /∂ℓ + E where ℓ is the distance along a field line. E is required to satisfy boundary or periodicity conditions on E || and can be taken to be a field line constant. The advective velocity ⃗ u ⊥ is the velocity of the magnetic field lines when E = 0. A non-zero E is required to break magnetic field line connections.

Forty years ago, Hassan Aref [4, 5] showed that advection-diffusion equations have a special property, which also holds for magnetic fields. When the velocity ⃗ u ⊥ is chaotic, then by the definition of chaos each streamline has neighboring lines that separate from it exponentially with an e-folding time τ ef . With a chaotic ⃗ u ⊥ , magnetic field line connections break within a timescale approximately an order of magnitude longer than τ ef for any credible three dimensional magnetic evolution problem.

(2) Section II B derives the evolution equation for magnetic helicity, K = ∫ ⃗ A · ⃗ d B 3 x , in a bounded volume of space when the flux of helicity across the bounding surface is zero. ⃗ A is the vector potential; ⃗ B = ⃗ ∇× ⃗ A . The rate of change of the helicity in the volume is -2 ∫ ⃗ E · ⃗ d B 3 x , or equivalently -2 ∫ E ⃗ B · ⃗ ℓd ∇ 3 x .

The magnetic helicity is not only conserved in the absence of magnetic field line breaking but also in the presence of arbitrarily rapid magnetic field line breaking when the volume average of ⃗ E · ⃗ B is zero. Using the traditional Ohms Law, in which E || = ηj || , a concentration of j || into sheets of intense current density leads to a rapid breaking of field line connections but has essentially no effect on the rate of helicity evolution.

As shown by Woltjer [6], helicity conservation limits the fraction of the electromagnetic magnetic energy that can be quickly transferred to a plasma. This somewhat surprising limitation is an observed feature of tokamak disruptions, and explains why the plasma current generally increases when the mag- netic surfaces are suddenly destroyed in a fast magnetic reconnection [7].

(3) Section II C discusses the evolution equation for the electromagnetic energy in a bounded volume of space when the flux of this energy across the bounding surface is zero. When the flow speed of the plasma is non-relativistic, the magnetic energy density, B / µ 2 2 0 , is generally far larger than the electric energy density, ϵ 0 E / 2 2, and the change in the electromagnetic energy accurately gives the change in the magnetic energy.

The rate of change of the electromagnetic energy in the volume -∫ ⃗ j · ⃗ d E 3 x is the sum of two terms: an ideal exchange -∫ ( ⃗ u ⊥ · ⃗ f L ) d x 3 , with the Lorentz force ⃗ f L ≡ ⃗ j × ⃗ B , and an exchange associated with magnetic connection breaking -∫ E ⃗ j ·∇ ⃗ ℓd 3 x . Unlike helicity, the energy transfer can be made arbitrarily rapid by concentrating j || into thin sheets. A concentration of j || into thin sheets need not enhance the ideal energy transfer since j || has no direct effect on the Lorentz force.

Two definitions of a fast magnetic reconnection are (i) rapid changes in the connections of magnetic field lines and (ii) a fast transfer of energy from the electromagnetic field into plasma heating and motion. Due to the two types of energy transfer, these two definitions are not equivalent and muddle arguments when they are not distinguished. The term magnetic reconnection will be used in this paper for changes in the magnetic field line connections. The breaking of field line connections releases energy, which initially goes into plasma motion involving the Alfv´n speed, not dissipation. e The breaking of static force balance causes the overall evolution proceed at an Alfv´nic rate [3], which means a rate e set by the Alfv´n speed divided by the system scale. e

- (4) Appendix A derives the Chandrasekhar and Fermi [8] virial theorem, which shows autonomous magnetic structures disassemble on an Alfv´nic e timescale unless their forces are balanced by gravity or rigid coils.
- (5) Section VI gives the difference between the magnetic field line velocity ⃗ u ⊥ and the plasma velocity ⃗ v . Flux freezing, which is the tying together of the magnetic field lines and the plasma, has been known at least since Boozer's 2004 Reviews of Modern Physics article [9] to be two distinct conservation laws. The better conserved of the two is the conservation of magnetic topology, such as the tying together of the toroidal and poloidal magnetic flux in toroidal plasmas. The other is the tying together of the flow of the plasma and the flow of the magnetic field lines. For example, when η ↔ · ⃗ j = η ⃗ j || || + η ⊥ ⊥ ⃗ j with η || = 0 the magnetic field evolves ideally. When η ⊥ is large, the plasma diffuses rapidly across the

magnetic field lines.

## B. Mean-field theory

Plasmas are almost universally in a turbulent state with two types of plasma turbulence: (i) Microturbulence is often on the spatial scale of the charged particle gyroradii. (ii) Macro-turbulence is on a much larger scale, often related to the turbulence of ordinary flowing fluids. Micro-turbulence directly modifies the entropy-producing plasma transport processes but does not fundamentally change the theory of reconnecting plasmas. Macro-turbulence has subtle effects on magnetic reconnection.

When the magnetic field is embedded in a macroturbulent plasma, the magnetic field has fluctuations in both space and time on short scales and with a magnitude determined by the turbulence. It is natural to average over the turbulence to obtain a mean-field magnetohydrodynamic theory for studying large-scale effects in plasmas. However, a valid mean-field theory must preserve the exact conservation laws and in particular the conservation of helicity.

The prototypical theory of mean-field magnetohydrodynamics was developed by Krause and R¨dler a and summarized in their 1980 book Mean-field magnetohydordynamics and dynamo theory [10]. Their best known result was that small scale turbulence modifies the large scale electric field ⃗ E by adding a term ⃗ E T = -α ⃗ B + β ⃗ ∇× ⃗ B , much as unresolved plasma collisions add a term ⃗ E η = η ⃗ j . The coefficients α and β , are averages over non-linear properties of the turbulence. The coefficient α became famous for it gave an explanation for the magnetic field in stars.

The subtlety of mean-field theories became clear in 1986 when Boozer [11] noted that the α effect is inconsistent with the helicity conservation properties of low resistivity plasmas. He also gave a form for the contribution of the turbulence to the large-scale electric field

$$\vec { E } _ { T } = - \frac { \vec { B } } { B ^ { 2 } } \vec { \nabla } \cdot \left ( \lambda _ { h } \vec { \nabla } \frac { j _ { | | } } { B } \right ). \quad \quad ( 1 )$$

This form allows an arbitrarily large enhancement of the rate of reconnection and electromagnetic energy dissipation by the turbulence while conserving helicity, Section II B.

In 1995 Bhattacharjee and Yuan [12] derived the contribution of the turbulence to the electric field, which had the form of Equation (1) and showed that α effect vanishes when the magnitude of the convective term, ⃗ v × ⃗ B is large compared to the resistive term in the standard Ohms Law.

Helicity can be transferred from small scale turbulent eddies to the large scale field by an α -like effect but as shown in 1999 by Ji [13]: 'In all cases, however, the α effect strictly conserves the total helicity except for resistive effects and a small battery effect.' In other words, without a method to directly insert helicity into the eddies, an α effect cannot create helicity.

Although helicity conservation precludes a simple Krause and R¨ adler type dynamo, it does not preclude dynamos in general. There are two possibilities.

First, the helicity can be changed by resistivity, but the power required to produce a given rate of helicity change is enormous. The implication is that the turbulence must produce a plasma stress tensor that transfers power from the plasma flow to the magnetic field. The shorter the spatial scale of the turbulence the more power that must be taken from the flow to balance the resistive dissipation of magnetic energy for a given rate of helicity production. The convective zone in the sun produces large flows, and it is unclear what limit the resistive damping of the convective flow places on helicity production.

Unless the plasma is evolving on an Alfv´nic time e scale, the virial theorem implies that forces associated with the magnetic field must be transferred to places where gravitational forces or rigid coils can balance them. The turbulence-produced plasma stress tensor must be consistent with this constraint.

Second, in 1993, Boozer [14] showed that a dynamo producing a large scale magnetic field must also change the magnetic helicity in regions of comparable scale. But he also showed [14] that this could be accomplished by helicity transport by turbulence. Turbulence can either produce separated regions of positive and negative helicity or move helicity in from the boundary. The last option is precluded when the region is surrounded by a perfectly conducting stationary boundary. As shown by Boozer and Elder [15] in 2021, helicity can be inserted by a perfectly conducting but flowing boundary when that flow has a twist.

A major 2019 review of dynamo theory by Francois Rincon [16] pointed out the continuing use of the α effect in dynamo simulations. Rincon appreciates the physics issues connected with the use of the α effect, but these issues were not emphasized in the review. A 2023 review of the history of solar dynamos by Charbonneau and Sokoloff [17] thought the α effect could be restored by helicity dissipation at small spatial scales. However, small scales imply large current densities, which strongly enhance energy in comparison to helicity dissipation. Mathieu Ossendrijver [18] in a 2003 review of the solar dynamo discussed the constraint of helicity conservation in Section 3.3.2 and started Section 3.4.2 with a discussion of Interpretation of averages over fluctuations: 'Mean-field electrodynamics is a statistical theory and therefore a correct interpretation of its results requires a careful examination of the averaging procedure that is adopted.'

As the α effect illustrates, a critical test for an averaging procedure is whether it is consistent with invariants obtained from Maxwell's equations; helicity appears to be of particular importance. It is unfortunate that this test is not universal. Eyink's 2011 paper in which turbulence led to a dynamo [19] omits this test. On the other hand, in 2014 Vishniac and Shapovalov [20] emphasized the importance of helicity conservation to dynamo theory and calculated the transport of helicity by turbulence.

The review by Lazarian et al [2] had seven authors and gave the collective view of an important school of research on the effect of turbulence on magnetic reconnection. Their review has a number of insights. Page 2 notes that 'magnetic reconnection is a ubiquitous process,' which is inconsistent with requiring special conditions for reconnection to occur. 'The problem of magnetic reconnection is not limited to explaining its typically fast rates,' but what triggers reconnection must also be explained. The example they give is 'flux gets accumulated prior to a solar flare and gets annihilated during the flare.' It is interesting that this particular example is easily explained by helicity conservation. Helicity is put into a coronal loop by footpoint twisting [15] but has essentially zero dissipation. When the magnetic energy in the loop that is required to be consistent with its helicity becomes too great for force balance, the loop will of necessity be ejected.

Lazarian et al [2] also note that fast reconnection is an issue of 'scale disparity. Reconnection occurs on very large scales, while the dissipation processes take place at the smallest plasma scales, which are set by, e.g., resistivity.' Though true, the authors discuss only turbulence produced chaos and ignore the effect of magnetic field line chaos that arises even in smooth magnetic fields.

On page 16, Lazarian et al [2] gave a stress tensor due to turbulence that acts on the plasma. As has been discussed, mean field theories must describe not only the effects of turbulence on the evolution of the magnetic field but also the stress tensor due to the turbulence that acts on the plasma.

On page 49, Lazarian et al [2] make the important point: 'Most of the reconnection modeling is currently done using 2D PIC simulations. This is usually justified by the higher resolution that is available for such simulations compared to their 3D counterparts. We feel that these simulations are missing

the physics essential in the large scale astrophysical reconnection processes.'

Mean-field theory is clearly subtle and requires careful checking. For example, Brandenburg and Banerjee [21] in their 2025 paper discuss the effect of not only the helicity but also the Hosking integral [22] on the decay of turbulence, which may influence the validity of a mean-field theory.

Acomplete theory of magnetic reconnection in the presence of macro-turbulence is beyond the scope of this paper. The primary effect of the turbulence on reconnection itself may well be the through the coefficient λ h of Equation (1) as found in simulations of tokamak disruptions by Nardon et al [7].

## C. Contents of the paper

Section II is on the fundamental evolution equations. The first three results given in Section I A are derived in this section.

The theory of magnetic reconnection was originally developed using two-dimensional models. Section III explains how this resulted in three fundamental omissions: (i) magnetic field line chaos, (ii) helicity conservation, and (iii) the non-dissipative transfer of the energy out of the large scale magnetic field into into Alfv´nic motions, such as Alfv´n e e waves.

The universe has three spatial dimensions. In essentially all physical examples of reconnection, the magnetic field has a non-trivial dependence on all three, which places severe limits on the relevance of insights from two-dimensional reconnection models.

