Mysterious objects at the edge of the electromagnetic spectrum

Mar 19, 2012 By Dauna Coulter
From end to end, the newly discovered gamma-ray bubbles extend 50,000 light-years, or roughly half of the Milky Way's diameter, as shown in this illustration. Hints of the bubbles' edges were first observed in X-rays (blue) by ROSAT, a Germany-led mission operating in the 1990s. The gamma rays mapped by Fermi (magenta) extend much farther from the galaxy's plane. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

The human eye is crucial to astronomy. Without the ability to see, the luminous universe of stars, planets and galaxies would be closed to us, unknown forever. Nevertheless, astronomers cannot shake their fascination with the invisible.

Outside the realm of human vision is an entire of wonders. Each type of light--­from radio waves to gamma-rays--reveals something unique about the . Some wavelengths are best for studying ; others reveal newborn stars and ; while others illuminate the earliest years of cosmic history.

NASA has many telescopes "working the wavelengths" up and down the electromagnetic spectrum. One of them, the Fermi Gamma-Ray Telescope orbiting Earth, has just crossed a new electromagnetic frontier.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
A new ScienceCast video takes viewers on a trip to the edge of the electromagnetic spectrum, where mysterious objects are puzzling astronomers.

"Fermi is picking up crazy-energetic photons," says Dave Thompson, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "And it's detecting so many of them we've been able to produce the first all-sky map of the very high energy universe."

“This is what the sky looks like near the very edge of the electromagnetic spectrum, between 10 billion and 100 billion electron volts.”

The light we see with human eyes consists of photons with energies in the range 2 to 3 electron volts. The Fermi detects are billions of times more energetic, from 20 million to more than 300 billion electron volts. These gamma-ray photons are so energetic, they cannot be guided by the mirrors and lenses found in ordinary telescopes. Instead Fermi uses a sensor that is more like a Geiger counter than a telescope. If we could wear Fermi's gamma ray "glasses," we'd witness powerful bullets of energy – individual gamma rays – from cosmic phenomena such as supermassive black holes and hypernova explosions. The sky would be a frenzy of activity.

Before Fermi was launched in June 2008, there were only four known celestial sources of photons in this energy range. "In 3 years Fermi has found almost 500 more,” says Thompson.

A giant gamma-ray structure was discovered by processing Fermi all-sky data at energies from 1 to 10 billion electron volts, shown here. The dumbbell-shaped feature (center) emerges from the galactic center and extends 50 degrees north and south from the plane of the Milky Way, spanning the sky from the constellation Virgo to the constellation Grus. Credit: NASA/DOE/Fermi LAT/D. Finkbeiner et al.

What lies within this new realm?

"Mystery, for one thing," says Thompson. "About a third of the new sources can't be clearly linked to any of the known types of objects that produce gamma rays. We have no idea what they are."

The rest have one thing in common: prodigious energy.

"Among them are super massive black holes called blazars; the seething remnants of supernova explosions; and rapidly rotating neutron stars called pulsars.”

And some of the gamma rays seem to come from the 'Fermi bubbles' – giant structures emanating from the Milky Way's center and spanning some 20,000 light years above and below the galactic plane.

Exactly how these bubbles formed is another mystery.

Now that the first sky map is complete, Fermi is working on another, more sensitive and detailed survey.

"In the next few years, Fermi should reveal something new about all of these phenomena, what makes them tick, and why they generate such 'unearthly' levels of energy," says David Paneque, a leader in this work from the Max Planck Institute in Germany.

For now, though, there are more unknowns than knowns about "Fermi's world."

Says Thompson: "It's pretty exciting!"

Explore further: Evidence of a local hot bubble carved by a supernova

Related Stories

600 mysteries in the night sky

Oct 19, 2011

NASA's Fermi team recently released the second catalog of gamma-ray sources detected by their satellite's Large Area Telescope (LAT). Of the 1873 sources found, nearly 600 are complete mysteries. No one knows ...

Fermi telescope explores new energy extremes

Jan 10, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- After more than three years in space, NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope is extending its view of the high-energy sky into a largely unexplored electromagnetic range. Today, the Fermi ...

Recommended for you

Evidence of a local hot bubble carved by a supernova

8 hours ago

I spent this past weekend backpacking in Rocky Mountain National Park, where although the snow-swept peaks and the dangerously close wildlife were staggering, the night sky stood in triumph. Without a fire, ...

Astronomers measure weight of galaxies, expansion of universe

16 hours ago

Astronomers at the University of British Columbia have collaborated with international researchers to calculate the precise mass of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, dispelling the notion that the two galaxies have similar ...

Mysterious molecules in space

Jul 29, 2014

Over the vast, empty reaches of interstellar space, countless small molecules tumble quietly though the cold vacuum. Forged in the fusion furnaces of ancient stars and ejected into space when those stars ...

Comet Jacques makes a 'questionable' appearance

Jul 28, 2014

What an awesome photo! Italian amateur astronomer Rolando Ligustri nailed it earlier today using a remote telescope in New Mexico and wide-field 4-inch (106 mm) refractor. Currently the brightest comet in ...

User comments : 71

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Turritopsis
1.6 / 5 (18) Mar 19, 2012
We live in human time. Our time is tied to the electromagnetic spectrum. The Universe we see is a fraction of all the energy around us (~4%).

This leaves a lot of energy around us that we can't see. This energy is not of electromagnetic nature. The speed of propagation for this energy may lay outside of our time, outside of the spectrum moving at lightspeed.

Dark energy most likely has a propagation speed faster or slower than light - leaving it outside of our perception. There is nothing in the visible spectrum of our universe moving slower than light (not quarks, nor electrons, nor photons). The speed of our Universe is constant.

