As you have chosen to post this in the "Electric Universe" thread of the ATM section of BAUT, upriver, I presume that you intend to make use of this paper in some way to continue to make the 'electric universe' case. Am I right?

If so, then what is the case that you wish to make? Specifically, which (non-mainstream) aspect of the EU idea?

Maybe not a specific case, but a general case, as EU proponents have made abundantly clear, you need electric fields to generate magnetic fields which is not always recognised in the literature. The EU claims that electric fields (charge separation) is ubiquitous in the Universe acting as a prime mover and not the consequence of hidden dynamo action or turbulence/shocks. The big question is, "where/how are those fields are generated". It seems from the article Upriver linked to, the electric fields need to be present along the whole jet, which begs the question how these fields can be stable over the distance of the jet without invoking large scale currents, (Birkeland currents) as proposed by Alfven&co.

Cheers.

Cheers.

I guess one of the questions that have to be answered is where does the electricity come from to power that galaxy, to put it bluntly.

It clearly comes from the center of the galaxy at the galactic core.
I dont believe that is a blackhole at the center when the paper clearly indicates a continuous flow of protons and neutrons OUTWARD.


"A Persistent High-Energy Flux from the Heart of the Milky Way : Integral's view of the Galactic Center"
"These observations lend crucial support to the idea that acceleration of particles to very high energies is taking place at the gc (Crocker et al. 2005). Furthermore, all of them agree on the apparent absence of variability from the central source. "
http://clusterlaunch.esa.int/science...bjectid=37891#

"The matter content of the jet in M87: evidence for an electron-positron jet."
"Our results strongly suggest the jet to be dominated by an electron-positron (pair) plasma. Although our conservative constraints cannot conclusively dismiss an electron-proton plasma, the viability of this solution is extremely vulnerable to further tightening of VLBI surface brightness limits."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...ML&format=

And as you can see they have traced the Birkland currents back to the center of the galaxies.

"NASA's Chandra finds black holes stirring up galaxies."
"We found the distribution of hot gas has no correlation with the optical shape," Diehl said. "Something is definitely making a mess there, and pumping energy equivalent to a supernova every century into the gas."

Although supernovae are a possible energy source, a more probable cause was identified. The scientists detected a correlation between the shape of the hot gas clouds and the power produced at radio wavelengths by high-energy electrons. This power output can be traced back to the centers of the galaxies, where super-massive black holes are located. "
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n...ndrablackhole/


Duh.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Magnetic Slinky in Space (12 Jan 2005 Universe Today News Item) | Original Press Release

This is the strongest evidence I've seen for a cosmic Birkeland current.

Although the authors write "The findings provide the first evidence of the magnetic field structure around a filamentary-shaped interstellar cloud", evidence has been provided before, see:

• Birkeland currents (article on Wikipedia together with references)
• The Evidence For Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma, (PDF, 1990) A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 18, p.26
• Seeing Circuits (2) (on Thunderbolts.info)
• Force-Free magnetic fields and the production of Filaments (p.498pp) in "Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars", Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509.

Strange that there is no mention of electric currents, that must be present in the plasma in the "gas" cloud.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Very interesting
Yes, electricity and magnetism go together, except in astronomy it would seem. Funny.

All aboard the EU train. Its like they have been reading some of my threads...:-)


"Space probes detect enormous magnetic reconnection event"
Understanding magnetic reconnection is fundamental to comprehending explosive phenomena throughout the universe, such as solar flares (billion-megaton explosions in the sun's atmosphere), gamma-ray bursts (intense bursts of radiation from exotic stars) and laboratory nuclear fusion. Just as a rubber band can suddenly snap when pulled too far, magnetic reconnection is a natural process by which the energy in a stressed magnetic field is suddenly released when it changes shape, accelerating particles (ions and electrons).

During an estimated two-and-a-half hour time span, all spacecraft observed in sequence a single huge stream of jetting particles, at least 1.5 million miles (or nearly 200 Earth diameters) wide, caused by the largest reconnection event ever measured directly."
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0601/12magnetic/


Also known as a pinch(x or z). It seems as though the electric universe z-pinch model is on the right track. No dense or strange matter needed.
If you look at the picture on the reconnection event, you will see that it is the same configuration as a "blackhole" because thats what a blackhole is!!!! Just larger.