The most fundamental omission in twodimensional theory was chaos. In mathematics, a velocity ⃗ v ( ⃗ x, t ) is chaotic in a region when each streamline in that region has infinitesimally separated streamlines that increase their separation exponentially as time advances, as exp( t/τ ef ). Magnetic field lines are defined at an instant in time. A magnetic field is chaotic in a region when each field line in that region has infinitesimally separated field lines that increase their separation exponentially with distance ℓ along the lines, as exp( ℓ/ℓ ef ). The dictionary definition of chaos, complete disorder and confusion, is not consistent with the subtle structures that can arise in chaotic systems using the mathematical definition.

Section IV is on reconnection in three dimensions and considers the case in which the field-line flow is on two distinct spatial scales, an eddy scale and a large scale.

Section V is on magnetic-field-line chaos. Section VI is on the difference between the magnetic field line velocity ⃗ u ⊥ and the plasma velocity ⃗ v . Sec- tion VII explains why the Sweet-Parker model of reconnection, which is based on oppositely directed magnetic field lines, is a highly unlikely way to initiate reconnection in three dimensions. Section VIII discusses the importance of boundary conditions on ⃗ B . Section IX explains why large-scale flows may responsible for the dominant physical effects even when a system is highly turbulent. Section X is a discussion of the paper. Appendix A derives the virial theorem, which places fundamental constraints on magnetic fields that are in state of force balance.

## II. FUNDAMENTAL EVOLUTION EQUATIONS

## A. Magnetic field evolution

The evolution of magnetic fields is rigorously given by Faraday's law, which can be written either as

$$\psi _ { \mu } \quad \frac { \partial \vec { B } } { \partial t } + \vec { \nabla } \times \vec { E } \ = \ 0 \quad \text{or} \quad \quad ( 2 )$$

$$\frac { \partial \vec { B } } { \partial t } - \vec { \nabla } \times ( \vec { u } _ { \perp } \times \vec { B } ) \ = \ \vec { \nabla } \ell \times \vec { \nabla } \mathcal { E }. \quad ( 3 )$$

The second form for Faraday's Law follows from the purely mathematical Equation (4), which relates two arbitrary vectors in three-space, ⃗ E and ⃗ B [9]:

$$\vec { E } + \vec { u } _ { \perp } \times \vec { B } \ = \ - \vec { \nabla } \Phi + \mathcal { E } \vec { \nabla } \ell \quad \text{so} \quad \ ( 4 )$$

$$E _ { | | } \ = \ - \frac { \partial \Phi } { \partial \ell } + \mathcal { E } \quad \text{with} \quad \ \ ( 5 )$$

$$\frac { \partial \mathcal { E } } { \partial \ell } \ = \ 0.$$

E || is the component of the electric field parallel to the magnetic field, and ℓ is the distance along a magnetic field line. ⃗ B · ∇ ⃗ Φ = B∂ Φ /∂ℓ when ( α , β , ℓ c c ) Clebsch coordinates are used in which

$$\vec { B } = \vec { \nabla } \alpha _ { c } \times \vec { \nabla } \beta _ { c }.$$

The proof Equation (4) for ⃗ E is that each of its three components can be fit anywhere that ⃗ B is nonzero. All nulls but point-nulls of ⃗ B can be removed by an infinitesimal perturbation. Point nulls can be addressed by placing a sphere around each null and choosing Φ on the sphere so no charge accumulates, ∮ ⃗ j · d⃗ a = 0. The current density ⃗ j 0 at a null, which is given in Equation (40), automatically satisfies this condition.

Equation (3) not only determines the evolution for any magnetic field, but its terms also have simple interpretations. E gives the departure from an ideal magnetic evolution. When E = 0, the vector ⃗ u ⊥

is the velocity of magnetic field lines through space as was shown by Newcomb [23] in 1958. The proof is simple. When E = 0, Equation (3) is solved in Clebsch coordinates, in which ⃗ B = ⃗ α ∇ c ×∇ ⃗ β c , by

$$\frac { \partial \alpha _ { c } } { \partial t } + \vec { u } _ { \perp } \cdot \vec { \nabla } \alpha _ { c } = 0 \text{ and } \quad \ ( 8 ) \quad \ \vec { u } ( \colon \\ \quad \ \text{be}$$

$$\frac { \partial \beta _ { c } } { \partial t } + \vec { u } _ { \perp } \cdot \vec { \nabla } \beta _ { c } = 0. \quad \quad ( 9 ) \quad \text{$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$(} { 9 } )$$

The labels of a magnetic field line, α c ( ⃗ x, t ) and β c ( ⃗ x, t ), are carried by the flow, which implies magnetic field lines are carried by the flow and cannot break. The magnetic flux in a region defined in Clebsch coordinates is ∫ ⃗ B · ∇ J ⃗ ℓ c dα dβ c c = ∫ α dβ c c since the Jacobian of Clebsch coordinates J c ≡ 1 / ( ⃗ α ∇ c × ∇ ⃗ β c ) · ⃗ ℓ ∇ . When E = 0, the magnetic flux in a tube defined by magnetic field lines cannot change.

E ( α , β , t c c ) can be chosen to be zero unless the electric potential Φ must satisfy boundary conditions at two values of ℓ or a periodicity constraint. An appropriate choice of Φ allows E to be made independent of ℓ . In a toroidal plasma E∇ ⃗ ℓ can be replaced by ( V / ℓ 2 π ) ⃗ φ ∇ , where V ℓ is the toroidal loop voltage and φ is any toroidal angle. For E || = ηj || , E is proportional to η .

When the system has open magnetic field lines, the meaning of reconnection is subtle. In one resolution, the system is surrounded by a perfect conductor through which magnetic field lines can penetrate but on which the normal field ⃗ B n · ˆ is independent of time in the frame of the conductor. This resolution allows currents to close by flowing through the surrounding conductor. When the perfect conductor is moving at a prescibed velocity ⃗ v b , the normal field on the boundary obeys ∂ B n /∂t ( ⃗ · ˆ) + ⃗ v b ·∇ ⃗ ( ⃗ n B · ˆ) = 0. Another resolution is to surround the system by a perfect insulator, which means ⃗ j · ˆ = 0 with the normal n field to the insulator set by the solution to Laplace's equation that ensures ⃗ ∇ × ⃗ B = 0 and ⃗ ∇ · ⃗ B = 0 outside the insulator.

The simple Ohm's law,

$$\vec { E } + \vec { v } \times \vec { B } = \eta \vec { j } \quad \quad ( 1 0 ) \quad \begin{matrix} \ p i \\ \sigma r \end{matrix}$$

with η a spatial constant, and Ampere's law ⃗ ∇× ⃗ B = µ ⃗ j 0 provide an easily interpretable approximation to the exact form of Faraday's Law, Equation (3):

$$\frac { \partial \vec { B } } { \partial t } - \vec { \nabla } \times \left ( \vec { v } ( \vec { x }, t ) \times \vec { B } \right ) = \frac { \eta } { \mu _ { 0 } } \nabla ^ { 2 } \vec { B }, \quad ( 1 1 ) \quad \text{prov}$$

which has the form of an advection-diffusion equation. This equation was well known when Elsasser wrote his 1956 Reviews of Modern Physics article [24] on hydrodynamic dynamo theory. But, that was long before Hassan Aref [4, 5] recognized the fundamental importance of chaos to equations of the advection diffusion form in 1984. An approximate equation for the magnetic evolution is Equation (11) but with ⃗ v ( ⃗ x, t ) × ⃗ B interpreted as ⃗ u ⊥ × ⃗ B . The ⃗ u ( ⃗ x, t ) used in the model need not have ⃗ B · ⃗ u = 0 because the cross product ⃗ u ⊥ × ⃗ B removes the effect of a component parallel to ⃗ B .

Magnetic reconnection is commonly observed to have a timescale that is much closer to that given by the evolutionary flow ⃗ u ⊥ than to that defined by the E , which is commonly taken to be given by resistive dissipation. This implies that the flow is more important to determining where and when reconnection occurs than is the resistivity despite the resistivity or other non-ideal effect being required for reconnection. As discussed in Section III, an exception is reconnection in a two-dimensional space in which a chaotic flow produces an exponential increase in the magnetic field strength and not field line chaos.

## B. Magnetic helicity evolution

The conservation properties of magnetic helicity, K , are given by

$$K \, \equiv \, \int \vec { A } \cdot \vec { B } d ^ { 3 } x \quad \text{with} \quad \quad ( 1 2 )$$

$$\frac { d K } { d t } \ = \ - 2 \int \vec { E } \cdot \vec { B } d ^ { 3 } x,$$

$$= \, - 2 \, \int \mathcal { E } \vec { B } \cdot \vec { \nabla } \ell d ^ { 3 } x \, \text{ \quad \ \ } ( 1 4 )$$

$$= \, - 2 \, \int \mathcal { E } d \alpha _ { c } d \beta _ { c } d \ell. \, \text{ \quad \ \ } ( 1 5 )$$

when surface terms are ignored. The term E ⃗ B · ∇ ⃗ ℓ can be approximated as η ⃗ j · ⃗ B . The importance of helicity conservation [25] has been appreciated since Taylor's 1974 paper [26] showing that helicity explained how strong turbulence in reversed field pinches led to quiescent periods. The volume integral of j || B is insensitive the current concentrating in thin sheets.

Helicity conservation places a strong constraint on the energy that can be released in a magnetic reconnection-even in highly turbulent plasmas. As proven [6] by L. Woltjer, the minimum magnetic energy with fixed helicity is given by

$$& \delta \left ( \frac { 1 } { 2 \mu _ { 0 } } \int ( B ^ { 2 } - \lambda _ { L } \vec { A } \cdot \vec { B } ) d ^ { 3 } x \right ) = 0 \quad \ ( 1 6 ) \\ & \frac { 1 } { \mu _ { 0 } } \int ( \vec { \nabla } \times \vec { B } - \lambda _ { L } \vec { B } ) \delta \vec { A } d ^ { 3 } x = 0, \quad \text{so} \quad ( 1 7 )$$

$$\vec { j } & = \frac { \lambda _ { L } } { \mu _ { 0 } } \vec { B }, & ( 1 8 ) & \quad \text{is t} \\ & \quad \text{diss}$$

where λ L is a constant, a Lagrange multiplier. The minimum the energy state with fixed helicity has ⃗ j = ( j || /B B ) ⃗ with the magnitude of the helicity determining the Lagrange multiplier and j || /B .

Tokamak disruptions can destroy all the magnetic surfaces on a timescale of milliseconds, helicity conservation explains why only a small drop in the energy in the poloidal magnetic field occurs and why the net toroidal current even increases [27].

The non-axisymmetric turbulence associated with tokamak disruptions is of sufficient importance that it is frequently represented in axisymmetric simulation codes by the addition of a helicity-conserving term to Ohm's Law [11]:

$$- \frac { \vec { B } } { B ^ { 2 } } \vec { \nabla } \cdot \left ( \lambda _ { h } \vec { \nabla } \frac { j _ { | | } } { B } \right ). \quad \quad ( 1 9 ) \quad E c$$

The positive coefficient λ h is determined by the magnetic energy dissipated by the turbulence since the contribution of this term to ⃗ j · ⃗ E is

$$\lambda _ { h } \left ( \vec { \nabla } \frac { j _ { | | } } { B } \right ) ^ { 2 } - \vec { \nabla } \cdot \left ( \lambda _ { h } \frac { j _ { | | } } { B } \vec { \nabla } \frac { j _ { | | } } { B } \right ). \quad ( 2 0 ) \quad \text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text$$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text{$\text$$\text$$\text$$\text$\text$\text$$\text$\text$$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$	\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\tt$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$
$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$\text$                                                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                        }                                                                                                                                                                                                        \end{                                                                                                                                                                                                       .                                                                                                                                                                                                      .                                                                                                                                                                                                        -                                                                                                                                                                                                        +                                                                                                                                                                                                        <                                                                                                                                                                                                        :                                                                                                                                                                                                        "                                                                                                                                                                                                       ,$$

## C. Magnetic energy evolution

Maxwell's equations for ∂ ⃗ /∂t B and ∂ ⃗ /∂t E give Poynting's equation

$$\frac { \partial } { \partial t } \left ( \frac { B ^ { 2 } } { 2 \mu _ { 0 } } + \frac { \epsilon _ { 0 } E ^ { 2 } } { 2 } \right ) + \vec { \nabla } \cdot \left ( \frac { \vec { E } \times \vec { B } } { \mu _ { 0 } } \right ) = - \vec { j } \cdot \vec { E }. ( 2 1 ) \quad \text{the i} \\ \text{thou} _ { \text{dim} } \text{ }$$