But our Universe (~4%) is embedded in a multiverse of energy (summing to rest of ~96%). Our 4% is superimposed on the same field the rest of the energy resides in. The only interaction seems to be one connected to mass (gravity).
Moebius
3.6 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2012
"Without the ability to see, the luminous universe of stars, planets and galaxies would be closed to us, unknown forever."

BS. Computers don't see yet they can take data and make something intelligible from it. The ability to see is just one way that data can be analyzed. An intelligent species that didn't have sight could find other ways to analyze data and 'see' the universe. Blind people do it too.
Turritopsis
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2012
Conversely, antigravitational interaction of mass is causing expansion of our Universe.

While the Dark bosonic Energy (DE) is expanding the Universe, the Dark fermionic Energy (DarkMatter) is gravitationally causing galactic compression.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2012
Conversely, antigravitational interaction of mass is causing expansion of our Universe.

Proof? Indication? Experimental evidence? Do you have anything to back this up?
Feldagast
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2012
This isn't a story its just word for word from the video.
Tuxford
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2012
Fermi bubbles are not mysterious to LaViolette. They are an expected part of his superwave cosmic ray propagation theory.

http://starburstf...mment-35
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2012
Exactly how these bubbles formed is another mystery.
IMO when black hole evaporates, it's loses its matter vial polar jets until it's even horizon is not fully closed at poles. But the ("superluminal") neutrinos can still permeate it and annihilate with CMBR and photons under formation of gamma photons and some heavier particles. It's essentially the analogy of Big bang nucleosynthesis, just running continuously at our backyard.. BTW IMO the same invisible neutrino jets are former at poles of stars including the Sun and they're affecting the speed of radioactive elements decay there.
Pressure2
5 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2012
One possible explanation is that our galaxy has a giant washer shaped magnetic field. The poles would expel charged particles at high velocities over the lightyear lengths of this magnetic field. Some of these expelled charged particles would then collide with particles entering our galaxy from other directions creating these gamma rays.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2012
Bipolar morphologies are extremely common in the plasma laboratory, where plasma researchers study the characteristic shapes of *electrical* plasmas. This is exactly the type of research that goes on at places like the z-machine. In fact, people have been worshipping the bipolar morphologies -- like the Japanese kongo, the vajra of Vedic India, and the lightning bolt held in Zeus' hand -- for many thousands of years. Every single one of those cultures recognized that shape as the shape of lightning and electricity. And yet, we had to build massive plasma laboratories to understand how the objects which Zeus holds in his hands can have any connection to electricity. When astrophysicists ignore the entire body of ancient testimony, they create the very mysteries which they must then solve.

http://www.thunde...ship.htm
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2012
By modeling cosmic plasmas as though they are gases or fluids, devoid of any ability to sustain an electric field, astrophysicists have constrained their inferential step. Not only did Hannes Alfven warn that this was a theoretical dead-end, but he even advised against this use of magnetohydrodynamics within his Nobel acceptance speech. Those words ring just as true today, as they did in 1970 when he said them. The same mistakes remain embedded into the cosmic plasma models:

http://www.nobelp...ure.html

See Why space needs to go beyond the MHD Box at
http://adsabs.har...13...97P

"Ideal MHD fluids do not induce electromotive force, hence they lose the capability to interact electromagnetically. No currents and magnetic fields are generated, rendering ideal MHD theory not very useful for space plasmas."

HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2012
See http://www.plasma...5_plasma for references. Since most of what we see is matter in the plasma state, how we model it determines the cosmology you end up with. If you model the cosmic plasmas as gases and fluids which cannot sustain E-fields, then we live in a gravitational universe ...

"Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state..."[4]

"It is estimated that as much as 99.9% of the universe is comprised of plasma."[5]

"..the plasma state is the most abundant state of matter. It is thought that more than 99.9% of matter in the universe is in plasma"[6]

"plasmas are abundant in the universe. More than 99% of all known matter is in the plasma state"[7]

"It is an interesting fact that most of the material in the visible universe, as much as 99% according to some estimates, is in the plasma state"[8]

"Probably more than 99 percent of visible matter in the universe exist in the plasma state."[9]

HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 19, 2012
[...]

"The plasma environment Plasmas, often called the fourth state of matter, are the most common form of matter in the universe. More than 99% of all matter"[10]

"It is estimated that more than 99 percent of matter in the universe exists as plasma; examples include stars, nebulae, and interstellar particles"[11]

"It is sometimes said that more than 99 percent of the material in the universe is in the form of plasma"[12]

"about 99% of matter in the universe is plasma"[13]

"99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center" [14]

"How was it determined that 99% of the Universe is in a plasma state? Most of the gas in interstellar space is ionized (astronomers can tell by the wavelengths of light the gas absorbs and emits), and all of the gas in stars in ionized, that's where the 99% comes from. The 99% ignores any dark matter which might be out there."[15]
GuruShabu
1.1 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2012
Dear HannesAlfven, I couldn't agree more. It is so clear, so obvious but it will take a while until the established paradigm here accepts these ideas.
Freidmann, Lamaitre, Gamov, did a great job unfortunately it was more based on believing and faith (Lamaitre more than anyone) than hard facts.
It seems we are going to live in another Ptolemaic time for some more decades at least (and adding epicycles to make the model work!).
I just gave 5 to you to try to balance a bit that BigBangers mark.
Please people read The Big Bang Never Happened, Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer, Big Bang Blasted
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2012
Gamma rays bursting from the supermassive galactic blackhole are producing particle pairs. The bubbles are particles produced by the bh.
GuruShabu
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2012
Gamma rays bursting from the supermassive galactic blackhole are producing particle pairs. The bubbles are particles produced by the bh.

