The Veil Nebula

Are any of those filaments spinning, like a vortex?

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer

sounds more like a Q&A than an ATM statement?, whats the angle?

The mainstream position is quoted above: the filaments are sheets seen edgewise.

Rather than presenting this as overtly ATM--They are vortexes, like jet contrails, not sheets; the mainstream has it all wrong --I'm just questioning the mainstream view.

So it could go in Q&A...but it's kinda ATM. Jet contrails do spin, but it is very hard to see. Some filaments in some SN remnents look like jet-contrails/vortexes, and I'm just wondering if they could be what they look like?

They certainly could be sheets seen edgewise, but this seems like just an assumption. Rapid fluid motion does tend to create vortexes, and it seems the filaments could just as easily be spinning vortexes.

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer

Well, of course rotation in the universe is ubiquitous and there may well be rotation in the filaments, but that would be more like the whole nebula rotating, as the rotation comes from the parent star.

Now, about the "seeing side on" thingy. This is not just an assumption, but rather a well known phenomenon of observing emitting gasses. When you look at a sheet "up front" then there is only very little matter in your field of view which can emit towards you. If you look at a sheet "edge on" then you will have much more gass that can emit towards you.

A nice example in the solar system is the Io torus. In a paper of mine Volwerk, 1997, Systems III and IV modulation of the Io phase effect in the Io plasma torus. JGR 102, Issue A11, p. 24403-24410 I show that the same thing happens in the Io torus and that certain brightness effects are because of the viewing angle of the torus. (Oy! I see that it has been cited a poorly 2 times).

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

I know a sheet will look like a string when seen edge-on, "a well known phenomenon of observing emitting gasses." But that does not mean something that looks like a string is a sheet.

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer

Hi Tusenfem,

Is the term "gas" the correct one here?

'cos my unedgeumacted lern'n tells me it's a plasma!

Wrong or right?

Peter W wrote: And if they are not "sheets" seen edge on, then they must be tubular, aka Birkeland currents! electrified "gas" being pinched into long tubular "stringy things"

Because "mainstream" astronomers are still a little undecieded on what these are, LINK


"filaments, balls, and stringy things"

So I believe that they, edge on "gases" do in fact spin! 'cos thats what electric current moving thru a plasma do, simple!

wrong and right. indeed it is a plasma, but the same process also works for a gas, and as a plasma is a special case of a gas the term is used correctly.

electrical currents moving through plasma do not spin

Maybe at some point you may try to "do science" with papers instead of press releases (although the Christian Science Monitor is not too bad in science, but still it is a press release for the larger lay community).

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

So why call plasma, plasma at all? What makes this gas a "special case"?

Please explain, so as to avoid future misunderstandings.

Because, as I understand it plasma has certain properties that makes it vastly different from gas, and the "mainstream" model plasma based on gas laws, because "mainstreams" beloved maths get too darn complicated.

Fair call?

Tusenfem, if your still not sure what plasma is site might just help you out.

We have had this discussion already so many times that it is not worth the bandwidth.

1. A plasma has all the properties of a gas. If I discuss a property of a plasma that is also a property of a gas, I can call a plasma a gas.
2. A plasma has more characteristics than a gas, it has charged particles, which can show collective behaviour and can conduct currents, can be frozen into magnetic fields. When discussing these kind of things we have to talk about a plasma.

So if you would draw a Venn-diagram for the two "species" gas and plasma you would have one big circle which is gas, and one smaller circle totally inside of the first circle which would be plasma.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

Thats cool, I can live with that.

So what are these SN filaments more like, Gas or Plasma?

and

Happy birthday mate!

That's not the question!

Are they sheets or filaments? And if you say they are sheets, is there any observational evidence for that, or is that just the mainstream position?

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer

Sorry Peter Wilson, I thought this was the question

And if you have a quick read on what Tusenfems "special gas" can do, sheets seem highly unlikely.

It is not usually a property of "special gas" to from sheets, but it is a property for "special gas" to form filaments with a twisting motion

First of all thanks for the birthday wishes

Secondly, what kind of nonsense are you blabblering now about what my "special gas" can do. The stuff in the filaments is plasma. How would we know that, look at the emission frequencies and most likely you will find that they are ion lines. Whatever, as Peter Wilson said, that was not the question, so stop hijacking this thread with your nonsense about plasmas and gasses.

Dear Peter!

The plasma that we are seeing in the image is most likely sheets that we see either face on or from the side or anything within the two. Naturally, apart from going there (not likely) or looking from another angle (not likely either) it is only the experience of mainstream with plasmas and gasses and knowledge about optical thicknesses of both etc. that makes mainstream conclude that when we see only diffuse emission we see the sheet face on. When we see very strong emission we see the sheet edge on, which would agree with the more intense parts being narrower in the image.
Whether or not it rotates, and I already made a claim about that, can only be found out by looking at it longer and see if it changes. Reason says that the whole nebula will probably rotate slowly as this nebula is created by an exploding star and stars all rotate.
One more thing, if you look at the picture (and yes I see the irony of doing "look at the picture physics" now) you will see that the sheets are twisted and that there is a slow increase in emission when moving to one of the "ribbon" structures. One of the ways you can make this visible for yourself is by using old-fashioned white gauze curtains. These are woven with holes in it so that you can still look through them. But if you hang them up in good fashion, i.e. wavy you will see that in the parts where you look face on to the curtain you can see the street (if you happen to live in a street) but at the locations where there is a wave in the curtain you will see that it gets more difficult too look through them and will become more white. this is not exactly the same effect as for plasma sheets, but it is a good analogy.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

Isn't the plasma circle the largest, with extra properties, contain the smaller gas circle with less? Then a point outside the gas circle, but inside the larger plasma circle would indicate properties that are exclusive to a plasma? The gas circle represents characteristics in common? And perhaps the boundary of the gas circle is a little fuzzy where plasma properties are sometimes approximated?

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Thanks, tusenfem, I think you explained the mainstream position pretty well. When all is-said-and-done, however, it does seem like "look at the picture physics." When I "look at the picture," I see tornado-like funnels, or jet contrails. And since moving fluids do produce vortexes, it seems entirely possible that that's what they are.

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer

It is kind of tricky looking at it, but the answer is no.
Every plasma is a gas
But not every gas is a plasma

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

Is that not an approximation, plasmas may be gas-like, but is not always the case, such as with crystalline plasmas and other examples of "solid plasmas".

Perhaps then, two overlapping circles would be the best Venn diagram representation of gases and plasmas?

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Those lattices are not the result of particles forming bonds, but of electric potential energy overwhelming kinetic energy. As such, they are similar to ionic crystals.
Once the crystal is formed, these systems should lose most of the properties that are considered typical of plasmas, just like a gas losing most of the typical gaseous properties when it becomes solid.

__________________
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)