Ignoring surface terms, the rate of change of electromagnetic energy in a volume is

$$\frac { \partial } { \partial t } \int \left ( \frac { B ^ { 2 } } { 2 \mu _ { 0 } } + \frac { \epsilon _ { 0 } E ^ { 2 } } { 2 } \right ) d ^ { 3 } x = - \int \vec { j } \cdot \vec { E } d ^ { 3 } x. \ \ ( 2 2 ) \quad \text{ordi} \\ \text{two-} \quad \cdot$$

The velocity of a plasma due to the electric field is ⃗ v = ( ⃗ E × ⃗ B /B ) 2 , so characteristically µ ϵ E /B 0 0 2 2 ∼ ( v/c ) 2 , where µ ϵ 0 0 = 1 /c 2 with c the speed of light. In non-relativistic plasmas, the electromagnetic energy is essentially the magnetic energy, which for simplicity will be assumed. Then,

$$\frac { \partial } { \partial t } \int \frac { B ^ { 2 } } { 2 \mu _ { 0 } } d ^ { 3 } x \, = \, - \int \vec { j } \cdot \vec { E } d ^ { 3 } x \, & ( 2 3 ) \quad \binom { \mu } { ( 2 ) }$$

$$= \, - \, \int \left ( \vec { u } _ { \perp } \cdot \vec { f } _ { L } + \mathcal { E } \vec { j } \cdot \vec { \nabla } \ell \right ) d ^ { 3 } x ; ( 2 4 ) \quad \stackrel { \text{ne} } { B }$$

$$\vec { f } _ { L } \, \equiv \, \vec { j } \times \vec { B } \, \quad \, \quad \, ( 2 5 ) \quad \text{the}$$

is the Lorentz force. The term ⃗ u ⊥ · ⃗ f L is the nondissipative power and E ⃗ j · ∇ ⃗ ℓ , which can be approximated by ηj 2 || , is the dissipative power transferred out of the magnetic field. A concentration of the current in thin sheets produces an arbitrarily large enhancement of the dissipative power transfer but not the helicity dissipation.

## III. RECONNECTION IN TWO DIMENSIONS

The theory of magnetic reconnection developed out of two-dimensional models,

$$\vec { B } ( x, y, t ) \ = \ \vec { \nabla } \times \left ( A _ { z } ( x, y, t ) \hat { z } \right ) \quad \text{with} \quad ( 2 6 )$$

$$\vec { u } ( x, y, t ) \ = \ u _ { x } \hat { x } + u _ { y } \hat { y }.$$

Equation (11) is then equivalent to

$$\frac { \partial A _ { z } } { \partial t } + \vec { u } \cdot \vec { \nabla } A _ { z } = \frac { \eta } { \mu _ { 0 } } \nabla ^ { 2 } A _ { z }, \text{ \quad \ } ( 2 8 )$$

which is of the standard two-dimensional advectiondiffusion form that was studied by Hassan Aref [4, 5]. Note, ⃗ u · ∇ ⃗ A z = ⃗ u ⊥ · ∇ ⃗ A z since ⃗ B · ∇ ⃗ A z = 0.

A standard example of an advection-diffusion problem has A z replaced by T , the temperature in a room, and η/µ 0 replaced by D T , the thermaldiffusion coefficient in air. This equation explains [32] why the temperature in a room becomes uniform in tens of minutes rather than in the few weeks as expected from thermal diffusion alone.

Aref's 1984 paper [4] was the first to recognize the importance of chaos in the theory of mixing. Although magnetic field lines cannot be chaotic in two dimensions, velocities generally are in natural flows. Three coordinates are required for chaos, which can be ( x, y, t ) for the velocity, but magnetic field lines are defined at instants in time, so three spatial coordinates are required.

The universe has three spatial dimensions and two-dimensional models of reconnection have led to many misconceptions:

- (1) The exclusion of chaos from reconnection theory. Magnetic field lines cannot be chaotic in twodimensions. Although their evolution velocity ⃗ u can be, a chaotic ideal evolution would lead to an exponential increase in the field strength, which would require an exponentially large force driving the reconnection.
- (2) The exclusion of magnetic helicity from reconnection theory. The helicity is identically zero when ⃗ B = ⃗ ∇× ( A z z ˆ ) and therefore irrelevant.

The addition of a guide field, a magnetic field in the ˆ direction, gives a non-zero helicity even when z

there is a dependence on only two spatial coordinates. The standard model is the in-plane reconnecting field changes sign across a narrow region ∆, which can be represented by a vector potential

$$A _ { z } = \frac { B _ { r } } { 2 } x \frac { e ^ { x / \Delta } - e ^ { - x / \Delta } } { e ^ { x / \Delta } + e ^ { - x / \Delta } }, \quad \quad ( 2 9 ) \quad,$$

with B r a constant, the magnitude of the positive and the negative reconnecting magnetic fields, and the helicity given by ∫ B A dxdydz z z . The total helicity is proportional to the width of the region in which the reconnection is occurring. The helicity can be conserved by firing helicity-containing plasmoids out along the narrow region in which magnetic field changes signs.

The conservation of helicity during reconnections cannot always be achieved by plasmoid ejection. As shown by Boozer and Elder [15], a twist in the footpoint motion injects helicity into individual tubes of magnetic field lines. Fast magnetic reconnections can spread the helicity but not dissipate it [15]. Tubes of magnetic field lines cannot remain in force balance with an arbitrarily large helicity. When force balance is lost in a magnetic flux tube, it is ejected.

̸

(3) Energy transfer in magnetic reconnection. In two-dimensional theory, reconnection is often defined as a dissipative transfer of magnetic energy into plasma thermal energy-not a topology change, the breaking of magnetic field line connections. In two dimensions, the dissipative transfer of energy appears to be equivalent but simpler. As discussed in Section II A, a definition based on a topology change generally requires boundary or periodicity conditions to make E = 0. In three dimensions, the change in topology causes little energy dissipation when η is small, but the non-dissipative energy transfer ⃗ u ⊥ · ⃗ f L drives Alfv´nic plasma motions, e such as Alfv´n waves, which are quickly dissipated e in a chaotic magnetic field [28-30]. Lazarian [31] has studied the damping of Alfv´n waves when the e plasma is turbulent. The damping depends on the wavelength of the Alfv´n wave compared to the spae tial scale of the turbulence.

When the resistivity η is zero, Equation (28) for A z is easily solved since A z has a fixed value in a frame carried by the flow. This is the frame of ( x , y 0 0 ) of Lagrangian coordinates; dA /dt z ≡ ( ∂A /∂t z ) + ( d⃗ x/dt ) · ∇ ⃗ A z = 0 where d⃗ x/dt = ⃗ u .

In two dimensions, Lagrangian coordinates are defined so ordinary Cartesian coordinates ( x, y ) obey ∂x x , y ( 0 0 , t ) /∂t = u x ( x, y, t ) and ∂y x , y ( 0 0 , t ) /∂t = u y ( x, y, t ) with a t = 0 initial condition that x = x 0 and y = y 0 . In Lagrangian coordinates, A z ( x , y 0 0 )

is independent of time, so

$$\vec { \nabla } A _ { z } \ = \ & \ \left ( \frac { \partial A _ { z } } { \partial x _ { 0 } } \frac { \partial x _ { 0 } } { \partial x } + \frac { \partial A _ { z } } { \partial y _ { 0 } } \frac { \partial y _ { 0 } } { \partial x } \right ) \hat { x } \\ & \quad + \left ( \frac { \partial A _ { z } } { \partial x _ { 0 } } \frac { \partial x _ { 0 } } { \partial y } + \frac { \partial A _ { z } } { \partial y _ { 0 } } \frac { \partial y _ { 0 } } { \partial y } \right ) \hat { y } \quad \text{so} \ ( 3 0 ) \\ \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot$$

$$\text{ive} \quad \left ( \begin{array} { c } \frac { \partial A _ { x } } { \partial x } \\ \frac { \partial A _ { z } } { \partial y } \end{array} \right ) \ = \ \left ( \begin{array} { c } \frac { \partial x _ { 0 } } { \partial x } & \frac { \partial y _ { 0 } } { \partial x } \\ \frac { \partial x _ { 0 } } { \partial y } & \frac { \partial y _ { 0 } } { \partial y } \end{array} \right ) \cdot \left ( \begin{array} { c } \frac { \partial A _ { z } } { \partial x _ { 0 } } \\ \frac { \partial A _ { z } } { \partial y _ { 0 } } \end{array} \right ) \quad \quad ( 3 1 )$$

$$B ^ { 2 } \ = \ ( \vec { \nabla } A _ { z } ) \cdot ( \vec { \nabla } A _ { z } )$$

$$= \, \left ( \, \frac { \partial A _ { z } } { \frac { \partial x } { \partial \dots } } \, \right ) ^ { \dagger } \cdot \left ( \, \frac { \partial A _ { z } } { \frac { \partial x } { \partial \dots } } \, \right )$$

$$& = \ ( \vec { \nabla } A _ { z } ) \cdot ( \vec { \nabla } A _ { z } ) \quad \quad ( 3 2 ) \\ & = \ \left ( \begin{array} { c } \frac { \partial A _ { z } } { \partial X _ { z } } \\ \frac { \partial X _ { z } } { \partial y } \end{array} \right ) ^ { \dagger } \cdot \left ( \begin{array} { c } \frac { \partial A _ { z } } { \partial X _ { z } } \\ \frac { \partial X _ { z } } { \partial y } \end{array} \right ) \quad \quad ( 3 3 )$$

The matrix

$$\leftrightarrow \left ( \begin{array} { c c } \frac { \partial x _ { 0 } } { \partial x } & \frac { \partial y _ { 0 } } { \partial y _ { 0 } } \\ \frac { \partial x _ { 0 } } { \partial y } & \frac { \partial y _ { 0 } } { \partial y } \end{array} \right ),$$

is called the Jacobian matrix of Lagrangian coordinates. In a singular value decomposition, J ↔ L has two singular values, which must have a product of unity when the flow is divergence free. When a divergencefree flow is chaotic, one singular value has a positive exponential dependence on time, as exp( t/τ ef ), and the other a negative, exp( -t/τ ef ), where τ ef is the timescale for an e-fold in separation between neighboring streamlines.

In the two dimensional case the current density is precisely perpendicular to the field, and the velocity ⃗ u ⊥ is perfectly aligned with the Lorentz force. Both effects maximize the ⃗ u ⊥ · ⃗ f L power transfer. The Lorentz force ⃗ f L ≡ ⃗ j × ⃗ B and the perpendicular velocity are given by

$$\vec { f } _ { L } \, = \, j _ { z } \vec { \nabla } A _ { z } \quad \text{where}$$

$$\vec { j } \, = \, j _ { z } \hat { z } = - \hat { z } \nabla ^ { 2 } A _ { z } / \mu _ { 0 } \quad \text{and} \quad ( 3 6 )$$

$$\vec { u } _ { \perp } \, = \, \frac { \vec { \nabla } A _ { z } } { | \vec { \nabla } A _ { z } | ^ { 2 } } \vec { u } \cdot \vec { \nabla } A _ { z }.$$

In two dimensions, an ideal magnetic evolution with a chaotic evolution velocity leads to an exponentially large magnetic field strength unless the field is perfectly aligned with the direction of exponential decrease. A chaotic velocity is not an explanation for fast reconnection in two-dimensions. Indeed, two-dimensional reconnection studies are based on a non-chaotic evolution velocity, typically with two regions of constant but oppositely directed magnetic field that are pushed together. The lack of relevance of this Sweet-Parker solution is the topic of Section VII.

## IV. RECONNECTION IN THREE DIMENSIONS

The properties of the magnetic evolution equation, change fundamentally when the evolution velocity ⃗ u ⊥ depends on the third coordinate, z . The exponential increase in the field strength, which is characteristic of two-dimensional chaotic flows, is not required in three dimensions. In three dimensional space, the Jacobian tensor of Lagrangian coordinates is a three-by-three tensor, which has three singular values. For a divergence-free flow the product of these singular values must be unity. For a chaotic flow, the largest singular value increases exponentially in time, the smallest decreases exponentially, but the third only has an algebraic dependence on time [32].

Chaotic flows can be smooth with essentially only one spatial scale defining its variation across the magnetic field lines. An example of a non-turbulent but chaotic flow is given by ⃗ u = ˆ z × ∇ ⃗ ( ( z/a z ) h ) , where a z is the height of a box like region that is of length a and with h given by Equation (46).