Do you have any proof of that or you just "believe" on what you are saying?
bewertow
Mar 19, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
GuruShabu
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2012
Why are there so many nutjobs on this site?
What does your comment has to do with the subject?
This is a random attack caused by a unhealthy mind state or you have absolutely no clue about education and courtesy?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2012
Man's mind is braced at low frequencies (criminal linear level) by the paradoxes in his environment. As he resolves paradoxes into synthesis, his mind ratchets in frequency. At some level his mind is too active for his brain and synthetic hardware will be required to continue his ascension. This process can go in principle up the frequency scale to Fplank, at which point his mind becomes a dimensionless singularity of entangled waves fully unified with nature and inseparable from it.
Silverhill
4.7 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2012
HannesAlfven:
Every single one of [various ancient] cultures recognized [a bipolar] shape as the shape of lightning and electricity. And yet, we had to build massive plasma laboratories to understand how the objects which Zeus holds in his hands can have any connection to electricity. When astrophysicists ignore the entire body of ancient testimony, they create the very mysteries which they must then solve.
I rather doubt that the ancients had anything other than naked-eye observations to record; and there is no evidence that they had any understanding of the physics involved. (Ampere, Maxwell, et al. came just a bit later.) There was no ancient testimony, of the physics-of-electricity nature, to "ignore".
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2012
Do you have any proof of that or you just "believe" on what you are saying?
The gamma rays cannot leave the gravity field of black holes - but the neutrinos can.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2012
While I agree that neutrinos propagate with less resistance in gravitational fields than all other forms of known quanta (including Gamma photons), I don't think the images captured in the gamma spectrum are the result of neutrinos. The accretion disks reach critical state around supermassive blackholes at which point they annihilate producing gamma jets. The high energy gamma ray jets produce particle pairs IMO, which then themselves annihilate resulting in bubbles of gamma radiation as seen in the image above.

The bh IMO recycles matter. The accretion disks contain particles which reach light speed converting into high energy gamma rays. Pair production results from these jets and the particle pairs stop propagating coalescing in the "seen" bubble region. These particle antiparticle pairs then annihilate and send gamma radiation to us.
Callippo
not rated yet Mar 19, 2012
The accretion disks reach critical state around supermassive blackholes at which point they annihilate producing gamma jets.

But we have no accretion disk at the center of Milky way.http://www.nasa.g...5_HI.jpg
Shelgeyr
1.4 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2012
I was all prepared to launch into how that first picture showed no "mysterious objects" but instead show the characteristic (and predictable) hourglass hallmark of a z-pinch in energized plamsa... But HannesAlfven beat me to it, and did a better job of it than I would have.

You should all consider yourselves fortunate!
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2012
Re: "I rather doubt that the ancients had anything other than naked-eye observations to record; and there is no evidence that they had any understanding of the physics involved. (Ampere, Maxwell, et al. came just a bit later.) There was no ancient testimony, of the physics-of-electricity nature, to "ignore"."

Silverhill

(1) You would surely be surprised at the enormous volume and detail of literature which has been passed down from oral tradition. It would take many, many years to go through it all. Your decision to formulate an opinion on the subject prior to hearing out the arguments is unfortunately a very common approach today. We should all be clear that the scientific method does not work when people refuse to expose themselves to the evidence and arguments which underly new ideas. That is not skepticism. It is pseudo-skepticism. True skepticism is AGNOSTIC -- the lack of belief.

Also, the stories and petroglyphs from across the world demonstrate enigmatic similarities.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2012
The accretion disks reach critical state around supermassive blackholes at which point they annihilate producing gamma jets.

But we have no accretion disk at the center of Milky way.


Either the accretion disc is hidden from view (which shouldn't be the case due to the high energy intensity, the accretion disk should be real bright in all spectra), or you are most likely correct about the blackhole decaying, leaking out matter. Problem I see with this is how can matter escape through event horizon (even a broken one at the poles as you propose). We're talking about Gamma photons not possessing escape velocity, how can relativistic jets (filled with electrons, positrons, even protons) ever escape the high gravity field?
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2012
(2) The ancients did not know what physics was, but they did know what electricity was. Many of the depictions of the bipolar morphologies -- such as on Roman coins -- show wings on the shape. Furthermore, in squatter man petroglyphs across the world, which Anthony Peratt has associated with high-energy electrical discharges which he observes in plasma laboratories, you will occasionally see the body of a bird attached to the head of the squatter man. It's not a stretch to imagine that the ancients were trying to tell us something here -- namely, that they observed these configurations living with the birds, in the sky. In other words, ancient man likely observed aurora-like high-energy plasma discharges in the sky, without the need for telescopes.

The notion of uniformitarianism is an assumption, and nothing more. It proposes that the past was just like the present. There is nothing to support this hypothesis whatsoever. In fact, everything we see indicates prior catastrophe.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2012
Re: "Why are there so many nutjobs on this site?"

When the best that a theory can do is propose that we can only see somewhere around 5% of the total matter of the universe, then you will find a large number of people coming out of the woodwork to try to explain solutions. It is not that there is a problem with this. If it wasn't happening, then science would stall forever. The physics establishment occasionally needs prodding from outsiders. Many have come to view the process of science as impervious to social, cultural and psychological forces. This is easy to demonstrate as completely untrue. One need only go through the physorg psychology press releases to understand the numerous problems which we all face when trying to think like a scientist. Our rational minds have no control over subconscious thought. The end result is that the theoretical process of science is, in practice, corrupted by the biases inherent in our own subconscious minds.
Cave_Man
2.2 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2012
HannesAlfven, I look forward to reading more of your comments.