To learn about the pinch.

"Review of the recent controlled experiments for study of local reconnection physics."
"The present paper reviews the recent laboratory experiments on magnetic reconnection focussing on the local features of the reconnection region. It is very important to recognize that magnetohydrodynamics(MHD)often breaks down locally in the thin reconnection layer, while globally, the reconnecting plasma has large Lundquist number and is well approximated by MHD equations."
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/E...6/53060509.pdf

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

It seems very clear that Dr. Kristian Birkeland was at least 100 years ahead of his time. He not only experimented with and put forth the correct model of the sun, he also defined astronomy on a macro level that we are only now beginning to understand. When you see these coiled fields around these "circuits" in space, it's really hard not to recognize the electric nature of our universe. In fact it takes quite a bit of effort to do so.

They say that seeing is believing, but do we believe what we see, or see what we believe? Unfortunately, our beliefs can act like filters, and warp our vision.

Astronomy was shaped, for the most part, back when very little was known about electricity. It is a reluctance to recognise phenomena that scream EM that leads to wild speculations such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which people discuss on this very board as if they were almost beyond question.

Serious posters I've seen discuss Dark Matter and Dark Energy always say something to the effect of "we don't know yet." That doesn't sound to me like they're asuming that they are "beyond question." The asumtion on this thread seems to be that EM is beyond question. I don't like spinning an argument back on yourself, but your entire last argument, Sparky56, could be pointed at any group (fringe or mainstream.)
I've seen many EU threads over the year or two I've been here and I'm still waiting on the "mass exodus from the big bang" to begin, to quote a different thread...

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

I think you'll be waiting for quite awhile on that particular issue. The "accepted" ideas of astronomy are often put forth in today's classrooms as "truth" as though these theories have already been explained and have been verified and "proven". In reality however astronomy as a science is nothing like other "hands on" areas of science where we can touch and test everything up close and personal.

The electrical nature of our universe was obvious to Birkeland 100 years ago, and it's obvious to me as well at this point. I can see the electrical arcs traversing the surface of our own sun. I can see the sun interact electrically with the universe itself. I can see the affect of these currents in the Northern Lights. I can see all sorts of areas of plasma cosmology that go MUCH further in explaining the "sturctures" we see in space.

What is frustrating however is that astronomers tend to ignore a lot of the complications of astronomy when they try to calculate things like solar density. For instance their is no mention in solar density calculations of majority of the the presumed mass of our universe that is found in "dark energy". They make absolutely no allowance for Birkeland currents or electromagnetic interactions between bodies for that matter.

IMO, we're sitting on the cusp of great change as it relates to astronomy. Today the technologies we have created to help us study the universe are returning images that are simply not consistent with any of our preconcieved ideas about how the universe functions. It is only a matter of time before we start believing what we are seeing, but myths tend to "die hard", and ridicule and peer pressure is typically used to "hold on" to ideas that don't work anymore.

Change will occur, but change takes time. Only in the last 20 years have we starting putting up satellites that might help answer some of these fundamental questions, and only in the past 15 years have we started to accumulate the data that might help us understand how the universe really works.

If they are smart, that's exactly what they are doing. I for one have very much appreciated the information you've posted here, and I try to read every link you provide.

Astronomers may not look for birkland currents and electromagnetic interactions, but us space physicists do.

No one has ever seen the sun electrically interact with the rest of the galaxy. We are starting to get an idea of the magnetic interactions cause a few probes are getting out towards the heliopause. The Earth sun interaction is well known also. There is no electric interaction, only magnetic, as the two fields interact. Calling the solar wind a current is wrong, it is overall electrically neutral. We would see the effect of a charge buildup if it wasnt.

Dark matter isnt taken into account in solar models because they work, and the total effect of dark matter is very minimal on a solar scale. There may be a time when the solar measurements will show what the effect of dark matter is (and come to think of it, there may be someone looking for it, it would make a good paper) but the total effect once known would be very small. Consider the size and mass of the galactic halo compared to the size and mass of the sun.