Here the effect of having two spatial scales in the flow will be studied: a short scale a and a long scale L . A far more realistic study could be carried out using a chaotic velocity ⃗ u ⊥ in the approximate model of magnetic field evolution, which is described in the discussion of Equation (11). There is a subtlety. The presence of a magnetic field affects the flow. The assumed flow ⃗ u ⊥ ( ⃗ x, t ) must be adjusted so that at least in some average sense

$$| \vec { u } _ { \perp } \cdot \vec { f } _ { L } | < < \frac { \frac { B ^ { 2 } } { 2 \mu _ { 0 } } } { \tau _ { e f } } \, \quad \, \quad \, ( 3 8 ) \, \quad.$$

to avoid excessive energy input into the magnetic field before significant reconnection has occurred. If ⃗ u ⊥ were perfectly aligned with ⃗ j ⊥ , the required power | ⃗ u ⊥ · ⃗ f L | would be zero. Flows naturally proceed in the direction of least back reaction. A direction in which a minimal back force arises is possible in three dimensions but not two.

Although the third singular value in a singular value decomposition of the Jacobian matrix does not depend exponentially on time, it does have time dependence. When a magnetic field is forced to evolve, some power is generally required. The required power is estimated in Section IV B.

In three dimensions, the current density can be almost parallel to the magnetic field, which makes the Lorentz force small. This is the case throughout a volume in which the magnetic evolution is due to a force at the boundary, the field lines are moved slowly compared to the Alfv´ en speed, and the plasma pressure is zero. In addition, there are

Huang &amp; Bha*acharjee, Phys. Plasmas 29 , 122902 (2022) Boozer &amp; Elder, Phys Plasmas 28 , 062303 (2021) Boozer &amp; Elder, Phys. Plasmas 28 , 062303 (2021) Huang &amp; Bha&gt;acharjee, Phys. Plasmas 29 , 122902 (2022) FIG. 1: Any magnetic field ⃗ B ⃗ x, t ( ) can be thought of as consisting of tubes of magnetic flux by placing a gridded surface across the field. Each tube is defined by the magnetic field lines that pass through the perimeters of the grid cells. When the field is chaotic, the perimeter of each cell becomes exponentially longer when the grid is replotted after each line on the perimeters is followed for a distance ℓ . But, each cell contains exactly the same field lines and has precisely the same neighboring cells. When the magnetic field is evolving ideally with a chaotic velocity ⃗ u ⊥ , a similar distortion of the grid occurs when the grid is replotted using the location of each line on the perimeters after a time t . The figure shows the distortion of a 5 × 5 array. The distorted grid is part of Figure 5 of Y.-M. Huang and A. Bhattacharjee, Phys. Plasmas 29, 122902 (2022), which was based on a chaotic evolution defined by A. H. Boozer and T. Elder, Phys. Plasmas 28 , 062303 (2021). Boozer and Elder illustrated distortions of flux tubes up to a factor ∼ 10 . 7

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00875v5-figure-819c2665-054e-4f97-8977-3da4eaf3f785.jpg)

two directions in which ⃗ u ⊥ can lie and produce the advective term ⃗ u ⊥ × ⃗ B , which unlike the twodimensional case implies ⃗ u ⊥ need not be perfectly aligned with the Lorentz force.

## A. Effect of a field-line flow on ⃗ B evolution

The flow of magnetic field lines ⃗ u ⊥ ( ⃗ x, t ) may be too complicated to calculate in a highly turbulent plasma. In some cases of interest, the finiteness of the mean free path even makes the plasma velocity ⃗ v ⊥ ( ⃗ x, t ) ill defined, but it is not the actual plasma velocity but the velocity of the magnetic field lines ⃗ u ⊥ that determines the magnetic evolution. Their difference is the topic of Section VI. At each point in space and time, a magnetic field line velocity exists, which would give the evolution of the magnetic field if E , which is determined by non-ideal effects, such as the resistivity η , were zero.

Using the approximate Equation (11) for the magnetic evolution, the term ( η/µ 0 ) ∇ 2 ⃗ B in Equation (11) must in some sense become comparable to the ideal evolution timescale of ⃗ B for some points in space for reconnection. This statement is surprisingly subtle. A tube of magnetic field lines, which we call a flux tube, is defined by the curve it forms on

Ph

Top flowin

Bo1om ri

FIG.

idea whi

tom poin

of p

Jac time

Rep

062

an squ

bec line

of

Bha avai

qui pret

the tim

sity of

defi

Bha inv

nec mat

den and

C, den

tion ma

in

t

rese ma

foc con

tion the

Phys. Pla

C

V

Author(

any surface that cuts across the magnetic field lines, Figure 1. When E = 0, the equation ⃗ ∇· ⃗ B = 0 implies that the magnetic flux enclosed by each defining curve located anywhere and at any time along a flux tube remains the same. When the field is and remains chaotic, field lines infinitesimally separated from a line will exponentially separate from it with distance along a line, Section V. The result is that the circumference of each of these defining curves increases exponentially in time and in distance along the lines without limit. That is the defining curves become exponentially more crumpled while exactly conserving its enclosed flux. The flux in the i th cell is ψ i = ∫ ⃗ B d⃗ a · = ∮ ⃗ A d⃗ s · c with ⃗ A the vector potential and d⃗ s c the differential distance along the curve that defines the perimeter of the cell.

By following the path of least resistance (meaning back force not electrical resistance), the flow ⃗ u ⊥ will naturally accommodate so it satisfies Equation(38). Electrical resistivity anywhere along a field line, ( η/µ 0 ) ∇ 2 ⃗ B causes diffusion, which creates uncertainty as time advances in the position of the field line. Because of the exponential increase of small separations in chaotic fields, the region over which the future position a line is uncertain due to ( η/µ 0 ) ∇ 2 ⃗ B at a particular point becomes greater the larger the distance from that ( η/µ 0 ) ∇ 2 ⃗ B point. The places of highest crumpling are the most sensitive to this uncertainty. Mixing field lines from within a flux tube from those without is a breaking of topology and hence a magnetic reconnection everywhere along the lines that are intermixed. The reconnection in some sense takes place at the point along the boundary of the flux tube that becomes most crumpled even if far from the place along the line where ( η/µ 0 ) ∇ 2 ⃗ B is maximized.

Let a ⊥ be the initial characteristic spatial scale across the magnetic field lines. Field lines that become closer than δ will reconnect when the rate of field line diffusion | ( η/µ 0 ) ∇ 2 ⃗ B | ≈ ( η/µ 0 ) B/δ 2 is comparable to one over the minimum timescale ( a ⊥ /δ τ ) ef required for two lines initially separated by a ⊥ to have a separation δ . As discussed, reconnection on the scale a ⊥ occurs in very specific places. The resistive field-line interfusion only occurs where two field lines that are initially separated by a ⊥ are carried by the flow to a separation δ with δ/a ⊥ ≈ 1 / R a , where

$$\mathcal { R } _ { a } \equiv \frac { ( \mu _ { 0 } / \eta ) a _ { \perp } ^ { 2 } } { \tau _ { e f } }. \quad \ \ \ ( 3 9 ) \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

R a is the resistive timescale τ η = a 2 ⊥ / η/µ ( 0 ) divided by τ ef and is often comparable to what many authors call the magnetic Reynold number in which τ ef is replaced by a ⊥ /v with v the plasma flow speed.

As time advances, the grid cells in Figure 1 distort until E , no matter how small it may be, will intermix flux from the different cells and produce a large scale magnetic reconnection.

An initially simple magnetic field must evolve for a time ≈ τ ef ln( R a ) before significant reconnection occurs. In reconnection problems of practical interest, R a has values from 10 4 to 10 20 , and the actual value of R a makes only a small change in ln( R a ) over this range. The natural logarithm of R a changes from 9.2 to 46, which is a total variation of a factor of five. The factor ln( R a ) differs from twenty by approximately a factor of two even as R a varies by sixteen orders of magnitude.

Eric Priest and collaborators [33] have stressed the importance of nulls, ⃗ B = 0 points, in astrophysical reconnection. Chaos as a cause for reconnection may be more intuitive in situations like tokamak disruptions where no magnetic nulls exist. But, chaos may also be central to reconnection in the presence of nulls. As Elder and Boozer [34] have discussed, near a null a magnetic field has the Taylor expansion

$$\vec { B } ( \vec { x } ) = \stackrel { \leftrightarrow } { M } \cdot \vec { x } + ( \mu _ { 0 } / 2 ) \vec { j } _ { 0 } \times \vec { x }, \quad \ ( 4 0 )$$

where ↔ M is a symmetric traceless matrix and ⃗ j 0 is the current density at the null. The implied Lorentz force at the null has a curl, ⃗ ∇× ⃗ f L = -⃗ j 0 · ↔ M , which is presumably balanced by the inertia associated with imparting vorticity to the plasma. This would produce a large distortion to the tubes of magnetic flux that pass by the null. There is a related discussion by Pontin, Bhattacharjee, and Galsgaard [35] in 2007.

## B. Power required to maintain the field line flow

The e-folding of magnetic field line separation and the power required to drive the field line flow velocity ⃗ u ⊥ are related. The separation between two infinitesimally separated field lines depends on distance along the lines as d ⃗ /dℓ δ = ( ⃗ δ · ⃗ ∇ ) ˆ b where ˆ b ≡ ⃗ / B B | ⃗ | . When the field lines are chaotic, the characteristic e-folding distance is ℓ ef ≈ 1 / ⃗ b |∇ | ˆ . The current density required to produce |∇ | ⃗ b ˆ is primarily along the magnetic field and of order µ j 0 rq /B ≈ |∇ | ⃗ b ˆ . Consequently, j rq ≈ B/µ ℓ 0 ef . To obtain reconnection, R a e-folds are required, where R a is defined in Equation (39). This implies the exponentiation must persist for a longer scale along the lines than a || = ℓ ef ln( R a ). When the parallel current j rq varies on the spatial scale a || along ⃗ B , the divergence of the parallel current produces a perpendicular current j ⊥ ≈ ( ℓ ef /a || ) j rq and a Lorentz

force f L ≈ ( ℓ ef /a || ) j rq B . The reference-frame independent velocity u ⊥ is ℓ ef /τ ef . The required power input to the magnetic field to maintain the flow is then P rq ≈ ( ℓ ef /τ ef ) f L . The implication is that the magnetic field must change by order itself during the time τ rec ≈ τ ef ln( R a ) for reconnection to occur since

$$P _ { r q } \approx \frac { B ^ { 2 } } { \mu _ { 0 } \tau _ { r e c } }, \quad \quad ( 4 1 ) \quad \text{fit}$$

which is consistent with Equation(38) since it is smaller by a factor of 1 / ln( R a ). The power being resistively dissipated is P η ≈ ηj 2 rq . The ratio

$$\frac { P _ { r q } } { P _ { \eta } } \, \approx \, \frac { 1 } { \ln ( \mathcal { R } _ { a } ) } \frac { ( \mu _ { 0 } / \eta ) a _ { \perp } ^ { 2 } } { \tau _ { e f } } \, \quad \ \ ( 4 2 ) \, \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

$$\approx \, \frac { \mathcal { R } _ { a } } { \ln ( \mathcal { R } _ { a } ) }. \quad \quad \quad ( 4 3 )$$

The required power input is enormous compared to that dissipated by resistivity when R a → ∞ even though the required power input to distort the tubes of flux, Equation(41), is relatively small. As discussed in Section IV A, the flow ⃗ u ⊥ naturally accommodates to minimize the power required to produce the flux tube distortions.

Helicity conservation limits the energy that can be released by a reconnection. Nonetheless, the released energy is enormous compared to that that can be resistively dissipated and must the transferred out of the large scale magnetic field by the non-dissipative term ⃗ u ⊥ · ⃗ f L in Equation (24) for the time derivative of the magnetic energy. When the Lorentz force ⃗ f L is not balanced by static forces, such as ⃗ p ∇ in an equilibrium, ⃗ f L must be balanced by inertial forces, which means plasma motion involving the Alfv´n speed. e As noted, shear Alfv´n e waves are quickly damped by forming thin sheets of vorticity and current.