I have half a mind to lump you in with the other people who use big words and occasionally make a small bit of sense but overall are completely bonkers.

But the other half of my mind is telling me you know what you are talking about, or at least believe it.

I do agree that there are some striking similarities between ancient knowledge and "modern" understanding of the world.

Hell we still use the word atom, coined long ago by plato and our understanding of matter is still mostly based on quanta.

But i personally lean more toward a mystical belief, not in god, but in something. Faith is all you need as long as it's faith in something, because on a very VERY important level of reality it is the observer who gives the world he observes any amount of meaning.

Personally I try to see the beauty in the universe. It may be cruel and harsh and meaningless but it's damn beautiful and I'm glad.

Silverhill
5 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2012
HannesAlfven:
Also, the stories and petroglyphs from across the world demonstrate enigmatic similarities.
Similarities to each other, surely, since they describe the same visual phenomena; no problem. How similar, though, are they to the equations used for working with electromagnetics? (How much basic understanding of lightning do they actually convey, aside from the limited amount available by naked-eye observation?)
Cave_Man
1 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2012
Similarities to each other, surely, since they describe the same visual phenomena; no problem. How similar, though, are they to the equations used for working with electromagnetics? (How much basic understanding of lightning do they actually convey, aside from the limited amount available by naked-eye observation?)


You really don't understand that while the language may be different they can describe the same thing. You don't need the accuracy of a calculus equation to understand the underlying physical mechanism for plasma reaction in the atmosphere, ive heard that ancient culture im not sure which one, knew that the auras at the poles we're the result of energy from the sun.

If they call it the breath of apollo and say the breath of apollo is dangerous if you exposed to it too much and that it will cause a sickness that causes your soul to unravel how the heck is that different than saying radiation from the sun damages your dna?

BTW I made that up as an example.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2012

But we have no accretion disk at the center of Milky way.


We will. 

Accretion disc is formed when matter falls into a galactic black hole (stellar lunch) the disc is a frozen in time effect before all goes to zero because of sheer mass of the activity.

Those stars whizzing around SagA will at one point in time have an intermerging trajectory of less than radius of both. At that point an accretion disc is created, and a grb.

The gamma radiation spectrum bubbles seen now are nuclearly reacting particles created by the plasma blast which created the cloud, the plume from the energetic event. That bubble will one day coalesce producing Nuclear Particles and fuse back together.

Not all annihilate but when they come into contact powerful photons are produced.

The plume is the residual blast energy.

It will happen again.
jsdarkdestruction
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2012
Fermi bubbles are not mysterious to LaViolette. They are an expected part of his superwave cosmic ray propagation theory.

http://starburstf...mment-35

As are hidden codes in the starts. pulsars are secret messages from advanced civilizations telling of the galactic superwave and how matter is created out of nothing and thats how the universe really works and the knowledge we have now is all a conspiracy to keep the truth hidden.
http://www.etheri...ars.html
"This exhaustive study presents first time proof that astronomers have been receiving radio signals of intelligent origin. As early as 1967 and continuing to the present, radio astronomers have been carefully studying and cataloging unusual interstellar beacons called pulsars thinking them to be stars of natural origin. Dr. LaViolette, who has been researching pulsars for 27 years, shows that, up to now, the nature of these radio sources has been grossly misunderstoo
jsdarkdestruction
1 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2012
(starts up above is supposed to be "stars". I did not notice my error till it was too late to edit.)
d. He has discovered that a number of very unique pulsars are nonrandomly distributed in the sky and mark key Galactic locations that have particular significance from an ETI communication standpoint. He also presents evidence of unusual geometric alignments among pulsars and intriguing pulse period relationships. Equally compelling is the message they are sending-a warning about a past Galactic core explosion disaster that should help us avert a future global tragedy.
Contains extensive analysis of pulsar data, revealing new ideas about the origins and functions of pulsars
Includes information about the formation of crop circles and force-field-beaming technology"
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2012
Wonderful thread.
You gave 5% from what your existence enables you to experience meaning.

As spokesperson for Nature, Nature replies:
Impressive.
Nothing is so wonderful it can not be repeated.
'You' are everywhere.
:)
nuge
not rated yet Mar 20, 2012
The human eye is crucial to astronomy. Without the ability to see, the luminous universe of stars, planets and galaxies would be closed to us, unknown forever. Nevertheless, astronomers cannot shake their fascination with the invisible.


What a stupid introduction to the article. The visible spectrum is only a tiny, tiny sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is kind of like saying "Cats are really great animals, but for some reason scientists can't shake their fascination with the rest of the animal kingdom"
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
Re: "Similarities to each other, surely, since they describe the same visual phenomena; no problem. How similar, though, are they to the equations used for working with electromagnetics? (How much basic understanding of lightning do they actually convey, aside from the limited amount available by naked-eye observation?)"

They understood its potential to kill them. Fast-forward to 29:00 in the Youtube video, "Seeking the third story".

When we see ancient people holding weapons in their hands which precisely match the configurations of electrical plasmas in the laboratory, it's time to take notice and start to think outside of our textbooks.

The mathematical approach to science is an inherently biased approach, for the math does not squirm or squeal when somebody misapplies it, uses it as a fudge factor to connect theory and observation, or uses it as a weapon to destroy public confidence in a promising investigative lead.
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2012
We do need math to make things like rockets and bridges. But, math is just one of many tools we need for thinking about the most perplexing problems man has ever encountered. The most important tool for cosmology is interdisciplinary synthesis. This is a wholesale rejection of the notion that specialists can effectively think about complex problems. Our school systems teach us to be specialists because those are the roles which are available for us to fit into in this economy. Thus, the burden is upon *individuals* to cultivate a wide *breadth* of knowledge across disciplines, if they want to have some success at thinking about complex problems.