How are these ideas incorporated into concepts like solar density? How are concepts like dark energy incorporated in concepts like solar density? The problem here is that SOME ideas are "looked at", but few if any of these ideas make they way into contemporary calculations.

I have. Any of the solar satellite observations we might make demonstrate this interaction IMO.

It is electricity and the flow of electricity that create these magnetic fields in the first place.

What are the Northern Lights in your opinion?

You mean if we ignore 90% of the mass of the universe and/or any sense of electromagnetic interaction then the results *FIT* with *EXPECTATION*. Therefore they "work".

How do you know that? What exactly is dark matter anyway, and how is it different from "normal" matter?

I guess I simply don't share your optimism that the affect will be minimal. If dark matter/energy make up most of the mass of the universe, then it makes little logical sense to me to believe that the affect will be "minimal".

I think it depends on whether you know where to look. A typical plasma ball contains electrically neutral plasma, yet electric current filaments readily flow. See also:

• The heliospheric current sheet (and hence the heliospheric current circuit)?
• The Evidence For Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma, (PDF) A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 18, p.26 (1990)
• Are Electric Currents Heating the Magnetic Chromosphere? (2005) Socas-Navarro, H.
• Electric currents in the solar wind (1975) Coleman, P. J., Jr.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

When a bird sits on a high voltage wire, it says that the wire is electrically neutral. But if it could grab the other wire too, I dont think it would say that.

Your perspective changes the context.


Forget about dark stuff.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Upriver raises the best points I have yet to see.

A few more references regarding the Magnetic Slinky in Space (12 Jan 2005) Universe Today News Item | Original Press Release.

• Manifestations of electric currents in interstellar molecular clouds (1991) Carlqvist, P.; Gahm, G. F.
• Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula (2002) Carlqvist, P.; Gahm, G. F.; Kristen, H. Based on "Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk" (1998) (In full)

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Aye. This argument is simple, yet powerful.

Excellent research links from I Tresman. Great stuff.

You might consider it so...I remain unconvinced.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

The bird would say that both wires oscillate between a state with positive charge and state with negative charge.
The average charge, however, is still zero, so the bird would say that both wires are electrically neutral, on the average.

Anyway, what does this have to do with the solar wind?
If you want to present an analogy, you should put some effort into explaining how the analogy actually applies to the issue.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

An overall electrically neutral conductor can carry a current.
So, the solar wind can be electrically neutral on the average and still carry currents.


Let me point out "results from the influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium".
How does this link disprove the fact that the Solar Wind is electrically neutral?
(See Hall effect: an electrically neutral conductor carrying a current in a magnetic field, shows a separation of positive and negative charges.)


Peratt's paper has been discussed before, and it aims towards plasma on galactic lengthscales.
What does it have to do with Solar Wind?


From the abstract: Again, how does this paper disprove the fact that the Solar Wind is electrically neutral?


From the abstract: Again, a plasma in a magnetic field.


So, iantresman, does any of your links contradict what korjik said?
(Emphasis mine)

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I don' think there is any dispute that the Solar Wind is neutral. But korjik wrote that there is "no electric interaction, only magnetic". And my references show that the heliospheric current sheet, in the Solar Wind, is electrical.

And electric circuits have corresponding magnetic fields (and vice versa). Magnetic fields are important, but as Alfvén write in Cosmic Plasma (1981):

... there are also a number of phenomena which cannot be treated in this way, but which require an approach in which the electric current is taken account of explicitly. [..]

For example, when we treat waves propagating through a plasma, they are certainly associated with electric currents, but in many cases we can regard a current implicitly as the curl of the magnetic field and ignore it . However, in doing so we lose the particle aspect of the current; in other words, we neglect the fact that an electric current in space consists of motion of charged particles which have a certain mass, charge, and velocity, and which can often be considered as constituents of a gas with a certain temperature .
(Emphasis in original)

In otherwords, there is an electromagnetic interaction, not just a magnetic interaction.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Let me point out "the Earth-Sun interaction".
As far as I understand, he was not making a general assertion about the Solar Wind.

So, what did you mean, when you opened your post with "I think it depends on whether you know where to look."?