## C. Reconnection with small scale eddies

The description of magnetic reconnection of tubes of magnetic flux, Section IV B, has two spatial scales. These are a ⊥ ≈ ℓ ef across and the other a || along ⃗ B . Their ratio is a /a || ⊥ ≈ ln( R a ). The size of a /a || ⊥ implies the the exponential amplification mentioned in Section IV A is large. When the flow ⃗ u ⊥ has small eddies as well as a large scale flow, the theory is unchanged as long as both a ⊥ and a || are shorter than the related scales of the eddies. An eddy will generally have different scales along and perpendicular to ⃗ B , and either can be the more restrictive scale on a || or a ⊥ .

If reconnection occurred only on the scale of the eddies, magnetic field lines would have to be followed a long distance L || before moving a distance comparable to the largest scale of the flow across magnetic field lines, L f . A field line must be followed a distance a || to move a distance a ⊥ across the field. These a ⊥ steps are a random walk, so ( L /a f ⊥ ) 2 steps are required. Consequently, the total distance field lines must be followed to cross the field by the distance L f is L || ≈ a || ( L /a f ⊥ ) 2 . This distance is of order L /a f ⊥ longer than if the reconnection had been on the scale L f instead of a ⊥ . When the large scale flow is chaotic, with an e-folding time τ EF , that flow will carry lines in ways that produce the larger scale reconnection on a timescale τ EF ln R L , where R L ≈ ( µ /η L /τ 0 ) 2 f EF . The distance a field line must be followed to cross the region of width L f is

$$L _ { | | } \approx L _ { f } \ln \left ( \frac { a _ { | | } \left ( \frac { L _ { f } } { a _ { \perp } } \right ) ^ { 2 } } { \ell _ { E F } } \right ), \quad \quad ( 4 4 )$$

where ℓ EF is the characteristic e-folding distance of field lines in the large scale flow.

## V. CHAOTIC MAGNETIC FIELD LINES

The effect of chaos on magnetic reconnection depends primarily on whether the magnetic field lines become chaotic as they evolve. Magnetic field lines are defined at a particular instant and are chaotic in a region of space when each line has lines in its neighborhood that exponentially separate from it with distance ℓ along the line.

Magnetic field lines that are infinitesimally separated from an arbitrarily chosen line by a distance ρ are given by a Hamiltonian [36]

$$\Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Philon _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _{ \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Psi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \psi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi. } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi }$$

where ψ ≡ B 0 ( ℓ ρ ) 2 / 2, dψ/dℓ = -∂H/∂α , and dα/dℓ = ∂H/∂ℓ . There are four functions of distance ℓ along the chosen line: B 0 ( ℓ ), the field strength along the line, k ω ( ℓ ) = τ 0 ( ℓ ) + ( µ j 0 || /B ) 0 , where τ 0 , the torsion of the line, and ( µ j 0 || /B ) 0 are given along the line; k q ( ℓ ) and φ ℓ ( ) are the strength and phase of the quadrupole term in a Taylor expansion of the magnetic field in ρ . All four functions of ℓ can evolve in an ideal evolution. When k q ( ℓ ) is sufficiently large and rapidly varying compared to k ω , field lines near the chosen line have a separation that is changing exponentially. ⃗ ∇· ⃗ B = 0 ensures neighboring lines must have both signs of exponentiation, which means separation or approach. The trajectories of the Hamiltonian of

Physics of Plasmas

Top flowing perfect conductor

Bo1om rigid perfect conductor

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00875v5-figure-bf7f20d7-8a23-4636-854e-e1467bee2917.jpg)

FIG. 1. (a) A perfectly conducting cylinder of height L and radius a encloses an ideal pressureless plasma. All of the sides of the cylinder are fixed except the top, which flows with a specified velocity ~ v t . Initially, ~ B ¼ B z 0 ^ . Each point ~ x b on the bottom of the cylinder defines a line of ~ B that in an ideal evolution intercepts a specific point on the top ~ x t with @~ ~ ; x t ð x 0 t Þ =@ t ¼ ~ ~; v t ð x t t Þ and ~ x 0 /C17 ~ x t at t ¼ 0. The case of primary interest is when ~ v t is divergence free and chaotic. This means the 2 /C2 2 Jacobian matrix @~ =@~ x t x 0 has a large singular value that increases exponentially in time and a small singular value that is the inverse of the large singular value. Reproduced with permission from A. H. Boozer and T. Elder, Phys. Plasmas 28 , 062303 (2021). Copyright 2021 AIP Publishing. (b) Huang and Bhattacharjee 8 used an equivalent square-cylindrical model to project images on the top boundary of square tubes of magnetic field lines on the bottom boundary. As the distortions become ever larger, an arbitrarily small resistive diffusion g l = 0 can intermix field lines from different tubes and thereby change their connections. This figure is part FIG. 2: This figure illustrates how the flux tube distortion illustrated in Figure 1 can arise in a model of coronal loops in which the evolution is driven by footpoint motion. Magnetic flux tubes in a perfectly conducting plasma are shown that are bounded by a perfectly conducting box with rigid sides and a flowing top. On the bottom of the box, the tubes are five by five squares. The intersection of these tubes with the top is part of Figure 5 of Y.-M. Huang and A. Bhattacharjee, Phys. Plasmas 29, 122902 (2022). The tubes are illustrated after a sufficiently long time to become highly distorted but before resistive diffusion has had significant effects.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00875v5-figure-62c5efa7-f881-499b-bbdd-a9d1c3859ab4.jpg)

of

Fig.

5 of their

paper.

Reproduced with permission

from

Y.-M.

Huang and A.

Bhattacharjee, Phys. Plasmas

29

,

122902 (2022). Copyright 2022 AIP Publishing.

available for reconnection had reconnected, the current density quickly rose to a value inversely proportional to g , which they interEquation (45) are easily shown to have this property, d ln( ψ /dℓ ) = 2 k q ( ℓ ) sin ( 2 α -2 φ q ( ℓ ) ) .

on tions through chaos appears to be an essential element in a general

preted as the onset of true reconnection, but is also required to balance the power input from the boundary conditions. Both timescales, the time required for 30% reconnection and the time for the current density to rise to a value proportional to 1 = g , are approximately an order of magnitude longer than the characteristic evolution time, a / v , defined by the boundary conditions-independent of g . Huang and Bhattacharjee emphasized that the current density reaching a value inversely proportional to g showed the irrelevance of chaos to reconnection in solar loops. Consequently, it is important to understand mathematically what determines the time dependence of the current density. This is done in Evolution of the current density , Appendix B, and Current density increase in Huang and Bhattacharjee , Appendix C, which are relatively long and more demanding mathematically. Runaway electrons and the corona , Sec. V, asks whether a current density as intense as j g ¼ v B = g in solar loops would have any observational implications. One such implication could be the corona itself. Discussion , Sec. VI, points out that although the three aspects of a magnetic evolution-topology, energy, and helicity-evolve similarly in toroidal, space, and astrophysical plasmas, the topics of primary research interest differ. Toroidal plasma physicists are focused magnetic surface breakup, while space and astrophysical physicist are focused on energy transfer and may view changing magnetic field-line connections of little interest. However, the change in field-line connecEven when η = 0, an evolving magnetic field in three dimensions will generally become chaotic. Figure 2 illustrates the behavior of magnetic flux tubes in a system with negligible resistivity and welldefined but evolving boundary conditions. The walls of the rectangular box are all perfectly conducting. The side walls at x = ± a and y = ± a as well as the bottom wall at z = 0 are stationary. The top wall at z = L is perfectly conducting but has a divergence-free flow ⃗ v L = ˆ z × ∇ ⃗ h x, y, t ( ) given by a stream function, Equation (46). The gradient of the stream function, ⃗ h ∇ , that was used to produce Figure 2 vanished near x = ± a and y = ± a . This ensured the velocity of the top was continuous with the zero velocity of the side walls. Otherwise h is proportional to a function ˜ h that is a Taylor series in x and y times sine and cosine oscillatory functions of time:

$$\text{of time} \colon & h = \tilde { h } ( x, y, t ) \left ( 1 - \frac { x ^ { 2 } } { a ^ { 2 } } \right ) ^ { 3 } \left ( 1 - \frac { y ^ { 2 } } { a ^ { 2 } } \right ) ^ { 3 } ; \quad ( 4 6 ) \quad \text{the} \ \cdot \\ \tilde { h } & = \frac { a ^ { 2 } } { \tau } \left \{ c _ { 0 } \cos \left ( \omega _ { 0 } - \frac { t } { \tau } \right ) + c _ { 1 } \frac { x } { a } \cos \left ( \omega _ { 1 } \frac { t } { \tau } \right ) } \quad \text{half} \quad \text{of th} \\ & \quad + c _ { 2 } \frac { y } { a } \cos \left ( \omega _ { 2 } - \frac { t } { \tau } \right ) + c _ { 3 } \frac { x y } { a ^ { 2 } } \cos \left ( \omega _ { 3 } - \frac { t } { \tau } \right ) \right \}. ( 4 7 ) \quad \text{not eti} \\ \text{In the information to do datetime to datetime that dotted and fluv} \quad \text{est} \ c.$$

In the integrations to determine the distorted flux tubes of Figure 2, c 0 = 0, which implies no magnetic helicity is injected into the rectangular box. Magnetic helicity cannot be dissipated faster than the global resistive timescale while magnetic energy and topology can be destroyed on a timescale only ln( R a ) longer that τ ef . Integrations with c 0 = 0

II.

ARTICLE

DISENTANGLEMENT

The disentanglement

of the

evolution of

magnetic topology,

energy, and helicity is achieved by the mathematical representation of the vector ~ ~; E x ð t Þ in terms of another vector ~ ~; B x ð t Þ , ~ E þ ~ u ? /C2 ~ B ¼ /C0 ~ r U þ V ' 2 p ~ r u or (7) ~ ~ ': produce only those effects that can rapidly dissipated. The other constants were c 1 = c 2 = c 3 = 1 2, / ω 1 = 6 π , ω 2 = 4 π , and ω 3 = 0. These choices give a field line separation that exponentiates with τ ef ≈ τ .

are fundamentally distinct from Ohm's law, which relates physical quantities such as the plasma mass-flow velocity ~ v and the plasma resistivity g . In the absence of field nulls, the validity of either Eq. (7) or (8) is easily shown. The component of ~ E along ~ B is ~ ~ E /C1 B ¼ /C0 ~ B /C1 ~ r U þð V ' = 2 p Þ ~ B /C1 ~ r u . Locally, any ~ ~ E /C1 B can be balanced by ~ B /C1 ~ r U , but for a sufficiently well-behaved U , that ~ r /C2 ~ r U ¼ 0 has no subtleties, and the potential must be single-valued and finite. This constraint is imposed by V ' or E and may seem enigmatic. The mathematical importance of E is clarified by the discussion associated with Eq. (10). Since ~ B is non-zero in the region of interest, the term ~ u ? /C2 ~ B can balance the terms that are perpendicular to the magnetic field. Amagnetic line null can be broken into well separated point nulls by an infinitesimal magnetic perturbation, so only point nulls are Flux tubes were defined in Figure 2 by dividing the z = 0 surface into 5 × 5 squares as they were in Figure 1. ⃗ ∇· ⃗ B = 0 implies exactly the same flux passes through any surface that crosses the tube. The flux tubes plotted in Figure 2 are the distortions that the 5 × 5 tubes that were squares at z = 0 have undergone by the time they reach the top z = L after a few e-folds. Note the tubes are undistorted near the side walls because the velocity of the top surface vanishes there.

¼ /C0 r U þ Er (8) Equation (7) was derived by Boozer 9 in 1981 for toroidal plasmas with u , a toroidal angle, and V ' , a constant along magnetic field lines, the loop voltage. Equation (8) is a generalization for non-toroidal plasmas with E constant along magnetic field lines and with d ' the differential distance along a line. Both equations are mathematical statements that The flow remains chaotic for many choices of the c ′ s and ω ′ s, but at least one ω must be non-zero. When the stream function h is independent of time, h is a constant of the motion, which is inconsistent with chaos.

physically relevant. In the presence of point nulls, the derivations of Eqs. (7) and (8) can be carried though by excluding a small spherical region about each point null. The potential U at each point null must be chosen so Þ ~ j /C1 da ~ ¼ 0 when integrated over the sphere surrounding the null. Charge cannot be allowed to accumulate at a point. A. Magnetic topology evolution In 1958, Bill Newcomb 10 demonstrated that when ~ E þ ~ u ? /C2 ~ B ~ U , magnetic field lines are transported by the flow ~ u ~; x t and The distortions to the flux tubes illustrated in Figure 2 increase exponentially in time. The closest approach of distinct flux tubes becomes exponentially smaller. An arbitrarily small resistive diffusion η/µ 0 can change field line connections by interdiffusing field lines from different tubes after a time that depends only logarithmically on η/µ 0 .