We don't need mathematicians to solve this problem. We need a mathematician who is fluent in plasma physics, human mythology, quantum physics, biology, sociology, psychology, education, and so on. We need people who see no boundaries in disciplines. That is the only effective way to think about cosmology.
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2012
Some people naturally learn to perform synthesis. These people are called "innovators", and many go on to become great scientists or entrepreneurs. Innovators know how to prime their subconscious minds on pattern-matching. This pattern-matching goes on at all hours of the day -- even while they sleep. BUT, the subconscious mind can only work on that which the conscious mind decides to expose it to. So, what people are not seeing (yet) is the importance of ideational fluency to innovation. There is also no awareness (yet) that synthesis -- the process which leads to that aha moment -- is inherently a subconscious process which we cannot apply rules to. That unfortunately includes philosophy of science. Thus, there is a stage of theory-making which precedes the scientific method which we are all more familiar with. It is a delicate stage, which demands feedback at just the right times. And it operates in terms of *concepts* -- not math.
Kinedryl
2 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2012
The fact is, even I don't appreciate the plasma cosmology very much. It just interprets, interprets the observational data in fuzzy way - but which testable predictions it can really provide in logically coherent way? My feeling is, the proponents of Plasma universe are just projecting their wishful thinkings into their deductions. Not to say about some deductions which are just fringe at the first sight, because they're based on homologies instead of analogies.

What can you really deduce from plasma model of Universe in sequence of logical steps without reference to another literature from ancient sources? Show us.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
Re: "The fact is, even I don't appreciate the plasma cosmology very much. It just interprets, interprets the observational data in fuzzy way - but which testable predictions it can really provide in logically coherent way?"

It only seems fuzzy because you're not clear on where to look for answers. Nobody has ever used the word "fuzzy" to describe Hannes Alfven's book on cosmology, "Cosmic Plasma". Alfven's invention of magnetohydrodynamics is not fuzzy either. Similarly, Don Scott's treatment of the electric sun is quite specific, as is Gerrit Verschuur's treatment of the interstellar matter and Anthony Peratt's computer simulations for galaxies.

Keep in mind that IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science still publishes on plasma-based cosmologies. And the Electric Universe theorists are not abandoning peer review. They simply believe that the initial hypothesis that the universe is gravity-based demands reconsideration at each inferential step made in every paper.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
Re: "but which testable predictions it can really provide in logically coherent way?"

This stuff has been posted online for a long time now. Google search on "thunderbolts.info predictions" ...

http://www.thunde...ions.htm

Re: "My feeling is, the proponents of Plasma universe are just projecting their wishful thinkings into their deductions."

I'm not sure you realize the sheer size of this field of study which you are so quick to abandon. Between Velikovsky, the 30 years David Talbott put into his Saturnian Hypothesis, Ralph Juergen's and Don Scott's Electric Sun, the work of Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven (who invented MHD), Gerrit Verschuur's work on interstellar filaments and CIV's, Anthony Peratt's work on petroglyphs (he is also an expert on nukes), Gerald Pollack's work on water and cell biology (which follows from Ling's work, and spans several decades), Wal Thornhill's hypotheses for solar system dynamics and gravity, you're tossing quite a bit of work.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
Re: "Not to say about some deductions which are just fringe at the first sight, because they're based on homologies instead of analogies."

Interdisciplinary synthesis is the basis for all creative work. Specialization is designed to suit the needs of corporate interests, because the specialists are incapable of understanding the big picture, which their managers understand. See Jeff Schmidt's groundbreaking treatment of this subject, "Disciplined Minds". When it can so plainly be observed that most of our physics PhD programs are designed to weed out divergent thought, we are all within our own right to question the consensus which ensues -- Is it the product of this social institution of science? Or, does the consensus rest upon the evidence and arguments? Studies of peer review demonstrate that the process exhibits a gatekeeping functionality. We know this for a fact because many now-famous scientists have complained that their earlier papers were rejected.

HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
Re: "What can you really deduce from plasma model of Universe in sequence of logical steps without reference to another literature from ancient sources? Show us."

Mythology is not a leg upon which the Electric Universe stands upon.

How one approaches science completely determines the result. If you expect "the answers" to arrive at your doorstep, dressed up in beautiful equations and ready for you to judge it as perfect, I expect that you will die waiting.

But, if your expectation is that the truth is spread out in tiny pieces, like the debris floating on top of an information deluge, then your approach will consider that we all play an active role in collecting the data and synthesizing it together. Anybody who can understand concepts can perform synthesis. Viewed as an information overload problem, the goal is to identify the holistic view of a new paradigm. Once we have confidence in the big conceptual picture, that is when math becomes involved.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
I urge extreme caution in adopting a spectator-like role to scientific thinking. Become an active investigator, and adopt personal responsibility for identifying truth on the Internet. Contemplate carefully the rationale you put into making judgments about data, and seek out novel arguments which induce critical thinking. Do not believe things just because you observe others believing them. Find the arguments which create a worldview which can explain *everything* you see around you. Look for theories which *naturally* explain big questions, such as: Why does life depend upon water? Look for theories which exhibit no exceptions. Focus upon the enigmas in science, and consider competing scientific frameworks to explain them. Become a master of worldviews, capable of switching from one to another in a moment's notice. Look for threads of logic which span multiple disciplines. Explore controversy, and beware of the historical revisionism in textbooks.