The same reference that says: "The shape of the current sheet results from the influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium (Solar Wind)" ?
Or the one that says: "Some properties are examined of the electric currents that would be produced in the solar wind if the sun's magnetic field were a centered dipole with the axis of the dipole at an angle to the spin axis of the sun." ?
(The other references do not deal with heliospheric current sheets.)
How is it electrical, if it is the result of the magnetic field acting on the charged particles of the Solar Wind?


Nobody says that it is not an electromagnetic interaction, but the term "electric interaction" is usually associated with a Coulomb interaction.
And the quote from Alfven says nothing about an electrical interaction of the Sun with the rest of the Universe: it merely points out that the Solar Wind is made of charged particles.

Now, can you explain what were you trying to say with those references in response to korjik's post?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

One must remember that the fans of the "Electric Universe" suffer from a consistent bias. They believe that astrophysicists & cosmologists ignore the effect of electric currents, and wrongly assume that magnetic fields dominate in situations where, in reality the electric field dominates. In this view, "electric currents" are not charge-neutral, but charge specific, streams purely made of electrons or protons. They also make the extreme assertion that astrophysicists & cosmologists do not study plasma physics, and are therefore unaware of its true role in astrophysics & cosmology

There is a great deal of good reason to reject this point of view, much of it scattered around in the 50-some-odd pages that already constitute this thread. Indeed, the common assertion that astrophysicists & cosmologists are simply ignorant when it comes to plasma physics is about as wrong as it is possible to be.

The truth is that there are no substantive arguments to be made in favor of an electric universe cosmology. So to avoid making it too obvious (as if it were not obvious anyway), we are constantly peppered, throughout this long thread, with reference after reference to any paper which indicates that "electricity" or "electric fields" are important in astrophysical investigation. Of course, this immediately negates the complaint that astrophysicists ignore plasma physics, or don't understand it, since all those papers would not exist if the asertion were true.

The real fundamental issue that is ignored with great care is that the kind of pure electric currents, which are assumed to exist by electric universers, require an enormous input of energy to seperate the charges so they can then flow in pure charge carrier currents. That energy is to be found where? The claim that the universe started out that way, with charges separated, is hard to reconcile with the "fact" (according to the electric universers) that the charges are still separated. The recombination of oppositely charged particles is one of the fastest physical processes around, which is why it is usually explosive.

If this thread is ever going to go anywhere (and so far it has gone nowhere for over 50 pages), we need to get over this mindless notion that somehow plasma physics & electromagnetism are under appreciated by mainstream scientists. It's a pure fantasy, and nothing more. Someday, somewhere, somehow, somebody is going to mention where the charge separation comes from, and why it is still here.

I have my own bias: Always look to fundamentals, everything flows from them. Time varying magnetic fields will generate time varying electric fields, and those electric fields will drive charge seperation, but only to the extent that the fields are strong enough. Time varying magnetic fields are generated by the flow of charged particles, but the flow can be charge neutral, and does not have to be made of non-neutral currents. A fast, dense flow of charge-neutral gas will generate strong magnetic fields. All of this is simple, standard, fundamental physics. It is easily sufficient to explain the vast majority of observed phenomena.

So that leaves us with the unanswered, and as far as I can tell, as yet unapproached question: Why should the common & probable physics of the mainstream be abandoned in favor of the uncommon & improbable physics of the "electric universe"? And, of course, there is the obvious next question: What observations can we make with today's technology, which will conclusively determine the validity or falsity of the "electric universe" hypothesis? I would surely like to see answers. After 50 pages of talking it would be a refreshing change of pace.

A footnote on the matter of assumptions
I emphasize that all of the fundamental ingredients of the electric universe are assumed to exist, but remain tantalizigly unobserved. As "mainstreamers", we are constantly beat-up by ATMers over anything that is perceived to be an "assumption". Well, that should cut both ways. If we are to be characterized as lazy or foolish because we make "assumptions", I see no reason to avoid turning the point around. ATMers in general, and in this case, electric universers specifically, should be called to account for their own "assumptions" and be asked to justify them, just as we are. So where does the assumption come from, that all of these unseen currents are flowing around out there?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

If that's the case, my mistake, and I stand corrected

Just that. As an approximation, electric currents are excluded from magnetodynamics, and this is acceptable in many situations. Alfvén wrote that it is not applicable for all situations, especial tenuous cosmic plasmas.