- netic field-line connections by the existence of a non-zero V ' or E . As one would expect, the mass flow velocity of the plasma ~~; v ð x t Þ has no direct effect on the preservation or destruction of magnetic connections-magnetic field line topology preservation is a magnetic and not directly a plasma issue. The proof that sufficient freedom exists to choose the field lines (1) An ideal evolution generally makes magnetic field lines chaotic with the exponentiation of infinitesimally separated lines increasing on the timescale τ ef of the flow.

¼ /C0 r ? ð Þ do not change their topology. The addition of a non-potential term breaks topology. Following Newcomb, we define the breaking of magPondering the implications of Figures 1 and 2 leads to five important conclusions:

- to be carried by the flow ~ u ? when and only when E ¼ 0 follows from the Clebsch representation, ~ B ¼ ~ r a /C2 ~ r b . Since ~ B /C1 ~ r a ¼ 0 and ~ B /C1 ~ r b ¼ 0, the position of a field line in Cartesian coordinates is ~ x ð a b ; ; ' Þ ; the Clebsch coordinates are the labels of a field line. The time derivative @ ~ B @ t ¼ ~ r /C2 @ a @ t ~ r b /C0 @ b @ t ~ r a /C18 /C19 (9) ~ ~ u ~ B ~ U ~ ' (10) (2) The increasing chaos ends any approximation to magnetic field lines preserving connections on a timescale that depends only logarithmically on η/µ 0 . This timescale can be approximated as twenty times longer than τ ef and is almost independent of the diffusion coefficient, η/µ 0 , when the timescale for diffusion is very long compared to τ ef .
- ¼ r /C2 ? /C2 /C0 r /C0 Er /C0 /C1 but ~ u ? /C2 ~ B ¼ ð ~ u ? /C1 ~ r b Þ ~ r a /C0 ð ~ u ? /C1 ~ r a Þ ~ r b . A field line is carried by the flow when its labels ð a b ; Þ are @ a =@ t þ ~ u ? /C1 ~ r a ¼ 0 and 30 , 062113-3 (3) The average rate of exponentiation, which is called the Lyapunov exponent, can be zero with the exponentiation remaining important. This is the case if the moving surface in Figure 2 is placed halfway up in the tall box with all six outer surfaces of the box rigid perfect conductors.
- (4) The breaking of field line connections, reconnection, occurs both due to the perimeter of the flux tubes increasing exponentially in time and the shortest distance between different tubes decreasing exponentially in time.
- (5) When reconnection occurs due to the decrease in the shortest distance between different tubes, the reconnection occurs at very specific locations-a retying of field lines after an almost scissor-like cutting.

pubs.aip.org/aip/pop

16 June 2024 20:27:16

## VI. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIELD LINE AND PLASMA VELOCITIES

The magnetic field line velocity ⃗ u ⊥ is distinct from the plasma velocity ⃗ v . This difference has two parts. The most obvious difference is that ⃗ v = ⃗ v ⊥ + ⃗ v || while the magnetic field line velocity is only defined perpendicular to the field lines, ⃗ u ⊥ .

The plasma can also have a different velocity perpendicular to the magnetic field lines ⃗ v ⊥ than ⃗ u ⊥ . The difference ⃗ v ⊥ -⃗ u ⊥ is given by subtracting Equation (4) for general electric field from the electric field of Ohm's law. The conventional Ohm's law plus the Hall term due to the Lorentz force, ⃗ f L = ⃗ j × ⃗ B , exerted by the magnetic field is

$$\vec { E } + \vec { v } \times \vec { B } \ = \ \eta _ { | | } \vec { j } _ { | | } + \eta _ { \perp } \vec { j } _ { \perp } + \frac { \vec { f } _ { L } } { n _ { e } e }, \text{ so } \quad ( 4 8 ) \quad \text{ very } \\ \tau \quad \cdot$$

$$E _ { | | } \, = \, \eta _ { | | } j _ { | | },$$

where n e is the electron number density. This equation for E || and Equation (5), which relates E to E || , imply the Hall term in Ohm's law has no direct effect on E and, therefore, no direct effect on the breaking of magnetic field line connections. This is despite what is claimed in many papers on reconnection. But, the Hall term does affect the flow of the plasma across the magnetic field lines, ⃗ v ⊥ -⃗ u ⊥ :

$$( \vec { v } _ { \perp } - \vec { u } _ { \perp } ) \times \vec { B } & = \quad \vec { \nabla } \Phi + \frac { \vec { f } _ { L } } { n _ { e } e } \\ & \quad + \eta _ { | | } \vec { j } _ { | | } + \eta _ { \perp } \vec { j } _ { \perp } - \mathcal { E } \vec { \nabla } \ell. \quad ( 5 0 )$$

The difference in the plasma and the field line flow across the magnetic field is due both to ideal terms, which are in the upper line of the right-hand side of Equation (50), and dissipative terms, which are given in the lower line. The ideal terms have a typical magnitude ∼ T/ea , where T is the plasma temperature a is a characteristic distance.

The electric potential Φ is approximately T/e because that is what is required to maintain the quasineutrality of the plasma when the ions and electrons have any differences in transport magnitudes. Φ must balance the pressure of the poorer confined species. The Hall term is often approximately given by ⃗ p/en ∇ e , which is itself approximated by T/ea . The difference ⃗ v ⊥ -⃗ u ⊥ can be small in astrophysical plasmas though it is often large in laboratory plasmas. In addition, the plasma inertial force ρ m ∂⃗ v/∂t makes the Hall term sufficiently large to disconnect ⃗ v ⊥ and ⃗ u ⊥ when ⃗ v ⊥ changes at a rate comparable to the ion cyclotron frequency.

Even when ⃗ v ⊥ and ⃗ u ⊥ are approximately equal, the evolution of the magnetic field and the plasma properties can be fundamentally different because

/C19

is reconnection at low Alfven Mach numbers which corresponds to

/C19

the classical representation of magnetic reconnection flux tubes. This in fact required LV99 to generalize the GS95 MHD theory for arbitrary

/C19

Alfven Mach numbers.

As the first step consider the problem of magnetic field wander- ing, as this magnetic wandering determines the thickness of outflow

D

.

We may note that magnetic wandering determined in LV99 is not only important for magnetic reconnection. In fact, it is a fundamental

property of

the turbulent

magnetic field,

and it

is important

for

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00875v5-figure-afd6d20c-7f89-4fe6-9b79-f616100a0da5.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00875v5-figure-a515cabe-9173-4759-b4af-c957651a104b.jpg)

i

squared magnetic field wandering is equal to

2

s

3

4

y

h

i

/C24

uL

Li

VA

/C18

/C19

;

s

&lt;

which provides a superdiffusive dependenc one of the major findings in LV99 as far as t

netic field in turbulence are concerned. Due probability of the wandering magnetic field

reconnection layer is very small.

The dependence of

y

2

MA

4

is sign

the turbulent kinetic energy is a small porti

h

i

/C24

the fluid, the magnetic field lines are nearly smooth transition to the slow reconnection

lence and, as we discuss later, to the flux free mation to the low

MA

fluids.

For describing magnetic field wanderi the turbulence injection scale, i.e.,

s

Li

,

obeys

/C29

the usual

random walk scaling.

walk step is

Th

s

=

2

Li

L i

ð

uL

=

with the mean squared displ

VA

Þ

4

. As a result

y

h

2

i

1

=

2

/C25

ð

Li

s

Þ

1

=

2

ð

uL

=

VA

Þ

2

which provides

the other

limit for

the

While the diffusive regime of magnetic fiel was well known in the cosmic ray literatur

FIG. 4.

the superdiffusive

one was introduced in

Upper plot: Sweet-Parker model of reconnection. The thickness of the out-

2

it is easy to show that the spectr

(LV99; Galtier et al.

, 2000)].

(38)

and (39), one can

reconnection of the

a

i.e., in

the setting

g

kE k ð Þ /C24 u k Ek weak ; /C24 k /C0 2 ? Using Eqs. the outflow for the in turbulent media, flow D is limited by Ohmic diffusivity that takes place on microscopic scales. The disparity between this scale and the astrophysically large scale Lx /C29 D makes the reconnection slow. Lower plot: LV99 model of turbulent reconnection. The width of the outflow D is determined by macroscopic field line wandering, and it can be comparable with the scale Lx for trans-Alfvenic turbulence. Adapted from Lazarian /C19 and Vishniac (2000). Phys. Plasmas 27 , 012305 (2020); doi: 10.1063/1.5110603 V C Author(s) 2020 FIG. 3: The relationship between Sweet-Parker and the view of turbulent reconnection of Lazarian et al., Phys. Plasmas 27 , 012305 (2020) is illustrated in their Figure 4. In the Sweet-Parker model, the thickness of the outflow ∆ is limited by Ohmic diffusivity, which makes reconnection slow. In their turbulent model, ∆ is determined by macroscopic field line wandering, which can be very wide. In the modern reconnection literature, plasmoids are often invoked to widen ∆.

the plasma motion includes a parallel flow and the field line motion does not. The important quantity in determining the nature of the solutions of advection-diffusion equation with a small diffusion is not the diffusion but the τ ef , the time required for the streamlines of the flow to go through an efold of separation.

## VII. RECONNECTION MODEL OF OPPOSITELY DIRECTED LINES

The Sweet-Parker model of magnetic reconnection, which is the top illustration in Figure 3, remains the most common model of reconnection and is essentially the figure shown in papers on plasmoid models of reconnection [38, 39]. The whole of Figure 3 is from the Lazarian et al [2] review. The bottom illustration explains their view that turbulence can enhance the rate reconnection by broadening the width ∆ of the outflow region.

Although it is easy to understand why Figure 3 would arise in a paper trying to explain fast reconnection in two-dimensional systems, it is surprising that is is included in the Lazarian et al review. On page 2 of their review they explain that reconnection is too ubiquitous to require special conditions to occur and that it is not only the speed of reconnection but also what triggers reconnection that must be explained. On page 49, they recognized that two dimensional models are missing physics that is essential to understanding reconnection in a three dimensional world.

Despite the Sweet-Parker model representing the common view, it is an unlikely explanation for the ubiquity of magnetic reconnection in a universe with

three spatial dimensions. The Sweet-Parker model:

- (1) Ignores magnetic field line chaos. Faraday's Law can be written in a mathematically equivalent way Equation (3), which has the form of an advection-diffusion equation. Whether the advective velocity is chaotic or not is the primary determinant of the nature of solutions to advection-diffusion equations. A two-coordinate magnetic field problem is exceptional for an advective-diffusion equation, for then and only then is an exponentially increasing force required to maintain the flow.
- (2) Ignores the virial theorem. A collision between two regions of oppositely directed magnetic field that were initially separated into compact regions of space with little magnetic field between them is difficult to reconcile with the 1953 virial theorem of Chandrasekhar and Fermi [8], which is derived in Appendix A. The Chandrasekhar-Fermi virial theorem proves that autonomous regions of magnetic field cannot exist for a timescale long compared to an inertial, or equivalently Alfv´n, disassembly time. e Alonger lifetime than Alfv´nic for a magnetic confige uration implies additional forces: gravity in stars or rigid coils in laboratory experiments and a method for the magnetic forces to be transmitted to places where gravitational effects are strong or coils are located.
- (3) Ignores the way two tubes collide in threedimensional space. Reconnection is often described as a collision between two tubes of magnetic flux. A simple model of tubes colliding is a collision between two drinking-straws. Except for the case of perfect alignment, the two straws will come into contact at a point. Even in the case of perfect alignment, their contact is along a line, not a surface. Surface contact requires not only perfect alignment but also interlocking surface shapes.
- (4) Ignores the smoothness of ⃗ B . Two Maxwell equations involve spatial derivatives of ⃗ B ; the spatial dependence must be continuous and smooth. The thinner a layer over which a magnetic field reverses direction, the larger the current density must be. Assuming reconnection occurs only when the current density becomes arbitrarily large is not a compelling explanation for the ubiquity of reconnection.

The opposing field structures of the Sweet-Parker model, Figure 3, were invented to allow fast reconnection when ⃗ B depends on only two coordinates. But, how can naturally flowing plasmas in three dimensions produce such unlikely magnetic structures while avoiding making the magnetic field chaotic? Magnetic field line chaos, which naturally arises even in an ideal evolution with three dimensional flows, quickly leads to reconnection no matter how small the resistivity. This is due to the exponential distortion of tubes of magnetic flux, Figures 1 and 2.