That's my approach.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
Also, it perhaps demands explaining that the Electric Sun Hypothesis is only heretical if you come from a prior background of belief about the Sun's underlying mechanics. To claim that the Sun is really a plasma glow discharge in the arc mode -- and that it operates identically to a high-pressure sodium or metal-halide lamp -- is not, strictly speaking, an unscientific claim. When people ask to see evidence for the incoming power, they are not realizing how difficult it is to observe electron drift currents. But, if they looked up the operation of a Crooke's tube (like in JD Cobine's "Gaseous Conductors"), they would observe that electron drifts are right there in the literature.

The same goes for the plasma models: The EU theorists claim that cosmic plasmas behave as laboratory plasmas -- namely, that they can sustain E-fields and that they do possess some minimal resistance.

All they are doing is pointing to the plasma laboratory to explain these cosmic phenomena.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2012
"What can you really deduce from plasma model of Universe in sequence of logical steps without reference to another literature from ancient sources? Show us."
This stuff has been posted online for a long time now
Well, this is not exactly the answer, which I expected...;-)
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2012
One of paradoxes, which everyone should realize in connection with this article is, the older galaxy is, the smaller and more quiet central hole it contains. For example, Milky Way galaxy is relatively old and large - but it contains a way smaller black holes at its center, than much younger Andromeda galaxy of the same size, which is six billion years old, not to say about many younger and much more luminous galaxies.

This is in direct contradiction with general relativity, in which the black holes cannot evaporate, once they're formed. The quantum effects, like the Hawking radiation makes this evaporation possible, but it should proceed very slowly. Therefore we should find another way for black hole evaporation. One of this ways are very lightweight particles: axions and neutrinos.
TS1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2012
Why do we have to think along the lines of the ancient knowing more than what we generally accept them as having known? I do not see how that can contribute any additional data from which to draw conclusions from.

OK so someone may say "we would then be willing to study ancient books/petroglyphs/etc" but the problem with that IMHO is that the "data" in those can be interpreted in so many ways that it either: 1) can support any concept WE FIRST COME UP WITH, or 2) contributes less than what proper research would.

So even if the ancients used symbols that told us that they saw high-energy phenomena, knowing that fact contributes very little to our research. So I do not see a point in it.

Besides that there is the issue that people seem to like to mix ancient artifacts with religous sentiments. This is the case with both those who claim the artifacts symbolize nature phenomena and with those who say they represent e.g. "spirit beings".
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2012
Do you have any proof of that or you just "believe" on what you are saying?
The gamma rays cannot leave the gravity field of black holes - but the neutrinos can.


No they can't. The SPACE around a black hole is warped. Neutrinos can't travel in any spatial vector away from a black hole inside the event horizon, because such vectors simply do not exist...
MarkyMark
Mar 24, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2012
No they can't. The SPACE around a black hole is warped. Neutrinos can't travel in any spatial vector away from a black hole inside the event horizon, because such vectors simply do not exist...
OK, please say it to authors of these articles... http://www.slac.s...haev.pdf http://iopscience...ext.html http://alfonsoleo...rino.htm
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2012
Do you understand the differences between an accretion disk, and the actual black hole it surrounds? What do we mean when we say INSIDE the event horizon and OUTSIDE the event horizon?

Maybe you should re-read those articles.
cdkeli
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2012
Oh come on people - how often must history repeat itself?! Rather than reflexively speculating about ghosts and demons, multiverses and anti-verses, how about honestly admitting we're too stupid at present and need more time and/or tools to figure out this problem?!
Vienna
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2012
"Without the ability to see, the luminous universe of stars, planets and galaxies would be closed to us, unknown forever."

BS. Computers don't see yet they can take data and make something intelligible from it. The ability to see is just one way that data can be analyzed. An intelligent species that didn't have sight could find other ways to analyze data and 'see' the universe. Blind people do it too.


Moebius, what a DUMB contention!

SIGHT is an essential for ANY intelligence capable of defining science to begin with.
What they could devise AFTER the prior existence of sight to analyse phenomenon is just what we are doing!

A blind person cannot HEAR the stars or perceive their existence no matter how intelligent they are, Moebius. SEEING is a sense necessary for perceiving VISUAL phenomenon at a great distance that emit LIGHT. With the kind of instrumentation that SIGHTED people can invent and fabricate we can "extend" our sight but blindness is a permanent blockade .
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2012
Re: "So even if the ancients used symbols that told us that they saw high-energy phenomena, knowing that fact contributes very little to our research. So I do not see a point in it."

It matters quite a bit, actually. It's a life-or-death issue for mankind, in the long run. This debate over the nature of the universe determines whether we live in a friendly universe where bodies in space are largely isolated from one another; or, whether we live in an inherently catastrophic universe. The electrical universe is an interconnected universe. The stories of mythology demonstrate that the "gods" were *capricious* (i.e., erratic). Theories like manmade global warming rest upon an assumption that man is in control of the fate of the Earth. The ancients are trying to tell us that this is simply not true; that we will eventually suffer their same fate.

If they are right, then we need to get our asses into gear with the colonization of space.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2012
The problem with cosmology today is that people don't realize that we can decide to build additional cosmologies if we want. The electrical cosmology can explain EVERY SINGLE OBSERVATION that the gravitational cosmology can -- including the CMB. And even much more that conventional theorists ignore every day. It really boils down to whether or not we are satisfied with our current attempt. I honestly don't see how people can be satisfied with only knowing 5% of the universe. Really, that should squash any attempt to claim certainty in cosmology. And yet, what do we see? We see cosmologists claiming that they can rewind time back to its first few nanoseconds, which they claim to understand in great detail.