So perhaps this is the cause of the misunderstanding. In Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma, he merely writes that this involves the displacement current (which can usually be neglected). However, I class of plasma phenomenon should be dscribed by the current description, that includes: (a) double layers (b) energy transfer from one region to another (c) current sheet discontinuities (d) cellular structure of space (e) magnetic sub-storms, solar flares.

Have a look at Alfvén's description of the heliospheric current system his paper "Double radio sources and the new approach to cosmical plasma physics" (Section 5 p.283) and extrapolation to an intergalactic current ciruit (p.286).

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Let's have a look at the context, again:
The link about magnetohydrodynamics in Wikipedia you gave above, says "The solar wind is also governed by MHD."
How does your response and Alfven's quote apply to korjik's post?



Maybe not:
So, how does "magnetic field acting on the charged particles" become "electrical"?



Since that link from Alfven says that there is a closed circuit starting and ending in the Sun, how exactly does it show that the Sun interacts electrically with the rest of the Universe?
By closing the circuit, you stop the Sun from getting a net charge, and maybe produce a magnetic field (and it does not look like it gets even an electric dipole moment).
Now, does the new reference you gave change the fact that the first quote from Alfven does not deal with the electrical interaction of the Sun with the rest of the Universe?


EDIT to fix quote attribution.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

When there is a differential between the movement of electrons and protons. As you may be aware, there are several different kinds of drift [see Guiding Center], and all but the electric field drift result in electric currents.

Let me just say that I do not dispute, nor underestimate the contribution of magnetic fields. But as Hannes Alfvén and his colleague Per Calqvist write:

"A direct transfer of energy from photospheric activity to the solar wind by means of elecric currents is discussed [..] A model of a magnetized plasma can be based on a magnetic field description and an electric current description." -- Energy source of the solar wind (1979, in full).

Now if that does not mean "electrical", then our understanding of the term is different, and I stand corrected.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

This does not answer my question, and you get the same result with the Hall effect (yet this is not considered a purely electrical effect).


You said: The references you provided that are relevant to this point (two out of four), clearly state that the heliospheric current sheet is the result of a magnetic field acting on the particles of the Solar Wind.
Why do you call it "electrical"? It is time to be specific.


Nor does "mainstream" astronomy or physics.

Explain specifically how that reference is relevant to your statment that "the heliospheric current sheet, in the Solar Wind, is electrical".
Does it show that the the current in the sheet is driven by an electric field throughout the Solar System?
Or does it show that the charged particles in the Solar Wind are deviated by the Sun's magnetic field into forming the heliospheric sheet?

And you still have not addressed my other questions:
Posting links to references is not enough: you have to explain specifically how they apply to the points discussed.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Things that are impossible, from
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...impossible.htm

The Big Bang:

"Because the Big Bang theory postulates that all matter originated in the granddaddy of all black holes, to pull the matter out and to separate it into distributed bits would require more energy than exists in the universe. The universe as we observe it can’t really exist.

“But,” the argument goes, “the theory doesn’t begin with the black hole. It begins with the observation that mass is already distributed, and it calculates back to the black hole. We don’t know what blew up the black hole; we only see the result.”

The Electric Universe:

“The theories of the plasma universe don’t begin with neutral matter. They begin with the observation that charges are already separated. All the phenomena we see are visible because they radiate the energy that’s released as separated charges combine. We observe that they obey the laws of electrical circuits in plasma: formation of filaments, cells, and double layers; evolution through the characteristic sequence of instabilities as charges move toward equilibrium; coupling of larger-scale circuits to smaller-scale circuits. We don’t know where the largest-scale circuit gets its power; we don’t know why 99% of the universe is composed of separated charges; we only see the result.”

Unavoidable conclusion:

The moral of this game? You really can’t get assumption-free explanations.

Talk about Pot and Kettle.

May I remind you -- and this really shouldn't be necessary if you read these pages -- that Dark Matter and Dark Energy 'remain tantalizigly unobserved'!

In fact, as Jim Peebles, the Princeton Cosmologist, says: "It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the Universe remain hypothetical!"