As discussed in Section IV B, most of the energy released when magnetic field lines break generally goes into the non-dissipative term ⃗ u ⊥ · ⃗ f L , Section II C. For reconnection throughout a volume, this means into Alfv´n waves, which can only be damped e when narrow and intense current or vorticity sheets are formed. Lazarian [31] has discussed the damping of Alfv´n waves in turbulent plasmas, where the e nature of the damping depends on the wavelength of the waves relative to the size of the turbulent eddies. Even when the plasma is not turbulent, sheet currents quickly arise to damp Alfv´n waves when e the field lines are chaotic [3, 28, 29], so the total time until their occurrence is ∼ 20 τ ef . The currents sheets that arise to damp Alfv´n waves can be cone fused with the current sheets of the Sweet-Parker model. Huang and Bhattacharjee observed a fast formation of current sheets in their important paper on reconnection driven by a chaotic flow [37]. Their definition of reconnection, which was the damping of the released energy rather than the breaking of the connections of the field lines themselves, naturally leads to a confusion.

## VIII. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ON ⃗ B

To rigorously deal with the breaking of magnetic field line connections, boundary conditions are needed in order to have connections that can be broken. These can be dealt with by a perfectly conducting boundary-such as a sphere or the box of Figure 2-about the region that is to be studied. External forcing is then represented by a movement of the boundary. In toroidal plasmas, the two periodicities of the torus can act in a way similar to boundary conditions in defining broken connections.

A periodic box is sometimes assumed in simulations of reconnection. Assuming periodicity in a non-periodic system introduces unphysical points at which a field line closes on itself after transversing a number of periods. The existence of such points follows from Brouwer's fixed-point theorem: When any continuous function is mapped from a compact convex set to itself, there is a point ⃗ x 0 such that ⃗ ⃗ f ( x 0 ) = ⃗ x 0 .

Such fixed points are a central element in tearing mode theory in three dimensions. Tearing modes in tokamaks only arise on surfaces on which magnetic field lines close on themselves. Plasmoids are generally viewed as arising from tearing modes [38], but closed magnetic field lines seem unlikely in the extreme in three-dimensional naturally-occurring plasmas though they are present in two-dimensional models. Such tearing modes must be given by a ballooning-mode formulation, such as that discussed

FIG. 4: The Transition Region And Coronal Explorer (TRACE) produced many ultra-violet images of the solar coronal loops during its 1998-2010 mission. The one illustrated is T171 20050908 114211X17. The bright lines are generally thought to trace magnetic field lines, which have length to width ratios L/a ⊥ ∼ 40.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00875v5-figure-8b23dde2-a935-4a79-9acd-481c371c0f1b.jpg)

in 2019 by Zhu et al. [40].

## IX. LARGE-SCALE FLOWS WITH TURBULENCE

Plasmas both natural and laboratory are almost always turbulent. Nevertheless, important physical effects may be determined by the large-scale flow rather than the direct effects of the turbulent eddies associated with these flows. In the theory of chaotic dynamical systems such large scale flows are called L´ evy flights. Large-scale magnetic fields are probably more important in effects, such as the collapse of gas clouds in galaxies to form stars, than fields on the scale of the turbulent eddies.

The two highest Reynolds number fluids with which everyone is familiar are the oceans and the atmosphere. In the atmosphere, large scale prevailing winds, such as the westerlies and easterlies, determine much of the weather and allowed sailing ships to reliably cross the Atlantic. The large scale flow in the Atlantic itself, the Gulf Stream, has a profound effect on weather. The weather in Britain would be different if the turbulent eddies determined the transport of tropical water to its shores.

The explanation of large-scale atmospheric and ocean flows is controversial, but their existence is not. Concern about the effects of global warming on the flows underlies much of the research [41]. Zonal flows [42] are one of these explanations, a theory that was largely developed for application to plasma microturbulence but also to Jupiter's zonal stripes by Diamond and collaborators [43]. Where a plasma has a large scale flow, it is natural to assume the magnetic field does as well; the magnetic field and the plasma flows are related.

It is thought that coronal loops, Figure 4, repre- sent large scale magnetic fields which evolve due to footpoint plasma motion, which is presumably turbulent. The field evolution given in Figure 2 can be interpreted as a simple model for coronal loops. Although the coronal loops are thought to be regions of magnetic field concentration, when the width of the current profile that produces the loop is comparable to its width, the resistive timescale µ a 0 2 ⊥ /η is far longer than the lifetime of the loop.

As discussed in Section IV B and in Section II.D of [44], a length/width ratio of approximately ln( R a ) is to be expected for loops that are produced by chaotic flows. The reason is simple. The distance a flow of speed v can cover before becoming incoherent because of diffusion is L ≈ ( τ ef ln( R a ) v , but τ ef ≈ a ⊥ /v , since the speed at which streamlines can exponentiate apart is limited by the gradient of the flow across the stream lines. Consequently, L/a ⊥ ≈ ln( R a ). A critical L/a ⊥ ratio for reconnection is consistent with the coronal mass ejections discussed by Gou et al. [45]. Ultra-violet images of coronal loops suggest length to width ratios of approximately forty in what are presumptively chaotic magnetic fields, Figure 4.

When it is assumed that turbulent eddies dominate the flow, even at the largest spatial scales, mixing can be greatly slowed. With the same maximum flow speed, mixing due to large scale chaotic flows is far faster than with small scale chaotic flows. The review of fluid turbulence by Falkovich, Gaw¸ edzki, and Vergassola [46] dealt with the separation of fluid elements by turbulent eddies, rather than large scale flows. The turbulent separation obeys a power law in time, not exponential. For this reason, the existence of large scale flows is essential for understanding the speed of mixing over long scales. This result is well known to anyone who has stirred soup in a wide but shallow pot. What is important is to move the soup side to side on the scale of the pot. The creation of many highly localized eddies by a complicated stirring mechanism is not as efficient.

## X. DISCUSSION

The success of a research in building a physics understanding of magnetic reconnection and dynamos depends on the validity of the fundamental assumptions. The theory of magnetic reconnection developed out of two-dimensional models. As explained in Section III, the physics of two-dimensional reconnection has remarkably little relevance to reconnection in three dimensions, which resulted in research being based on a number of false assumptions:

- (1) Neglect of magnetic field line chaos. In two dimensions, a chaotic field-line flow is precluded be-

cause it causes an exponential increase in the magnetic energy. Flows naturally move in the direction of least resistance (meaning back force not electrical resistance). As shown in Equation (38) and the related discussion, in three dimensions, a chaotic field line flow naturally flows in the direction in which the increase in the magnetic energy is only moderate even as the field lines become highly chaotic.

Magnetic field line chaos at a certain level makes reconnection unavoidable, which explains why reconnection is so ubiquitous and places interesting constraints on the time and geometry requirements for reconnection. The natural tendency of magnetic field lines to be chaotic in three dimensional systems is painfully well known to anyone who has built a stellarator plasma confinement device.

With chaos the power dissipated by a magnetic reconnection is negligible compared to the energy released by the breaking of field line connections. The implication is that the released energy must go into plasma motion involving the Alfv´n speed, such e as Alfv´n waves. e In a chaotic region, shear Alfv´n e waves evolve on an Alfv´nic timescale to form cure rent sheets that cause a rapid dissipation [3]. Although these current sheets are distinct from those of two-dimensional reconnection theory, defining reconnection as the fast dissipation of magnetic energy rather than the breaking of field line connections confuses the physics.

When chaos is neglected, the current density required for reconnection and for resistively dissipating the energy released by breaking the magnetic field line connections are comparable, j ∼ vB/η , where v is the evolution speed of the plasma and field. With chaos, the required current density for producing reconnection is only j ∼ B/µ ℓ 0 ef , which is smaller by a factor of R a of Equation (39), often called the magnetic Reynolds number. But, the required current density for resistively dissipating the energy released by the reconnection remains j ∼ vB/η .

- (2) Neglect of magnetic helicity conservation. Although helicity is dissipated by resistivity through the term 2 ∫ ⃗ B · ⃗ d E 3 x , its dissipation is extremely slow compared to the dissipation of magnetic energy, ∫ ⃗ j · ⃗ d E 3 x . Any non-smoothness in the spatial dependence of the magnetic field increases the speed of energy dissipation compared to helicity dissipation. The more turbulent the plasma the better helicity is conserved relative to magnetic energy. The magnetic energy quickly relaxes to Woltjer's minimum value [6] that is consistent with its helicity content.

Magnetic dynamos would be easier to explain if turbulence created helicity. Turbulence cannot without placing an enormous drag force on the plasma flow for a given rate of helicity creation-the shorter the spatial scale of the turbulence the stronger is this effect. Helicity conservation does not preclude dynamos since they can be produced by helicity transport.

The accumulation of helicity due to its conservation provides an explanation for coronal mass ejections. Twisting of footpoints of coronal loops adds helicity that cannot be dissipated or removed by reconnection. When the helicity becomes sufficiently large, the associated magnetic energy and force become too great to be coupled to regions dominated by gravity, and ejection is the natural consequence.

Not all faulty assumptions come from intuition based on two-dimensional analysis. Three common assumptions are also false in two-dimensional reconnection:

̸

- (1) Neglect of the distinction between the plasma and the field line velocity. This distinction is required to demonstrate that reconnection is given by E = 0, where E is the difference between E || and -∂ Φ( ⃗ x ) /∂ℓ with Φ a single-valued potential and ℓ the distance along a field line. The plasma velocity ⃗ v is directly affected by η ⊥ ⊥ ⃗ j and the Hall term in Ohm's law, but the magnetic field line velocity ⃗ u ⊥ is not.
- (2) Neglect of the virial theorem. The virial theorem derived by Chandrasekhar and Fermi [8] shows that magnetic field configurations that are not adequately coupled to regions with strong gravitational attraction or rigid coils will disassemble on an Alfv´nic timescale. e
- (3) Neglect of the point-like intersection of general flux tubes. When two flux tubes first collide they do so only at points unless they have two symmetry directions.

When understood, simple physics and mathematics considerations clarify magnetic reconnection and dynamos over a broad range of natural and laboratory plasmas-whether turbulent or not. With these insights, numerical simulations could greatly enhance our understanding. The prejudices acquired from the theory of magnetic reconnection in two-dimensional systems need to be overcome while studying problems in which all three spatial coordinates are of importance.

The physics arguments in this paper are of continuing importance but are often ignored rather than disputed. A major 2023 review of solar dynamos by Charbonneau and Sokoloff [17] invokes resistive helicity dissipation at small scales to restore the α effect but did not explain how small scale flows would invalidate helicity conservation. The 2025 article by Muraglia, Agullo, Dubuit, Bigu´ e, and Garbet [47] on reconnection in toroidal plasmas emphasized re-

sistive tearing modes and ignored chaos. Jardin et al. [48] found that chaos allowed ideal instabilities that do not self-saturate to result in an extremely fast reconnection that is independent of the plasma resistivity.

## Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences under Award DE-FG02-95ER54333. The numerous questions of the referees helped me make this importance of this paper clearer.

## Author Declarations

The author has no conflicts to disclose.

## Data availability statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

## Appendix A: Virial Theorem

The virial theorem is a general constraint on force balance in mechanical systems. The virial theorem including magnetic fields was derived in 1953 by S. Chandrasekhar and E. Fermi [8]. It is rarely derived or even mentioned in plasma texts, an exception is page 72 of G. Schmidt's book [49].