This is nothing more than mankind trying to get over his subconscious fear of his surroundings. We all know that we are basically helpless in the face of the immense forces of the universe. Pretending to ourselves that we understand more than we do helps us with that fear.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2012
Also, it's important to mention that there is a theory for life in the universe which very naturally follows from the combined works of Wallace Thornhill and Gerald Pollack. It also explains very naturally why advanced lifeforms on other planets are not able to radio-communicate with us. I cannot stress enough that these inferences *naturally* follow from that different cosmology. There is really only one logical conclusion, within the framework of the electrical cosmology.

You can get a feel for this alternative view by visiting these two pages:

http://www.holosc...ther.htm

and

http://faculty.wa...vors.pdf

Dr. Gerald Pollack's cell biology theory is explained in more depth in Cells, Gels and the Engines of Life. It is quite remarkable because Gerald Pollack and David Talbott seem to actually be admirers of one another's works. The misunderstandings surrounding the cell membrane perfectly mirror those of plasmas.
Ober
not rated yet Mar 24, 2012
What about some theories that state that a 4rth dimension of space exists and that dark matter resides in this dimension. The theory goes on to state that if two counter rotating photons merged (in 4d), then the energy would be extreme enough for the merged photon to escape the 4rth dimension and appear in our 3 dimensions of space, and would appear as a high energy gamma ray. Considering that black holes, are BLACK, perhaps black holes are catalysts / gateways to this 4rth dimension of space. Perhaps this is why we see such gamma ray bubbles, as the central black hole is catalysing dark matter to transfer into our 3 dimensions.
Note this isn't crack pot science, but an actual theory put forward, and is being investigated at CERN.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2012
Re: "Note this isn't crack pot science, but an actual theory put forward, and is being investigated at CERN."

I don't mean to be critical, but just because it's being funded does not make it good science. Technically speaking, extra dimensions fall out of the realm of scientific inquiry. This is called metaphysics, which means "beyond physics" -- because there is no experiment which can disqualify the notion.

Also, I would advise against theories which are fundamentally driven by mathematics. Models are not real. They are supposed to help us understand if something is possible. Modelers know that they have a million variables that they can tweak, and so they are basically impossible to completely rule out. But, science rests upon the principle of falsification.

It's worth considering that the quants who brought down wall street were originally physics modelers. These models persist in cosmology because there are no repercussions for failure.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2012
This is a message from the Department of Homeland Secrecy.

We are announcing a "Color Red" alert. Details follow, arranged in the traditional "bulletized" format for your convenience.

- The alert applies to Physorg.com readers, who may come under swarm attacks in the immediate and near-term future by cranks, hotheads, and scammers.

- Swarm attacks, if they occur, will be carried out via comments on Physorg.com articles.

- The high threat level is due to Physorg.com's editorial policy, which is to present scientific papers and commentary to the general public. Doing so stimulates the swarm attacks.

- DHS is studying its legal authority for taking action to end the swarm attacks, up to and including possible seizure of the Physorg.com domain.

- Until DHS makes a legal determination as to its authority for proposed action, readers are advised to assume responsibility for their own protection from these swarm attacks.

- A tin foil hat seems to work best.
Kinedryl
5 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
The electrical cosmology can explain EVERY SINGLE OBSERVATION that the gravitational cosmology can -- including the CMB
Well, I seriously doubt it. After all, the question is not, what some theory can interpret post-dictum, but what it can predict in reliable testable way.

To be honest, I simply consider this theory crackpotish. After all, where we can read about list of their postulates? It's sorta string theory without math. It has been formed in time, when Hannes Alfven had no idea about gamma rays, neutrinos and dark matter and theory of gravity just started. The properties of these particles and gravity differ from plasma behaviour so much and they're so important with respect to astrophysics, that every just-a-plasma model would have serious problem with it.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
Re: "To be honest, I simply consider this theory crackpotish. After all, where we can read about list of their postulates?"

IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science never stopped publishing peer reviewed papers on electrical cosmology. The thing is, a person actually has to try to learn something before they will. Nobody can force anybody else to learn something. So, although the sources are dispersed on the net (and like conventional science, many are behind paywalls), the much more significant barrier to a thoughtful discussion of the subject is the inordinate number of people who imagine that sociology and psychology have played no serious role in the formation of their own beliefs. When Carl Sagan claimed that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence," he was assuming that people actually followed through on actually learning the evidence. When people refuse to follow through on the Sagan Standard, they break it. And they end up with half of a philosophy.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
Re: "It's sorta string theory without math."

That's meaningless, because there is nothing left when you pull the math out of string theory. And it's actually a very unhelpful and inaccurate analogy, because the EU theorists simply point to laboratory plasma physics to explain cosmic plasmas. There is nothing unscientific about claiming that cosmic plasmas can sustain E-fields; that they exhibit some tiny electrical resistance; and that magnetic fields do not freeze into cosmic plasmas. These are assumptions, made by conventional gravity-based theorists to force-fit a plasma universe into their gravity-based views. It is these assumptions which make our observations of space perplexing. Once you remove them, and permit the cosmic plasmas to behave as the laboratory variety, there is no more need to infer dark astronomical objects like black holes and dark matter. Dark matter is a direct byproduct of this refusal to model the cosmic plasmas properly. It's a fudge factor.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
Re: "It has been formed in time, when Hannes Alfven had no idea about gamma rays, neutrinos and dark matter and theory of gravity just started."

Although the actual controversy does not appear in astronomy textbooks -- or even wikipedia -- it might surprise you to learn that conventional astronomers refused to believe that radio waves were originating from space when they were first observed. They were convinced that it was either a hoax or a mistake.

Sydney Chapman's attempts to undermine the life work of Kristian Birkeland set the geophysics discipline back by a full 50 years. Kristian Birkeland's electrical theory for the aurora proved to be the right theory, and we now know that Birkeland currents connect the Sun and Earth many times per day.

Mainstream astrophysicists still refuse to believe that Gerrit Verschuur has observed critical ionization velocities associated with interstellar filaments. Alfven predicted it, and Verschuur has confirmed it.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
Have you guys noticed that textbooks rarely explain the controversies which went into the formation of scientific consensus? How are students supposed to formulate their own independent opinions of a subject matter in the absence of the discipline's history? Are you aware of the dismal test scores of physics students on force concept inventory tests? The physics students are being trained in problem-solving, but much less so on the concepts themselves. Everywhere you look, you will see scientific specialists. What does this say about the fragmented nature of our knowledge? How can we formulate meaningful opinions of the big picture of science without a broad awareness of the concepts of science, and alternative, against-the-mainstream theories? Specialists are not trained to question the framework. They are trained to apply it. This is what it means to live in a managed economy: Questioning the framework is "inefficient" for production.

yyz
5 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
"IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science never stopped publishing peer reviewed papers on electrical cosmology."

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Anthony Peratt (one of your PU gurus) was associate editor from 1989 to at least 2006?: http://www.ieee.o...att.html

And why did he choose to mainly publish in this rather obscure journal rather than one relevant to the subject (astrophysics) like the Astrophysical Journal, Monthly Notices of the RAS, or Astronomy & Astrophysics unless a)he couldn't get his papers past peer review or b)he didn't want his work to be seen by other astrophysicists actively working in the field.

Either way, much of his discredited ideas are unknown to those working in the field due to their publication in a non-relevant scientific journal (and the few that did make it into relevant journals have been long ignored and rarely cited).
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
Re: "And why did he choose to mainly publish in this rather obscure journal rather than one relevant to the subject (astrophysics)"

IEEE is the world's largest scientific institution. It is not "obscure". When the technologies which IEEE makes fail to work, the world stops working. When theories proposed in the Astrophysical Journal don't work, nobody blinks. In fact, it's a great opportunity to tweak them, and publish another paper.

Peratt's credentials exemplify an *interdisciplinary* interest in science. There is no sense whatsoever in treating cosmology and astrophysics as if they are specialist disciplines. And there is no process of ignoring competing claims which will lead to a meaningful opinion for how the universe works. The only way to understand the universe is to listen to competing claims, learn alternative worldviews, carefully define concepts, question the scientific framework's assumptions and seek out the controversies of science with an open, critical mind.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
Re: "Either way, much of his discredited ideas are unknown to those working in the field due to their publication in a non-relevant scientific journal (and the few that did make it into relevant journals have been long ignored and rarely cited)."

This fascination that we see with counting citations in the sciences lends the extraordinarily superficial impression that we can substitute a calculator for critical thinking.

From Classical peer review: an empty gun, by Richard Smith:

"If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market, says Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal Of the American Medical Association and intellectual father of the international congresses of peer review that have been held every four years since 1989. Peer review would not get onto the market because we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws."
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
[...]

"Yet, to my continuing surprise, almost no scientists know anything about the evidence on peer review. It is a process that is central to science - deciding which grant proposals will be funded, which papers will be published, who will be promoted, and who will receive a Nobel prize. We might thus expect that scientists, people who are trained to believe nothing until presented with evidence, would want to know all the evidence available on this important process. Yet not only do scientists know little about the evidence on peer review but most continue to believe in peer review, thinking it essential for the progress of science. Ironically, a faith based rather than an evidence based process lies at the heart of science."

--

Why do advocates of peer review speak of the process as if it is immune to sociological pressures? Have they not read about the extraordinary numbers of now-famous scientists whose novel ideas were initially rejected by the system?
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
From "Reforming Science: Structural Reforms":

"Review panels are able to accurately identify bad science but have a poor record of distinguishing highly innovative work or work that challenges existing dogma."

I would also highly recommend the essay by Pravin Singh titled "Science Education and Scientific Attitudes" ...

http://directions.../doc.pdf

In that paper, Max Planck is quoted:

"I found no interest, let alone approval, even among the very physicists who were very closely connected with the topic. Helmholtz probably did not read my paper at all. Kirchhoff expressly disapproved ... I did not succeed in reaching Clausius ... I carried on a correspondence with Carl Neumann, of Liepzig, but it remained totally fruitless" (as cited by Barber, 1961, Page 596).

---

It was once proposed that "thinking like a scientist" demanded an open-minded approach. It appears that this is no longer the case. And we should ask why that is.
DrSmallberries
3 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2012
Why is this so mysterious? It's just another characteristic of the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Indeed, our galaxy -- like all galaxies -- are merely accretion disks for black holes. As usual, our "science" moves at the speed of [yawn].

Doc Smallberries
Professor Emeritus
Morvalia Polytechnic
Callippo
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2012
Why is this so mysterious? It's just another characteristic of the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Indeed, our galaxy -- like all galaxies -- are merely accretion disks for black holes. As usual, our "science" moves at the speed of [yawn].
I do agree. Most of massive black holes eject energetic particles trough their poles, so why "our" black holes at the center of Milky Way should be an exception? We should rather ask, why we didn't consider and observe it earlier.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Mar 29, 2012
We should rather ask, why we didn't consider and observe it earlier.

Because the whole friggin' disk of the galaxy is in the way?