Let d⃗ x/dt = ⃗ v ( x, t ) be the mass flow velocity of a plasma. The moment of inertia of a plasma within a region of space is

$$I \, \equiv \, \int \rho _ { m } | \vec { x } | ^ { 2 } d ^ { 3 } x \, \quad \quad ( \mathbf A 1 ) \quad \text{su} _ {. }$$

$$= \, \sum _ { i } m _ { i } | \vec { x } _ { i } | ^ { 2 }, \, \quad \quad ( \text{A2} )$$

when the volume is divided into many cells each containing a mass of plasma m i . The second time derivative of the moment of inertia is

$$\frac { d ^ { 2 } I } { d t ^ { 2 } } \ = \ 2 \sum _ { i } m _ { i } | \vec { v } _ { i } | ^ { 2 } + 2 \sum _ { i } m _ { i } \vec { x } _ { i } \cdot \frac { d \vec { v } _ { i } } { d t } \quad \ ( A 3 ) \quad \text{assen}$$

[1] H. Ji , J. Karpen , and co-authors, 'White paper for heliophysics 2050: Major scientific challenges and

$$= \, 2 \, \int \rho _ { m } | \vec { v } | ^ { 2 } d ^ { 3 } x + 2 \, \int \vec { x } \cdot \vec { F } d ^ { 3 } x, \text{ where } ( \text{A4} )$$

$$\underset { \substack { \rho \\ \overline { d t } \\ \text{The force converted on a nlsma is} } } { \rho } \frac { d \vec { v } } { d t } = \vec { F }.$$

The force exerted on a plasma is

$$\vec { F } \ = \ - \vec { \nabla } \cdot ( \overleftrightarrow { p } + \stackrel { \leftrightarrow } { T } ) + \vec { F } _ { a } ; \quad \ ( \text{A6} )$$

$$\stackrel { \leftrightarrow } { T } = \, \frac { B ^ { 2 } } { 2 \mu } \stackrel { \leftrightarrow } { 1 } - \frac { \vec { B } \vec { B } } { \mu _ { 0 } } \text{ where } \quad \text{ (A7)}$$

$$\vec { \nabla } \cdot \vec { T } \, = \, \frac { \dot { \vec { \nabla } } \times \vec { B } } { \mu _ { 0 } } \times \vec { B }.$$

⃗ F a is any additional force that is not thermal or magnetic; p ↔ is the plasma pressure tensor, which includes viscous forces.

$$\text{includes viscous forces.} \\ \int \vec { x } \cdot ( \vec { \nabla } \cdot ( \vec { p } + \vec { T } ) ) d ^ { 3 } x \, & = \, - \int \vec { 1 } \colon ( \vec { p } + \vec { T } ) d ^ { 3 } x \\ & \quad + \int \vec { \nabla } \cdot ( \vec { x } \cdot ( \vec { p } + \vec { T } ) d ^ { 3 } x \\ & = \, - 3 p - \frac { B ^ { 2 } } { 2 \mu _ { 0 } } \\ & \quad + \oint \vec { x } \cdot ( \vec { p } + \vec { T } ) ) \cdot d \vec { a } ( A 9 ) \\ \nu$$

$$\vec { i } ( A 9 )$$

$$\frac { 1 } { 2 } \frac { d ^ { 2 } I } { d t ^ { 2 } } \ = \ 2 U _ { K E } + 2 U _ { t h } + U _ { B } + \int \vec { x } \cdot \vec { F } _ { a } d ^ { 3 } x$$

$$- 2 \oint \vec { x } \cdot ( \overleftrightarrow { p } + \overleftarrow { T } ) ) \cdot d \vec { a } ; \text{ \quad \ \ } ( A 1 0 )$$

$$U _ { K E } \, \equiv \, \frac { 1 } { 2 } \int \rho | \vec { v } | ^ { 2 } d ^ { 3 } x ; \, \quad \quad ( A 1 1 )$$

$$U _ { t h } \, \equiv \, \frac { 3 } { 2 } \overset { \mu } { \int } p d ^ { 3 } x ;$$

$$U _ { B } \, \equiv \, \frac { \stackrel { \cdot } { 1 } } { 2 \mu _ { 0 } } \int B ^ { 2 } d ^ { 3 } x.$$

An autonomous magnetic field structure can be surrounded by a surface on which the field is zero, which implies

$$\frac { 1 } { 2 } \frac { d ^ { 2 } I } { d t ^ { 2 } } = 2 U _ { K E } + U _ { B }. \quad \quad ( A 1 4 )$$

Since the terms on the right-hand side of this equation are positive, the moment of inertia satisfies d I/dt 2 2 &gt; 0, and the magnetic structure must disassemble on an Alfv´nic timescale. e

- tion and related explosive phenomena in solar and heliospheric plasmas,' arXiv:2009.08779 (2020).
- [2] A. Lazarian, G. L. Eyink, A. Jafari, G. Kowal, H. Li, S. Xu, and E. T. Vishniac, 3D turbulent reconnection: Theory, tests, and astrophysical implications , Phys. Plasmas 27 , 012305 (2020).
- [3] A. H. Boozer, Magnetic field evolution and reconnection in low resistivity plasmas , Phys. Plasmas 30 , 062113 (2023).
- [4] H. Aref, Stirring by chaotic advection , Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 143 , 1 (1984).
- [5] H. Aref, The development of chaotic advection , Phys. Fluids 14 1315 (2002).
- [6] L. A. Woltjer, Theorem on force-free magnetic fields , Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 44 , 489 (1958).
- [7] E. Nardon, K. S¨rkim¨ki, F.J. Artola, S. Sadouni, a a the JOREK team, and JET Contributors, On the origin of the plasma current spike during a tokamak disruption and its relation with magnetic stochasticity, Nucl. Fusion 63, 056011 (2023).
- [8] S. Chandrasekhar and E. Fermi, Problems of Gravitational Stability in the Presence of a Magnetic Field , ApJ 118 , 116 (1953).
- [9] A. H. Boozer, Physics of magnetically confined plasmas , Rev. Mod. Phys. 76 , 1071 (2004).
- [10] K. Krause and K.-H. R¨dler, a Mean-field magnetohydordynamics and dynamo theory , Pergsmon Press, Oxford, 1980, ISBN: 978008025041.
- [11] A. H. Boozer, Ohm's Law for mean magnetic fields , J. Plasma Physics 35 , 133 (1986).
- [12] A. Bhattacharjee and Y. Yuan, Self-Consistency Constraints on the Dynamo Mechanism , ApJ. 449 , 739 (1995).
- [13] H. Ji, Turbulent dynamos and magnetic helicity , Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 , 3198 (1999).
- [14] A. H. Boozer, Magnetic helicity and dynamos , Phys. Fluids B 5, 2271 (1993).
- [15] A. H. Boozer and T. Elder, Example of exponentially enhanced magnetic reconnection driven by a spatially bounded and laminar ideal flow , Phys. Plasmas 28 , 062303 (2021).
- [16] F. Rincon, Dynamo theories , J.Plasma Phys. 85 , 205850401 (2019).
- [17] P. Charbonneau and D. Sokoloff, Evolution of Solar and Stellar Dynamo Theory , Space Science Reviews (2023) 219 , 35 (2023).
- [18] M. Ossendrijver, The solar dynamo , Astron Astrophys Rev (2003) 11 , 287 (2003).
- [19] G. L. Eyink, Stochastic flux freezing and magnetic dynamo , Phys. Rev. E 83 , 056405 (2011).
- [20] E. T. Vishniac and D. Shapovalov, Properties of magnetic helicity flux in turbulent dyanmos , ApJ. 780 , 144 (2014).
- [21] A. Brandenburg and A. Banerjee, Turbulent magnetic decay controlled by two conserved quantities , J. Plasma Phys. ( 91 , E5 (2025).
- [22] D. N. Hosking and A. A. Schekochihin, Reconnection-controlled decay of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence and the role of invariants , Phys. Rev. X 11 , 041005 (2021).
- [23] W. A. Newcomb, Motion of magnetic lines of force ,
- Ann. Phys. 3 , 347 (1958).
- [24] W. M. Elsasser, Hydromagnetic Dynamo Theory , Rev. Mod. Phys. 28 , 135 (1956).
- [25] M. A. Berger, Rigorous new limits on magnetic helicity dissipation in the solar corona , Geophys. and Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 30 79 (1984).
- [26] J. B. Taylor, Relaxation of toroidal plasma and generation of reversed magnetic fields , Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 , 1139 (1974).
- [27] A. H. Boozer, Magnetic surface loss and electron runaway Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 61 024002 (2019).
- [28] J. Heyvaerts and E. R. Priest, Coronal heating by phase mixed shear Alfv´n waves e , Astron. Astrophys. 117 , 220 (1983).
- [29] P.L. Similon and R. N. Sudan, Energy-dissipation of Alfv´n-wave packets deformed by irregular magnetice fields in solar-coronal arches , Ap. J. 336 , 442 (1989).
- [30] A. H. Boozer, Magnetic reconnection in nontoroidal plasmas , Phys. Plasmas 12 , 070706 (2005).
- [31] A. Lazarian, Damping ot Alfv´n waves by turbulence e and its consequences: from cosmic-ray streaming to launching winds , ApJ 833 ,131 (2016).
- [32] A. H. Boozer, Magnetic reconnection and thermal equilibration , Phys. Plasmas 28 , 032102 (2021).
- [33] T. Li, E. Priest, and R. Guo, Three-dimensional magnetic reconnection in astrophysical plasmas , Proc. R. Soc. A477 , 20200949 (2021).
- [34] T. Elder and A. H. Boozer, Magnetic nulls in interacting dipolar fields , J. Plasma Phys. 87 , 905870225 (2021).
- [35] D. I. Pontin; A. Bhattacharjee; K. Galsgaard, Current sheet formation and nonideal behavior at threedimensional magnetic null points , Phys. Plasmas 14 , 052106 (2007).
- [36] A. H. Boozer, Separation of magnetic field lines , Phys. Plasmas 19 , 112901 (2012).
- [37] Y.-M. Huang and A. Bhattacharjee, Do chaotic field lines cause fast reconnection in coronal loops? , Phys. Plasmas 29 , 122902 (2022).
- [38] N. F. Loureiro, A. A. Schekochihin, and S. C. Cowley, Instability of current sheets and formation of plasmoid chains , Phys. Plasmas 14 , 100703 (2007).
- [39] Y.-M. Huang, L. Comisso, A. Bhattacharjee Scalings pertaining to current sheet disruption mediated by the plasmoid instability , Phys. Plasmas 26 , 092112 (2019).
- [40] P. Zhu, Z. Wang, J. Chen, X, Yan, and R. Liu, Quasi-separatrix layers induced by ballooning instability in the near-Earth magnetotail , Ann. Geophys. 37 , 325 (2019).
- [41] J. R. Toggweiler, Shifting Westerlies , Science 323 , 1434 (2019).
- [42] K. Srinivasan and W. R. Young, Zonostrophic Instability , JAS, 69 , 1633 (2012).
- [43] P. H. Diamond, S.-I. Itoh, K. Itoh, and T. S. Hahm, Zonal flows in plasmas: A review , Plasma Phys. Contr. Fusion, 47 , R35 (2005).
- [44] A. H. Boozer, Magnetic reconnection with null and X-points , Phys. Plasmas 26 , 122902 (2019).

- [45] T. Gou, R. Liu, B. Kliem, Y. Wang, and A. M. Veronig, The birth of a coronal mass ejection , Sci. Adv. 5 , eaau7004 (2019).
- [46] G. Falkovich, K. Gaw¸ edzki, and M. Vergassola, Particles and fields in fluid turbulence , Rev. Mod. Phys. 73 , 913 (2001).
- [47] M. Muraglia, O. Agullo, N. Dubuit, R. Bigu´, and e Xavier Garbet, Multi-scale physics of magnetic reconnection in hot magnetized plasmas , J. Plas. Phys.
- 91 , E19 (2025).
- [48] S. C. Jardin, N. M. Ferraro, W. Guttenfelder, S. M. Kaye, and S. Munaretto, Ideal MHD Limited Electron Temperature in Spherical Tokamaks , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 , 245001 (2022).
- [49] George Schmidt, Physics of High Temperature Plasmas (Academic Press, New York, second edition, 1979).
Allen H Boozer
Magnetic reconnection and dynamos in the presence of plasma turbulence
Evolving magnetic fields are frequently embedded in plasmas that are
turbulent. When the primary interest is in effects that are on a large scale
compared to that of the turbulence, it is desirable to average over the
turbulence to obtain equations for mean-field magnetohydrodynamics. An obvious
constraint on the validity of the averaging is that large-scale quantities that
evolve slowly using the exact evolution equations must remain slowly evolving
in the mean-field theory. Magnetic helicity is the primary example of such a
quantity and maintaining its slow evolution has been controversial in
mean-field magnetohydrodynamics. A full theory of magnetic reconnection in
turbulent plasmas is not the intent of this paper. What is the intent is to
show how exact results from Maxwell's equations explain why fast reconnection
is so ubiquitous and what constraints these results place on the theory of
magnetic field evolution, including dynamos, whether the plasma is turbulent or
not. These constraints are commonly broken in the reconnection literature,
which has been heavily influenced by two-dimensional theory that is not
applicable to three-dimensional problems.